Sitting of 18 April 1994

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

    Opera
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research he has conducted into the popularity of opera; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Opera in this country continues to attract an unprecedented degree of public interest and support. Recent research published by the Arts Council claims that 2.8 million—or more than 6 per cent.—of the adult population attend opera performances.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the orchestra of English National Opera, which at the Olivier awards ceremony received the award for outstanding achievement in opera? Does not that demonstrate that although British opera receives a limited subsidy, there is extremely good value for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the ENO on its award last night; it does marvellous work.
    Mr. Sheldon: Yes, but given that there is far more interest in opera as a result of a number of activities over the past couple of years, is not it fitting that there should be greater recognition of that interest, both by the Department and by the Arts Council, in terms of funding?
    Mr. Sproat: Opera gets a great deal of support already—£40 million from the various Arts Councils around the country. That is well merited, but it is a substantial sum.
    Mr. Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why opera is so popular is that it is funded by the rest of us mugs called taxpayers? If people who went to the opera had to pay the full cost, half of them would not go.
    Mr. Sproat: In fact, we are lucky in this country in that a lot of the funding for opera comes from partnership deals—from sponsorship from business, in which we lead the world. The prices of a growing number of opera companies, such as English Touring Opera, are extremely reasonable.
    Mr. Fisher: What are the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doing to back up their congratulations with some action? Why is not the Minister
    622
    helping local authorities to support the excellent education and opera schemes in which most companies are engaged? Why is not he helping local authorities to back excellent touring opera companies, such as the City of Birmingham Touring Opera, Music Theatre Wales or Opera Factory? What is he actually doing? Why is not he even talking to the opera world to discuss the benefit of the schemes—as the Labour party is, with an opera seminar next Monday? Will he stop just talking about opera and use the power that he and his right hon. Friend have to do something to back opera?
    Mr. Sproat: I have already said that we are doing a great deal to back opera. Through the various Arts Councils, we are giving £40 million. If any member of the opera community wishes to discuss matters further with me, I shall be delighted.

    BBC Charter
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Director General of the BBC to discuss the renewal of the charter.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I met the Director General of the BBC on 28 February, when we discussed the BBC's plans for its future commercial activities.
    Mr. Martin: At his next meeting with the director general, will my right hon. Friend ask him what is the sense of spending fee payers' money on expensive advertising—on hoardings in tube stations and in newspapers, for example—for particular television channels or radio stations? Will my right hon. Friend comment to the director general that such advertising seems an activity more appropriate for the commercial sector, which the BBC may one day join, and that while the BBC is a public sector broadcasting organisation, it does not seem an appropriate way in which to spend money that fee payers sometimes find it difficult to pay?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that I shall see the chairman of the BBC earlier than I shall next see the director general. Whichever of them I meet, I will certainly ensure that I include the subject on the agenda.
    Ms Eagle: In considering the future of the BBC charter, will the Secretary of State bear in mind how irritating it was for those of us who were attempting to watch the historic victory of the English test team last week to have our viewing constantly interrupted by advertisements between each over? In considering the renewal of the charter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that large numbers of people who like to watch sport want to do so uninterrupted by such advertisements? What will he do to ensure that great national events are not confined to minor satellite channels, so that we can all enjoy the drama—be it the English test team or Wimbledon or any other national sporting event?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady will know that the Select Committee on National Heritage is exploring that very issue. There is no question but that the amount of sport being broadcast has greatly increased over recent years. The items that should be subject to the rules were discussed with everybody and agreed at the time of the Broadcasting

    623
    Act 1990. I take the hon. Lady's point and, as I say, I shall be reflecting on the report that the Select Committee will make shortly.
    Mr. Maclennan: With respect to the commercial activities to which the Secretary of State referred, which the BBC has described in its document on fair trading as supportive of, and complementary to, its public service commitment, does the right hon. Gentleman view the revenues generated from commercial activities as additional to those generated by licence fees?
    Mr. Brooke: Of course I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Indeed, such revenues have always been in addition to the licence fee. The BBC has also made it clear, however, that it will be using the profit from its commercial activities to advance the commercial programme in which it is engaged abroad.
    Mr. Gale: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Director General of the BBC to discuss the renewal of the charter, will he remind him that we look to the BBC to maintain the highest possible standards of journalism and broadcasting? In that context, will he draw the attention of the director general in particular to the largely synthetic row that one section of the BBC has sought to generate over the D-day celebrations? Will he remind him that there are many elderly soldiers, sailors and airmen in the country who are looking forward to the 50th anniversary of D-day to do two things: to commemorate those who lost their lives and to celebrate a great and glorious victory?
    Mr. Brooke: I did not see the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am conscious that it is the subject of a debate at present. I sincerely hope that the BBC, as is generally the case, reflects opinion throughout the country.

    BBC (Regional Autonomy)
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the autonomy of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom within the BBC.
    Mr. Brooke: Since the beginning of 1993, I have received 45 letters about the autonomy of the BBC regions. The BBC's regional policies were also mentioned in a small number of the 6,000 responses to the Government's consultation document on the future of the BBC.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State share my great concern and the concern of others about the strong centralising tendency currently prevalent in the BBC? That is evidenced, first, in the centralisation of certain functions, which makes it difficult for the BBC in Wales and in other national regions to make discretionary choices on the nature of programmes and, secondly, in the imbalance of funding of network programmes. I believe that 3 per cent. of network programme funding is spent in the national regions, which serve 17 per cent. of the population. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that when the White Paper appears, there will be measures in it and in legislation, including the charter, to reverse that centralising trend?
    Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of the views that have been advanced by the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, which, to some extent, the hon. Member's comments reflect. The director general made it clear in a speech on 24
    624
    March that he was concerned to increase the amount of regional production throughout the country. At the same time, however, he said that he did not believe in quotas, which he thought would be potentially too inflexible.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC in Cardiff has a high degree of autonomy? Is he further aware that more money is spent on programmes specifically for the Welsh than on comparable programmes for Scotland and in the three BBC regions? Is he also aware that more money is spent on television in Wales by the BBC than is collected in licence fees paid by the people of Wales?
    Mr. Brooke: Being familiar with the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, I am also familiar with some of the counterpoints. However, as someone who is half Welsh I would not in any way want Wales to be denied its proper share. The director general has said that he is considering the issue on a national basis.
    Mr. Maxton: When giving evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage, both the director general and the chairman of the BBC promised that they would devolve management and programme making to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that pledge and ensure that it is written into the charter when he renews it?
    Mr. Brooke: Given that the director general and, according to the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the BBC have made that promise, and as these are management matters under their control, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with what has already been said. However, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the White Paper will touch on the subject.

    Outdoor Education Centres
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress being made in establishing an accreditation system for outdoor education centres.
    Mr. Sproat: The activity centres accreditation committee, established by the English tourist board, has drawn up a draft code of practice for outdoor activity providers, is now devising guidelines for individual activities and is considering appropriate inspection arrangements.
    Mr. Jamieson: How does the Minister intend to ensure that outdoor education centres that are accredited by the English tourist board operate the highest levels of safety, with staff competent to undertake potentially hazardous activities? In particular, how will the centres be inspected to ensure that they are not putting children's lives at risk?
    Mr. Sproat: The central answer to the hon. Gentleman's important question is that the Health and Safety Executive will be monitoring centres over the next two years at the rate of 100 a year. The precise monitoring arrangements are currently being considered by the ACAC.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from holiday parks and the tourist industry generally about the cost of television licences.
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend has received representations from 27 right hon. and hon. Members and seven letters from others.
    Mr. Field: May I declare an interest in this matter? It has come to my attention that Lewis Bullard, the secretary of the National Association of Holiday Centres, has written to my hon. Friend making three points—first, that the industry is seasonal; secondly, that most families go on holiday together and therefore do not watch their televisions at home; and thirdly, that, as hosts provide entertainment for their guests, they do not necessarily watch television in the holiday centres.
    Taken together, the Select Committee proposals and the EC distance selling directive have caused great consternation within the industry and we look to the Minister to reassure those involved in it.
    Madam Speaker: Did the Minister find a question in all that?
    Mr. Sproat: I did, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I am delighted, because I did not.
    Mr. Sproat: On my hon. Friend's first point, I agree that the Select Committee recommended that hotels with more than 50 rooms should pay for each television set thereafter. The same applies to holiday homes and caravan parks. I emphasise that that is the Select Committee recommendation, not the Government's. We are extremely conscious of the need not to place any additional burdens on the businesses described by my hon. Friend. On the question of the EC distance selling directive, the Government are wholly opposed to that directive and will do everything that they can to stop it.

    Team Sports
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the importance of team sports.
    Mr. Sproat: On 16 February, I hosted a seminar on team sports which was attended by about 25 people from the worlds of sport and education. Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received about 70 letters on this issue.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that team sports should be encouraged because they improve the health of participants, can be character-building and, in school holidays, may discourage young people from a life of crime? Does he further agree with the old adage:
    "Mens sana in corpore sano"?
    Mr. Sproat: My response to my hon. Friend's Latin quotation is, "Rem acu tetigisti." I agree strongly with what he said in English.
    Ms Hoey: Will the Minister confirm that, in talking about team sports he is not—as has commonly been represented in the newspapers—talking about male-only sports? Is not he also referring to the value of other sports
    626
    that are played by many women in this country—especially women's cricket? Does he agree that it is not a matter of team sports versus individual sports? We should be talking about and encouraging sport for all and ensuring that schools can give young people those opportunities.
    Mr. Sproat: I agree entirely with what the hon. Lady has said about sport for girls and women. I shall do everything that I can to see that that approach is put into practice. I hope that, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, the we can devise a means whereby more team games are played, although not to the exclusion of individual games.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that British sport is highly regarded in all parts of the world? It is—[Interruption.] I accept that there are one or two exceptions. Sport provides an opportunity for us to encourage visitors from other countries to come here to watch football matches, tennis tournaments or whatever. When my hon. Friend next talks to the relevant authorities, will he see what can be done to encourage a greater marketing effort on behalf of sport in Britain? Will he also encourage international events to be held in this country?
    Mr. Sproat: I shall draw my hon. Friend's important remarks to the attention of the British Tourist Authority and the governing bodies, but I have no power to make those bodies spend any money on their own marketing.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that in most sporting circles his recent emphasis on core team sport is considered to be too narrow and restrictive? Instead, he should be fighting his corner to ensure that sport receives at least two hours a week as an integral part of the national curriculum, so that a variety of sports, both team and individual, can be played. The hon. Gentleman's pious hope that the 5,000 playing fields sold off by the Government should be bought back is an impossible dream as most of them are buried in concrete. Instead, the hon. Gentleman should be pursuing a policy with the Department for Education to scrap circular 909, which allowed the playing fields to be sold off in the first place. There should be a moratorium on the selling-off of playing fields so that schools and the
    community can benefit from playing fields in future.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the availability of playing fields. My views, in so far as they were correctly reported, do not include buying back the same land; obviously, as the hon. Gentleman said, much of it has been built upon. Instead, we should seek to increase the number of playing fields in urban areas. That should be encouraged. I hope that we shall encourage both team and individual sport in our schools.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the English cricket team is to win in Barbados more often than once every 59 years, and if the English women's cricket team is to win the world cup again, it will be necessary to preserve existing playing fields and provide more, and also to provide the necessary funding to ensure that playing fields are in good enough condition for school pupils to play cricket on them?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I agree with him.

    BSkyB Programming
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to require that BSkyB is subject to the same requirements to broadcast British-made productions as the rest of commercial television; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: BSkyB is already subject to the requirement in the EC broadcasting directive to reserve a majority proportion of transmission time for European works where practical, and to achieve this proportion progressively.
    Mr. Mullin: But why are the Government making no attempt to enforce the regulations? Is not that extremely damaging to Britain's domestic television? Is it part of the pay-off for the Murdoch empire's support for the Conservative party over a long period? That is the only explanation that I can think of.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his observation that the Government are making no attempt to enforce the provisions of the broadcasting directive. Under that directive we require broadcasters to provide us with the material that is necessary for us to report to Brussels what the proportions are. We are engaged in specific dialogue with the broadcasters who have not met the provisions of the directive in order to verify their progress in connection with it. We are also conscious that the Commission will be asking us the same questions.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have to watch satellite television because the very hilly nature of my constituency means that they cannot pick up proper signals from the BBC and other commercial channels? Does he agree that it is wholly unacceptable that they should have to pay the full licence fee even though the BBC accepts that they have a substandard signal? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter on my behalf?
    Mr. Brooke: That question has been raised with me by another hon. Member who was in the Chamber a while ago, but who has now left. I have been willing to explore that subject with the relevant bodies in the past.
    Ms Mowlam: Will the Secretary of State consider waiting until the Commission has made a decision, but will he assure the House that, in his cross-media review, he will include regulation across satellite, terrestrial and cable, so that—whether in terms of production, watersheds or current affairs programmes in peak time such as "World in Action"—a level playing field exists as between the different media where regulation is needed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if he does not do that, we will end up with another short-term, bungled, botched job like the Broadcasting Act 1990?
    Mr. Brooke: Seductive though the hon. Lady is, I will not be tempted to explore what the conclusions of the cross-media review will be when we are scarcely halfway through it. As for the hon. Lady's other stricture, I agree with Sam Rayburn that the three wisest words in the English language are, "Wait a minute." The hon. Lady wanted me to wait a year and I am not sure whether the technology will afford us that degree of luxury.

    Tourist Industry (Deregulation)
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on deregulating the tourist industry.
    Mr. Sproat: My inquiry into regulatory burdens on the tourist industry identified some 90 regulations which the industry claimed were burdensome. We are pursuing each of those regulations with the relevant Departments.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the Somerset hotelier who had the extraordinary experience of witnessing three fire officers in one room arguing about the best fire precautions for it? Can my hon. Friend assure me that the deregulation initiative will change not only regulations but attitudes in public service?
    Mr. Sproat: As usual, my hon. Friend is extremely well informed about such matters. On that occasion, I believe that the argument centred on whether doors into bars or bedrooms should open inwards or outwards. We are concerned to ensure that such overlapping is brought to an end, thus ending some of the burdens on parts of our tourism industry.
    Mr. Mandelson: Whatever benefits may be gained by the British tourist industry from the programme of events planned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day, does the Minister accept that frivolous trivialising events can play no part in a dignified tribute to those who lost their lives in the D-day landings? Will he therefore revise his plans in keeping with the views recently expressed to the Prime Minister by the Royal British Legion?
    Mr. Sproat: It is very right and proper that we should commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day. In doing that, we are commemorating the brave actions and deaths of those who fought on D-day. We are also commemorating the great good news that followed—the overthrow of the evil Nazi tyranny. It is not up to us to say how people around the country should commemorate those things. There should be serious and solemn events, and there will be. There will also be less serious and solemn events occurring around the country. We believe that a balance should be struck and that we are striking the right balance.
    Mr. Elletson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although deregulation is the answer to many of the problems of the tourist industry, there are also areas where stricter regulations are needed? Will he therefore accept my constituents' thanks for the part that he played in ensuring that there are changes to the Use Classes Order to curb the widespread and unregulated growth in the number of Department of Social Security hostels in tourist areas?
    Will he also tell the House when he expects to be able to announce details of a licensing scheme for such hostels?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the use classes order. He is absolutely right; there are regulations that must stay. All that we are seeking to do is discover those regulations that place an unnecessary burden on the industry. We shall continue to retain the regulations that are valuable and to abolish the regulations that are not. The licensing that my hon. Friend mentioned is a matter for the Department of the Environment.
    Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that we have two important tourist attractions in St. Helens, horse racing at Haydock park and rugby league at Knowsley road? Is he aware that one of the burdensome regulations placed on St. Helens rugby league club is the requirement in the Taylor report that the club spend substantial sums of money on improving its ground? Unlike football clubs, the rugby league club receives no assistance from organisations such as the Football Trust. Will the Minister accept my invitation to meet the board of directors of St. Helens rugby league club to find some way of assisting it to obey the instructions in the Taylor report?
    Mr. Sproat: I saw St. Helens play Leeds the other day. I thought that they put up a terrific performance and were very unlucky not to win. I will be glad to speak to the directors of the club.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with representatives of the film industry about promoting the film industry in Britain.
    Mr. Brooke: Last year, I held a series of consultative meetings with all sectors of the United Kingdom film industry to review the state of the industry and hear their ideas about possible further action to raise the level of private investment in film production. I have also received numerous other representations. I shall announce the Government's conclusions as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Impact initiative, which has received wide support from the film industry, to promote film-making in Britain. In considering the initiative, and in his wider discussions, will my right hon. Friend give full account to the calculation made by Impact that relatively modest fiscal changes could result in a big expansion of film-making in this country? Will he give every encouragement to the seven big American studios, which control 90 per cent. of cinema revenue in Britain, to make more films in this country, rather than just market United States-made films, as the British components of such films almost invariably result in a big improvement in their quality?
    Mr. Brooke: I am aware of the proposals that underlie the Impact campaign; indeed, I have been in conversation with PACT—the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—as part of the review. Our preoccupation in the review is to ensure that we achieve what I will describe as the self-renewal of the industry, rather than simply giving it a quick fix. However, I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend about fiscal incentives. As for the American studios, I am delighted that this year some large budget films are being made here by the Americans. The film industry as a whole is profoundly encouraged by the signs of renaissance.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that while it must be nice to have large budget films being made here by American majors, it would be pleasant if we had one or two films made by the British? The British have the ability in writing, acting and directing. Would not it surprise everyone if the Minister were to highlight that by giving some support to this very hard-working and necessary industry?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady and I have regular exchanges on this subject across the Floor of the House. She does not always demonstrate total familiarity with the underlying support that the Government are giving. As for the British industry, I am delighted to say that 67 feature films were made last year compared with 47 the previous year, and the amount of money that was invested in those 67 films was £214 million, compared with £169 million a year earlier.

    Arts (Suffolk)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the state of the arts in the county of Suffolk.
    Mr. Sproat: It is for the Arts Council and regional arts boards to take the lead in making assessments of this kind. I understand that the Eastern Arts Board regards Suffolk as having a healthy and lively arts scene.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great local interest in the National Racing museum in Newmarket in my constituency, and in the Manor House museum in Bury St. Edmunds? Is he also aware that the renowned Bury St. Edmunds festival starts next month? Does he agree that, with the great flowering of interest in the arts in the past 10 years, it is now possible for people to see fine performances and to go to excellent museums, not only in the cities, but increasingly in rural areas?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate the Eastern Arts Board on what it has done towards achieving that splendid aim.

    Brass Bands
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what strategy has been evolved for assistance to the brass bands which previously relied upon collieries, now closed, to support them.
    Mr. Sproat: I have a keen interest in the brass band movement, including colliery bands, as an integral part of our artistic and cultural heritage. I recently had a valuable meeting with the British Federation of Brass Bands.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister harness his considerable enthusiasm to attacking the bumbling of the Department of Trade and Industry and the insensitivity of the Department for Education, whose policies are helping to destroy junior brass bands, which should be fostered? I do not need a public statement from him—just a hint that he will attack them in the background as he has done successfully with regard to team sports.
    Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his closing remarks and I congratulate him on the persistence and dedication with which he has pursued the question of the band in his constituency. On 18 February, I suggested to him six or seven ways in which he might advance the band. He may also care to have a word with the Voluntary Arts Network which might have some extra ideas, if not cash.
    As for talking to the Department for Education and the Department of Trade and Industry, I will gladly pursue my usual friendly and genial conversations with them.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that all our hearts are warmed by the splendid sound of brass bands, just as they are by the British Army bands whose high standards of excellence are the envy of the world and who are trained at Kneller Hall, Twickenham? Will he draw the question of brass bands to the attention of the regional arts boards, and say that the whole House is behind them?
    Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind support which, given his marvellous musicianship, is particularly valuable. I will do as he says.
    Mr. Skinner: Although the Minister may give his overall support to the idea of colliery brass bands, the truth is that, under the Coal Industry Bill, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—the umbrella organisation which deals with colliery brass bands—has had its money reduced by 40 per cent. CISWO must remain intact to look after the brass bands. If the Government can find the money to subsidise opera, they should find the money to ensure that brass bands can continue in every coalfield.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The future of CISWO and related matters are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), I will do everything proper that I can to see that brass bands continue and flourish.

    Tourism
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to promote tourism in the midlands.
    Mr. Sproat: Government support for tourism is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the English tourist board, support is also made available to the 11 regional boards, including the Heart of England and East Midlands tourist boards.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that overseas tourists should not confine their visits to London and that they should also visit the midlands? Does he further agree that attractions such as Alton Towers and the fine scenery around it in my constituency compare with anything in London?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I happily agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of Alton Towers, which has the highest number of visitors of any tourist attraction in the country. I also agree about the importance of getting tourists out of London.
    My hon. Friend will be comforted a little to know that spending on promotion in the west midlands has been some £400,000 in recent years and exactly the same amount has been spent in the east midlands, contributing about 240,000 jobs in the surrounding areas. I agree strongly with what he says.

    Sporting Clubs
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants have been made to sporting clubs for the coaching and incorporation of children of school age; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council provides support to sports clubs through its grants to various governing bodies of sport and is encouraging those bodies to focus their work on young people. The council also gives regional grants directly to clubs to assist them with junior sections.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have always been keen supporters of team spirit, team work and team games because we know that that is the best way of handling the natural competitive instinctive in all children and adults as we go through life? Will he do all that he can to encourage clubs of every kind—rugby, cricket, hockey and the rest—to include teams of young players so that, if they cannot be coached in schools, they can be coached in clubs? Can we have teamwork between schools and clubs, which we do not have now?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Competitive games are valuable in teaching good sportsmanship, team spirit, dedication, losing gracefully and winning modestly. I shall do all that I can to inculcate that, both within governing bodies and between schools, governing bodies and clubs.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Health Service Trusts
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement about the level of funding made available to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of NHS trusts in 1993–94.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 February at column 13.
    Mr. Hughes: May I take the matter a bit further? Given the large number of NHS trusts, investigation is sometimes needed in time to influence the results of a decision. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine whether funds are available not just to carry out the investigation but to do so quickly, which is what is needed in the case of Philip Harris house at Guy's hospital? If it is not used for the intended purpose, it will be a complete waste of £150 million of taxpayers' money.
    Sir Peter Hordern: On the general point, the hon. Gentleman knows that hospital trusts are being investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the report is expected in the autumn. On the particular point that he raises, the Comptroller and Auditor General is shortly to reply to his letter and I hope that the response will arrive soon.

    Local Authority Housing Departments
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been made available by the Public Accounts Commission to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of local authority housing departments.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The audit of local authority housing departments is the responsibility of the Audit Commission and does not, therefore, come within the remit of the Public Accounts Commission.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pressing need for a further audit of local authority housing when, in Hackney, one local authority house in 11 is unlet and when, while it was under Labour control, large rent arrears in Brent reached 48 per cent?
    Sir Peter Hordern: It sounds to me as though those are cogent points to put before the Audit Commission.
    Mr. Soley: Would not it be a good idea to investigate authorities such as Westminster, and Government Departments, which have between 10 and 20 per cent. of their housing stock empty? Where those houses are sold on the private market, they depress the national economic recovery by depressing house prices. Is not there a strong case for investigating those public bodies—the Government and Westminster—which have such a bad record on keeping houses empty for political purposes?
    Sir Peter Hordern: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are a matter for the Audit Commission. He is probably also aware that the National Audit Office frequently reports about housing matters to the Public Accounts Commission and the PAC makes reports thereon.

    Arts Councils
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what provision is to be made for the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the performance of the new arts councils of England, Scotland and Wales.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The draft financial memorandum for the new Arts Council for England provides that the statements of account will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In Scotland and Wales, negotiations are under way to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as the auditor of the new arts councils. Under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General will also be able to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which each of the councils has used its resources.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Chairman communicate to the Comptroller and Auditor General the concern of many artists, writers and musicians that the regime of indecision and waste that has characterised so much of the work of the British Arts Council over the past 10 years is not replicated at regional level? Precious taxpayers' money should end up with artists, writers and musicians, not with those who make lucrative careers out of administering the arts.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I will certainly communicate that to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me know whether there are specific matters that cause him concern, I shall refer those on, too.

    Audit Procedures
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will liaise with Her Majesty's Government with a view to bringing forward proposals for a more effective audit of ongoing projects and activities of Government Departments and agencies.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 16 December at columns 764-65.
    Mr. Cohen: As the new quangos spend vast amounts of public money with precious little accountability, should not there be tough new internal and external audit arrangements and, at the very least, a report on Departments' current policies in respect of these quangos, which spend unduly large amounts of public money?
    Sir Peter Hordern: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office by long tradition never report on matters of policy, but do refer to matters when things have gone wrong—as they frequently have. Examinations of public corporations over the past 20 years have revealed many weaknesses and faults. Regrettably, the faults that the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to establish in present corporations are by no means unparalleled—they have gone on for a long time. I echo what the hon. Gentleman says, however, and I remind the House of what an excellent job the Comptroller and Auditor General does on these matters on behalf of the taxpayer and the House.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Hospitality Rooms
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what new proposals he has for additional funding to change the use of rooms used for hospitality in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. A.J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Commission has received no proposals for additional funding for this purpose. I understand that the Catering Committee has no plans to reallocate the private dining rooms operated by the Refreshment Department.
    Mr. Flynn: Would not it be beneficial for funds if the mean and spiteful proposal to ban journalists from the Terrace were replaced by a proposal to double the price of alcoholic beverages? The money received could be used both to benefit the health of Members and journalists and to improve the wages paid to our staff. It could also be used to answer a letter that I sent to the Catering Committee on 13 October asking for improvements in our facilities, not for those who spend every day here, but for the groups of pensioners and children from our constituencies who come here once in a lifetime—so that we can offer them the simple hospitality of a cup of tea.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has embraced a wide range of subjects in his supplementary question. The Catering Committee has made proposals to provide facilities in the visitors centre which could take over the

    635
    cafeteria off Westminster Hall, but those proposals depend on alternative facilities being provided to replace the lunch and other catering arrangements provided there now.
    Staff wages in the House compare favourably with those in the private sector.

    Disabled Visitors
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make financial provision available to improve facilities for disabled visitors to the House of Commons.
    Mr. Beith: Following a report by an architect specialising in this subject, £250,000 was allocated for works in 1994–95. The Accommodation and Works Committee has approved an initial programme to improve facilities for disabled visitors and will examine further schemes contained in the report. Financial provision for future years has yet to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee and by the Commission.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that access for disabled people to the House of Commons is extremely limited? Given the widespread cross-party support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which is progressing through the House, would not it be ironic if the House itself remained so inaccessible to disabled people? Will he ensure that proper funds are available to make the House a model of accessibility for disabled people?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, that is the objective of the Commission and the purpose of the report and proposals that we have been considering.

    Members' Office Accommodation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what funding is being made available for the provision of office accommodation for hon. Members.
    Mr. Beith: The agreed programme of works for 1994–95 includes £5 million for continued design and other preparatory work for the new phase 2 building.
    Mr. Steen: There are more unoccupied bedrooms in the Palace of Westminster estate than there are in the Hilton hotel, Park lane. Of the 66 bedrooms in the Palace, only two thirds have been used in the past five years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for those bedrooms to be converted into offices for hon. Members than to be left as bedrooms exclusively for the use of officials?
    Mr. Beith: There are not 66 bedrooms, but 66 beds for the use of staff who are required to work during late sittings. Some of the beds are in dormitories which the hon. Gentleman might find do not compare very favourably with the accommodation in the Hilton hotel. The House has made a number of provisions for offices for hon. Members, including additional accommodation at Millbank, and of course the completion of the accommodation in the new building will ensure that all hon. Members who want a single room can have one.
    Mr. Maxton: Is not it becoming clear that however much money this place spends on trying to improve facilities for hon. Members, we can never provide on this site a modern, democratic Parliament? Is not it time that the House of Commons Commission was given the job of examining the viability and cost of building a brand new Parliament outside London altogether?
    Mr. Beith: Whatever the attractions of such a proposal, the Commission would certainly not embark upon examining it unless it was directed to do so by the House.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bearing in mind the fact that there are 19 bars in this establishment, is it really essential to take as another bar the Lady Members' Terrace Room, where lady Members have worked since 1945, from the days of Bessie Braddock?
    Mr. Beith: That matter relates to the complex proposals by the Catering Committee which have yet to be debated in the House. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to put her point when they are.

    Constituents' Visits
    Mr. Enright: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to arrange for a Commons official to be in charge of the arrangements for visits from Members' constituencies.
    Mr. Beith: None, Madam.
    Mr. Enright: Is not it time, therefore, that the Commission considered this question? Increasingly, our constituents wish to come here to see what is happening and that is causing considerable difficulty for hon. Members. It is not that hon. Members are unwilling to undertake the work, but it is becoming increasingly complex to arrange such visits. A central arranging point would greatly assist our constituents' understanding of the democracy that we serve.
    Mr. Beith: I have some sympathy with that suggestion, but I think that it should be considered by the Administration Committee, to which I shall direct the hon. Gentleman's concern.

    Day Nursery
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he is now in a position to make a statement on the provision of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has now received the report of the survey of demand which was carried out under the supervision of the Administration Committee and has asked that Committee to make a report to the House.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 10 commercial organisations in the Palace of Westminster occupying 950 sq m and that the gymnasium covers 350 sq m? In addition, we have just heard about 60 bedrooms. In view of all that, surely we can move much more quickly towards the provision of day nurseries than we have moved hitherto.
    Mr. Beith: The Administration Committee has carried out a survey of the likely demand for a nursery and the Commission has made known its view, in terms of its responsibility for the staff of the House, that, if a viable scheme can be devised, it would want it to go ahead. The Commission has asked the Committee to make a report to the House.

    Visitors' Facilities
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received urging the provision of additional funds for providing facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Beith: None, since I last answered oral questions on this issue on 21 February, although early-day motion 793 has been drawn to my attention.
    Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly seized of the fact that there is considerable concern in all parts of the House about the appalling facilities that we provide for our visitors. We call them "Strangers", not visitors, and we keep them standing outside in the most inclement weather. We treat them abysmally. This legislature is probably the worst in Europe in its treatment of visitors. When will something be done about the lack of facilities?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must address his concern to the Committees that deal with these matters. Some of the problems about which he is concerned are addressed in the Catering Committee's report to which I referred earlier and which I expect to be debated in the House in due course.

    Lavatories
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what funds have been made available to improve lavatory facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Beith: The sum of £150,000 has been allocated for 1994–95 for the programme of lavatory refurbishment and a further £94,000 to provide new lavatory facilities for the disabled.
    Mr. Greenway: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House welcome that news, as will visitors to the Palace of Westminster. Will the new lavatories be more obviously accessible to the public and be properly named—
    Mr. Steen: Illuminated.
    Mr. Greenway: Illuminated, as my hon. Friend says —so that visitors will be able to identify them easily?
    Mr. Beith: I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of those responsible.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to take oral questions on Fridays.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Lord President had been present earlier, he would have heard one or two comments about there being so many quangos in Britain today for which the Government are no longer accountable. There are 7,700 of them and they cost about £1,000 million a week. It would not be a bad idea if a Minister were made responsible for answering questions on Fridays about quangos and the use of taxpayers' money. We would then be able to ask all the questions that we are not allowed to ask the rest of the week.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman does not do badly on the first four days of the week.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Since oral questions are about the most futile way of Parliament scrutinising the Executive, why not move all questions to Friday?
    Mr. Newton: Probably because only the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be here to ask them.

    Sittings of the House
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to confine the sittings of the House to four days a week including one all-night sitting.
    Mr. Newton: I have no plans to propose such an arrangement and I do not believe that I would receive much thanks if I did.
    Mr. Steen: If we did sit all night one day a week, it would be possible to use some of the 66 beds mentioned earlier—two thirds of which have not been used for five years. Would not it be far wiser to convert those sleeping facilities into offices, so that hon. Members who are squashed together like sardines could enjoy better accommodation in the Palace of Westminster?
    Mr. Newton: I will not attempt to embroider the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in response to a similar question earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has assiduously pursued his campaign and has already had
    some exchanges with the House authorities. I know that they are further considering some of his points. In my judgment, it is right that the matter should be given further consideration.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Lord President give an assurance that if we are compelled to use those bedrooms, none of us will be forced to share one with the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) to save on expenses?
    Mr. Newton: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman never sleeps.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours the House sat in the 1992–93 Session; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79 and 1964–65.
    Mr. Newton: In the 1992–93 Session, the House sat 1,983 hours and 48 minutes over 240 sitting days—an average of eight hours and 16 minutes per day. The equivalent figures for the 1978–79 Session were 878 hours

    639
    and 20 minutes over 85 sitting days—a daily average of 10 hours and 20 minutes. In the 1964–65 Session, the House sat 1,592 hours and two minutes over 177 sitting days—an average of eight hours and 59 minutes per day.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for those interesting statistics. Does he agree that we should amend the way in which we deal with legislation? Although much time is spent in debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we often exert little influence over the civil servants and Ministers who draft Bills. If we revised the way in which we tackle legislation, we might spend our time more productively.
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that there might be ways in which the scrutiny of legislation can be improved, alongside a number of the improvements that have been made in recent years. Having been a Minister in various Departments, I can tell my hon. Friend that he should not
    640
    underestimate the effect that the probing of the House, both on the Floor and not least in Standing Committee, can have on Ministers and their officials.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware that nowadays, far from getting better scrutiny, more and more information is being hidden by Ministers, both by referring hon. Members to the heads of executive agencies and by saying that letters will be placed in the Library? That is a reversal of the democratic position and one that is becoming extremely dangerous and all too common.
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that because the information in some of these cases comes from the person principally concerned with the day-to-day administration of the service, without in any way altering the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the overall delivery of that service, there is any kind of concealment. Of course, answers are made available, in a way for which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) pressed over a long period.

Bosnia
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about events in Gorazde and elsewhere in Bosnia over the past few days.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House on 12 April on the circumstances in which NATO aircraft, to protect. United Nations forces, had carried out close air support attacks on Bosnian Serb forces threatening UN personnel in Gorazde on the two preceding days. Following those attacks, efforts were made to achieve a ceasefire between the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Government forces as the prelude to a general political settlement. But by last Thursday, 14 April, the situation on the ground had deteriorated and a number of serious incidents occurred in and around Sarajevo and in other parts of northern Bosnia.
On Friday afternoon, 15 April, the Bosnian Serbs resumed their shelling of Gorazde. A patrol of British soldiers serving as joint commission observers at a Bosnian army location about 3 km north of the town became involved in an exchange of gun fire. One of them, Corporal Fergus Rennie, sustained a gun shot wound as a result of Bosnian Serb fire. A second soldier was less seriously wounded by shrapnel. Corporal Rennie was retrieved by helicopter and brought to Sarajevo, where, sadly, he subsequently died.
On Saturday 16 April, three Bosnian Serb tanks began firing on the hospital in Gorazde. General Rose called for close air support, which was approved by Mr. Akashi. Two Sea Harriers from HMS Ark Royal, and two American. A10 aircraft, were tasked with attacking the tanks. During a reconnaissance run, the Sea Harriers were attacked by a surface-to-air misile, which they managed to evade. At 4.45 pm local time, the Sea Harriers commenced a bombing run. A second surface-to-air missile was fired and hit the lead aircraft, which caught fire. The pilot, Lieutenant Nicholas Richardson, ejected and landed safely.
In an unrelated incident late on Saturday night, another British service man, Marine Timothy Coates, who was serving on attachment to the UNHCR in Sarajevo, was shot dead by personnel manning a Bosnian Government checkpoint in the city. He was off duty and wearing plain clothes at the time.
The House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the families of Corporal Rennie and Marine Coates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Both were brave men serving in Bosnia and trying to bring peace to that country. As the House will know, yesterday, Bosnian Serb forces advanced further on Gorazde, which is now virtually undefended. There are now no British military personnel in the town.
The events of the past few days represent a serious setback for the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and will have grim consequences for the people of Gorazde. There is a tendency in some quarters to criticise the efforts of the senior UN personnel in Bosnia, including Mr. Akashi and General Rose, for failing to deal with the situation. In my view, such criticism is unjustified. Mr. Akashi, General Rose and their UN colleagues have achieved as much as was humanly possible, given the UN military forces available to them and the mandate under which they operate. They deserve our full support.
642
The United Nations troops in Bosnia are not, and never have been, intended to be a war-fighting force. They were sent to Bosnia for purposes of humanitarian relief and to give time for the peace process to bring results. Some have had quite unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved by the use of air power alone, or by ground forces that are not equipped or organised to operate in a combat role.
A vicious civil war is taking place in Bosnia with a total of almost 200,000 heavily armed Bosnian Serb, Croat, and Muslim forces. There are at present only 15,000 UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. The House is well aware that there has been no support from any quarter for deploying the large UN or NATO combat army that would be needed for the UN to be sure of imposing its will on the warring factions. In the absence of such support, it is quite unreasonable to berate the UN in Bosnia for having been unable to stop the fighting.
General Rose did recently call for more troops to assist in his peacekeeping role throughout Bosnia. The United Kingdom took the lead in co-ordinating an international response, which pledged those additional troops. I have to inform the House that, of the 8,000 troops pledged, only the battalion group promised by the United Kingdom and 300 others, totalling 1,200, have so far arrived.
The United Nations will now need to give careful thought to the implications of current events in Gorazde. Both the United Nations and others who call for action must avoid rhetoric and resolutions that cannot be enforced. There must be a proper assessment by the UN of its continuing ability to carry out the mandate, of what it can do to strengthen that ability and the peace process in general, and of the degree of co-operation that it can expect from the various Bosnian factions. It must also assess the level of risk to the safety of UNPROFOR troops, for which we all have an abiding responsibility.
Events in Gorazde represent a serious setback. It is important to remember that over large parts of Bosnia the UN has been successful in implementing an effective ceasefire and the population are able to resume something like normal life. Sarajevo is no longer under artillery attack. Those achievements are indeed creditable and we continue to give our full support to our troops, and other UN troops in the field, and to their commanders.
Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. This is a matter of great concern to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Opposition Members are glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not currently contemplate the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia.
Disappointed and saddened though we are by the Gorazde tragedy and its terrible, awful consequences, we ought not—as the Secretary of State implied—to let it dominate our thoughts and actions completely. It is worth recalling and emphasising that the peace is still holding in much of Bosnia and that, in central Bosnia, the Croats and the Bosnian Government troops are no longer fighting. It is also worth emphasising that there is some peace in Sarejevo, however tentative, and that life there is far better than many of us would have dared to contemplate a month ago.
I am proud of the contribution that our British troops have made in Bosnia. Let me place on record the Opposition's deepest sympathy for the families of soldiers who have given their lives in the conflict there. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

643
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge, however, that in a subtle way the mandate of the UN troops needs to be redefined? Is it not the case that that mandate was initially for the provision of a purely humanitarian aid delivery, but has now developed into a mandate for a peace support operation?
Are not the military handicapped by a lack of political direction and strategy on the part of the UN and NATO? Lieutenant-General Rose suggested the role that should be played when he pointed out that he would need more ground troops if the policy of peace support was to be effective. We believe that his request for extra troops was justified, but were disappointed, initially, by the Government's slow reaction. We acknowledge, however, that the Government had a change of heart following the marketplace disaster, and I acknowledge the Secretary of State's efforts in persuading our countries to earmark troops for Bosnia.
Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House on the numbers of troops? What has happened to the troops from other countries, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman recently told the House were to be sent to Bosnia? Where have they gone? Of the 8,000 troops promised, only 1,200 have arrived.
On his visits to the United States last week, did the Secretary of State discern any change of policy by the United States Administration? In particular, will he comment on reports that the United States has blocked the request, made at the United Nations, to send an additional 8,500 peacekeepers to Bosnia and has approved only 3,700 —many fewer than General Rose requested?
Is the problem in the United States with the Administration or with Congress? What steps are the Secretary of State and the European Union taking to try to reverse that decision? Has any attention been paid to replacing Nordic troops in Macedonia with American troops, thus releasing the Nordic troops for action in Bosnia proper?
After Gorazde, we must ensure that we can reassert the authority of the United Nations, because it is in the interests of Britain and of the rest of the world to do so. In fighting to try to re-establish the authority of the United Nations, we are trying to do something to secure the long-term interests of Britain and Europe.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the efforts of General Rose, of British forces and of UNPROFOR as a whole. He is correct to emphasise that much has been achieved by the United Nations in other parts of Bosnia, and we do not want to lose the benefits of that hard work.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the UN's mandate has developed from being purely humanitarian to assisting in peacekeeping, wherever that has proven possible. It is very important, however, to draw a line between that kind of mandate and any possibility of the United Nations adopting a combat role, which, as he knows, would not be acceptable or consistent with a bipartisan approach. I know that he shares that view.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the efforts of the British Government in responding to General Rose's request for more troops and the lead that we took in the United Nations in co-ordinating that effort and in sending additional troops. He asked why so few have so far arrived
644
from other countries. In part, that is, I am sure, because of genuine logistical problems in getting them to Bosnia from various countries around the world, but it will be important that all countries that have pledged additional troops make every effort to send them. The United States has offered logistical support for those who might require it and that should be borne in mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the United States Administration and Congress. Congress, not the Administration, has blocked the full funding of additional troops to Bosnia. I know that the President and his Administration are doing their best to persuade Congress to release the necessary funding, and we naturally hope that they will succeed in the near future. The United States has also indicated its willingness to ensure that some of the Nordic troops in Macedonia are released for service in Bosnia, which might have an impact on the number of American forces required.
Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the events of the past few days have shown that, no matter what weasel words are spoken by the political negotiators on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Serbs' armed forces are determined to achieve their own objectives, which makes it exceedingly difficult to forecast what will happen?
In those circumstances, is not every other Muslim enclave surrounded by Serbs now under threat throughout Bosnia? Without the United Nations taking another very long look at its policy, what guarantees can be given that people in those enclaves can be secure? Surely it would be tragic to suggest to them that they might be safe, when, as the people of Gorazde have found, even their hospital is being shelled.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Serbs have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy in terms of the assurances that they have given: that has been true not only in the past few days but for many months—many ceasefires have been negotiated which have not been honoured by the combatants.
My hon. Friend asked about the other enclaves. He will know that General Rose had been hoping to send a United Nations force into Gorazde to make it much more difficult for the Serbs to act aggressively towards that town. The Government had agreed to allow British troops to be redeployed there if that, in his operational judgment, was the right thing to do.
As for the other enclaves, there are already significant United Nations forces in those towns: in Srebrenica, there are about 500 Dutch United Nations forces; in Zepa, there are about 150 Ukrainians; in Bihaj, about 1,200 French; and in Tuzla, about 800 from the Nordic battalion. Clearly, that will be of considerable assistance to the United Nations in its objectives.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In painting a necessarily sombre picture of events in Gorazde, does the Secretary of State accept that there might be lessons to be learned from the rather different circumstances of Sarajevo, where the credible threat of military action, coupled with intensive diplomatic effort, has managed to restore that community to some semblance of normality? Will he confirm that the Government will not support any lifting of economic sanctions against Serbia as long as safe areas are at risk and there is no overall peace settlement in place?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course, the circumstances in Sarajevo were unique, in that artillery was attacking from the heights, which were themselves credible targets for the use of air power. In addition, there is every reason to believe that the combination of Russian diplomacy and the Serbs' own assessment of the importance to be attached to maintaining that artillery barrage both contributed to that operation having the result that it did.
As for the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, of course the imposition of economic sanctions is causing a great deal of economic hardship to the Belgrade Government, as well as to the Serbs in general; it is, therefore, an important weapon, which must be used to its maximum extent.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am sure that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend will, like the whole House, have as their first interest the security of British armed forces personnel on the ground and in the air over Bosnia. May I express my condolences to the family of Corporal Rennie of the Special Air Service Regiment and to that of Marine Commando Coates who so tragically died? What arrangements have been put in place to enable the commander of the United Nations Protection Force and his subordinate commanders in Bosnia to call on close air support more rapidly and more effectively when the lives of their own forces are at serious risk?
Mr. Rifkind: There is no difficulty about the use of close air support where it is required for the defence of UNPROFOR forces. As we saw in Gorazde itself, General Rose was able to call on air power, which was available within 45 minutes. Therefore, where it is required for the defence of United Nations forces, I believe that the present procedures are indeed appropriate.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State agree that, unless more United Nations troops are sent to Bosnia, other safe havens will be in danger of being overrun?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree that we must take very seriously the judgment of the United Nations commanders on the ground about the minimum manpower they require to carry out the policy that is expected of them. We cannot have expectations of the UN in Bosnia and then not provide it with the means of carrying out that policy. General Rose has emphasised that he does not wish to adopt a combat role in Bosnia, but that he needs a certain minimum number of personnel if he is properly to implement a peacekeeping role. We agree with him.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it not deeply disturbing that as we begin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the glorious victory which set Europe free, at the very heart of Europe, in a country where 200,000 people have been slaughtered in the past two years, the words "safety and protection" mean very little?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend not feel that the time has come for the leaders of Government of the four permanent members of the Security Council most concerned to meet together? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take the initiative in summoning a meeting of President Clinton, President Mitterrand and President Yeltsin, so that something can be done? It is in no one's interests that ethnic cleansing and the alteration of boundaries by force of an internationally recognised sovereign state should be successful.
646
Will my right hon. and learned Friend further, and finally, agree that if it were not for the fact that the bulk of the blame attaches to Serbia and the Serbs, we should not have sanctions against them? As we do, let us therefore make it abundantly clear to them that they will not get away with this.
Mr. Rifkind: Close contact between world leaders is, of course, important. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to the President of the United States yesterday. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the considerable need to ensure that Russia, who is a member of the Security Council, works in the closest harmony with the other permanent members. Over the past few days, Russia has tried hard to impress on the Serbs the need for considerable restraint. The House will have heard the remarks of Mr. Churkin, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, who expressed his own frustration with Serbian mendacity over the past 48 hours.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the warnings given that the situation could lead NATO to stumble into a civil war in Bosnia are turning out to be frighteningly true? NATO is not the United Nations, although the humanitarian and peacekeeping roles may be successful. However, with the experience of 18,000 troops in Northern Ireland for 25 years, with 33,000 people killed or injured during that period, there must be some lessons to be learned.
Will the Secretary of State resist the siren voices from the White House and from this House encouraging further military action? Will he take the matter back to the United Nations Security Council, where all the permanent members can contribute their opinion, and restore it to a UN function, in which any military operations are under the command of the Military Staffs Committee and not under the command of NATO?
Mr. Rifkind: Although I agree that NATO should not become involved in a combat role in the Bosnian war, the right hon. Gentleman must also take account of the fact that NATO has been successful in assisting the United Nations to prevent the Serbs from using air power against their foes within Bosnia and in enforcing the naval embargo, which is crucial to the effectiveness of the sanctions policy.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that probably for the first time ever, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? I strongly suspect that many people outside the House who are keen to support our forces in anything they do are deeply concerned at what they perceive to be a change in the main policy that the forces are directed to carry out. If the shooting up of tanks by British aircraft is not combat, please may I know what it might be?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course it is combat, but if it is required for purposes of self-defence, my hon. Friend, I am sure, would be the first to justify it. We have made it clear from the very moment that British and other UN forces arrived in Bosnia that, if their lives were under threat, it was entirely appropriate that we should use all the military means at our disposal to protect them. I know that my hon. Friend would have been the first to criticise us if we had so altered the rules of engagement that we exposed our troops

647
to attack by Serbian or other forces and could not use the means, including air power, to defend them wherever necessary.
Mr. William Ross: Given the actions of the Serbs over the past two years, is it not self-evident that they have very clear objectives? Have the Government or anyone else yet determined exactly what are those objectives? When do the Government expect them to be achieved?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that the Serbs—and, indeed, the other combatants in this war—have very clear objectives. The United Nations must seek, in a slow, painful, but determined way, to find a way in which each of the factions will realise that military means alone will not produce a lasting peace in Bosnia. Much has been achieved in most of Bosnia with regard to those objectives. However, as recent events have shown, there is still an awful lot to be done.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I add my sympathy to that expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on the death of the soldiers in Bosnia, and especially express sympathy to my constituents, the parents of Marine Coates? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that he will bear in mind at all times the danger of dragging the United Kingdom into another war in a region of historically unresolved conflict, and that he and his colleagues will ensure that we do not slip and slide into a European Vietnam, killing young men and women for no discernible gain?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to emphasise those points. One of our main objectives over the past two years has been to seek to ensure that the war in Bosnia has not spread to other countries in that region. So far, that objective has been successful.
Mr. Derek Enright: In view of the lack of practical purpose shown by the United States of America in recent months, would not the Secretary of State consider looking closely with his European colleagues at what is happening in the context of the European Union? Will he also ensure that those deliberations are made public as far as possible, to take along with them the majority of the peoples of Europe?
Mr. Rifkind: There are quite significant limits to what can be expected from the European Union with regard to military personnel able to assist in Bosnia. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, for its own reasons, Germany is unable to be involved in the process—nor has Italy been able to, until recently. There are severe constraints. If there were an overall peace settlement in Bosnia that required an enhanced UN presence, it would be quite unrealistic to believe that that could be achieved without the active involvement of the United States.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it was absolutely right to support the peace initiative in the past two months, but that our role in Bosnia remains twofold? One role is to support the distribution of humanitarian aid and the other is in monitoring the peace. If there is no peace, there is no
648
mandate. Will he therefore discuss in all the decision-making centres what our role can be in future, but, in doing so, will he bear in mind the fact that there would not be support in this country, in my view, for sending further troops to Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the mandate is to try to help to achieve a peace. Much has been achieved, not only in the Sarajevo area, but elsewhere in central Bosnia, where there has been no fighting between Croat and Muslim forces for some considerable period. All the efforts must concentrate on seeking to ensure that the progress that has been made in central Bosnia should also be available in those areas where Serb forces are involved, as that would be the best way in which to ensure that peace was eventually brought to that weary land.
Mr. David Winnick: Is not the most immediate and pressing matter concern for the security and safety of a town under siege, because of the known activities of the Serbian warlords, such as ethic cleansing and mass murder? Do the Secretary of State and the Government generally accept that what is now at stake is the credibility of the international community? The Serbs have exploited to the utmost the indecision—the manner in which the west generally has been so reluctant to act. Have not we learnt the basic lesson that one cannot appease fascist oppression? One either faces up to it or the fascists will win, as, so far, they have in Bosnia.
Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has been careful to avoid saying what his especial remedy would be for resolving that predicament. Unless he is calling for many thousands of British and other soldiers to be sent in a combat role to Bosnia, frankly, his words are no more than the words of a windbag.
Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not the case that there has been virtually no response to the call for international support from other countries, and notably not from the United States, in its failure to provide ground support? That being so, and as my right hon. and learned Friend has clearly said that the United Nations will not be involved in a combat role, is it not doubly important that the role of our British forces should be carefully defined, and that clear limits should be set for their involvement?
Mr. Rifkind: I could not agree more with what my right hon. Friend has said. It is extremely important when lives are at stake that functions should be clearly spelled out. We should not have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved at the military level. It is precisely because rhetoric has so outstripped reality over so many months that people are now able to claim that the United Nations has failed in its task. I believe that those on the ground in Bosnia serving the United Nations have achieved all that could reasonably be expected of them. That needs to be acknowledged.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is the Secretary of State for Defence saying that resolution 836, which authorises the use of force to defend safe areas as defined by the United Nation, is a piece of rhetoric and a resolution that cannot be enforced? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument seems to rest on the proposition that it is not practical or feasible to impose a peace over the whole of Bosnia. But that was not the proposition that was tested at the weekend, which was

649
much more limited—whether the UN and the international community had the will to defend a small enclave of a few square miles and fewer than 100,000 people.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that even the very wording of resolution 836 is ambiguous. It refers to "any measures" and uses the phrase "acting in self-defence". That implies the ambiguity that is at the root of the problem. We have seen the limitations that air power alone has in resolving a problem of this sort.
I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this subject and I respect his sincerity. Unless, however, one believes that air power by itself could relieve Gorazde, one has either to consider the use of ground forces in a combat role or to recognise the limitations in implementing resolution 836 in the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is it not time to abandon the fiction that peace can be imposed from outside if the combatants do not want it? What knowledge does Her Majesty's Government have of the real aims of the Serbian Administration? They have 70 per cent. of Bosnia already; how much do they want?
Mr. Rifkind: We can only speculate on the objectives of each of the factions. It is clear, however, that it is a war about territory and that each of the factions is seeking to grab as much territory as possible to strengthen its negotiating position for the final political settlement. That clearly is part of their thinking. It is also evident that no political settlement that is not rooted in the consent of all the three communities can have any chance of bringing lasting peace to Bosnia.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I say to the Secretary of State what I really do believe? If Margaret Thatcher had been Prime Minister today, she would have sorted out this bloody—I use the word advisedly—nonsense one and a half years ago. At least she demanded that fascism should be stopped in its tracks in the heart of Europe, whereas this Conservative Government have ducked the issue.
Mr. Rifkind: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I would remind him that even my noble Friend Lady Thatcher made it clear that she did not support the use of British or other UN troops in a combat role on the ground in Bosnia. If an individual is not prepared to support that policy, and unless one is arguing that the use of air power alone can somehow impose peace on Bosnia, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward a proposition that is not sustained by reality.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the fact that there was not a large enough force forthcoming to be sure of the UN imposing its will in Bosnia. Does he accept that no force, however large, could impose the UN's will on Bosnia? Surely we should learn the lessons of the Americans in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan.
There is no military solution to the problems of Bosnia. There is a civil war into which it appears we are being inexorably drawn. I hope that there is no question of changing the UN's mandate there beyond humanitarian aid. I hope that we will consider withdrawal seriously, before we suffer some ghastly disaster, as the Americans did in the Lebanon.
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is correct to point out that even a large combat army could, at best, hope to achieve only short-term objectives in Bosnia, because it would very quickly become an occupying army and, without a political settlement, would experience the same difficulties as those experienced by other such armies in other parts of the world. Therefore, I agree with my right hon. Friend's analysis.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the look on the Prime Minister's face tells everyone everything today? This is another Government failure—and they were warned—and it is a Common Market failure into the bargain. Does the Secretary of State have any contingency plans to withdraw the troops before the television crews withdraw first? For God's sake be careful before the Government follow them into the next cockpit.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes his usual constructive contribution on these occasions. With regard to the latter part of his remarks, of course we have quite properly considered the safety requirements of the British forces. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that whatever would be required to ensure their safety—whatever the eventualities might be—has been taken into account.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the risks that our troops are taking? Their professionalism and courage have never been in doubt. However, attempts to pretend that surgical air strikes could somehow take place were wishful thinking, given the terrain and weather conditions in Bosnia. Anyone who has flown over the area is aware of that.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also realise that the absence of the Germans' and Americans' presence on the ground means that the prospects of obtaining realistic measures in terms of negotiations have been substantially weakened—if they were ever viable? The absence of those two great powers on the ground is causing problems in the negotiations.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend referred correctly to a number of considerations. He is correct to emphasise the limitations on the use of air power. Air power can assist in defending our forces and it can be of assistance in certain very specific circumstances. However, it is quite unrealistic to believe that it can somehow deliver a peace to Bosnia in the absence of other factors pointing in the direction.
Mr. Tony Banks: If the international community is going to allow the Bosnian Serbs to put two fingers up to the United Nations, could we at least lift the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Government can defend themselves adequately?
Mr. Rifkind: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the arms embargo. He will appreciate that if the arms embargo were lifted, two factors would flow: first, there could be no continuing United Nations presence in Bosnia, with all the humanitarian consequences that would flow from that; secondly, there could be no possibility of continuing Russian co-operation with the rest of the United Nations. As I understand it, it would require a resolution of

651
the Security Council to lift the arms embargo. I find it difficult to believe that the Russians would agree to that. It would therefore have quite serious consequences.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider withdrawing completely? Some of us said at the beginning that it was a mistake for British forces to be in Bosnia under any circumstances. We have now lost four British lives. What are the circumstances that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider when he thinks about withdrawing? People are sick and tired of having British forces at risk when there is no British interest there at all.
Mr. Rifkind: British and other UN forces have been responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives over the past two years. We must therefore think hard and long before considering that that role has come to an end. We have always argued that the presence of British forces should be continued so long as two criteria are met: first, that they can carry out their mandate and, secondly, that they can do so without unacceptable risk to themselves. We must constantly monitor the situation to see whether both the criteria continue to be met.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the credibility of the United Nations and the stopping of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia are in Britain's interests? Has it not been obvious from the outset that the only thing that would stop Serbian aggression is overwhelming superior force, and from the outset some of us have argued that that is what should have been employed, including—in case the Secretary of State accuses me of mincing words—the use of ground troops? Is not the reason why we are in this mess the fact that we failed to exercise leadership from the outset?
Mr. Rifkind: I certainly acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been one of the few to carry through the logic of his position. I also acknowledge that if military force were to be part of international policy, that would require the massive deployment of ground forces. There are some 15,000 UN troops in Bosnia. There are about 200,000 heavily armed Serbs, Croats and Muslims who are fighting each other.
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman can work out for himself the likely size of a UN or NATO force that would be required not simply to make an impact but to take over the permanent military occupation of a country as large as Bosnia. He must also take into account how long that force would be likely to be required, and what would be the likely response of Serb, Croat and Muslim fighters over the many years that such a force would have to try to pacify Bosnia.
Sir Dudley Smith: As this is a European civil war, will my right hon. and learned Friend please make the strongest possible representations to his brother Ministers in the Western European Union and NATO that they must shoulder a greater part of the burden of the peacekeeping operation? At the same time, may I echo what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said earlier—that we must
652
keep sanctions in place and, if possible, intensify them? Sanctions work well, but there are some distressing seepages.
Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that European countries must make the fullest possible contribution to helping in problems of this sort. I know that the Federal Republic of Germany is anxious to see an end to the constitutional constraints on its own contribution and we hope that that will be possible before long.
Mr. Max Madden: As the Bosnian tragedy unfolds, is it not clear that what is happening is the direct and terrible consequence of appeasement, which has continued since the start of the conflict? Does the Secretary of State agree that, as we are at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour, this is not the time for politicians, who are the guilty parties, to try to shift the blame on to the United Nations, the military or anyone else? Is it not now clear that the international community, through the United Nations, should either mobilise the means to stop aggression in Bosnia or give the people of Bosnia the means to defend themselves?
Mr. Rifkind: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is careful not to spell out exactly what he is recommending. If he did, people would be able to pass comment on the merits of his proposals.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is impossible to overstate the gravity of a situation in which the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has pledged to honour and maintain safe havens in Bosnia, when one of those safe havens is being overrun by hostile forces at present? Can he assure the House that at no time in recent days have requests by General Rose for air strikes been turned down, other than on weather grounds?
Finally, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Sea Harrier that was shot down over Gorazde at the weekend was equipped with a hands-off fully automated electronic counter-measures system? When will his Department give approval for the urgent operation requirement which it has already drafted for unmanned air vehicles, which could avoid the necessity to deploy the Special Air Service Regiment in such exposed areas?
Mr. Rifkind: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, clearly there are some operations for which ground-based forward air controllers will always be required. My hon. Friend knows that that must be true in many circumstances, but not in every circumstance.
On the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question, I am not privy to any internal conversations within the UN. However, I have no reason to believe that General Rose has made any requests in recent days in respect of Gorazde that have not been accepted.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Do negotiations ever take place with Serbia about economic sanctions? Economic sanctions are fast becoming one of the few cards we hold, yet they are a problematic card. It is likely that they assist Milosevic to retain power, while devastating the country economically. Sanctions also hit the Albanians in Kosovo, but do nothing to control the armed position with regard to the Serbs in Bosnia.
Mr. Rifkind: There are always different views on the efficacy of economic sanctions, but it is clear that

653
Milosevic and his colleagues would dearly like sanctions to be lifted because of the damage they are doing to the economy of his country. Therefore, in that respect they are clearly a useful part of the pressure which can be applied against him.
Mr. Jim Lester: Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the status of the safe havens policy, and say whether the UN has any means to maintain and achieve it other than persuasion?
Mr. Rifkind: It has been General Rose's view that, to make the safe havens policy effective, it is necessary to get significant garrisons of UN personnel into the safe havens. That is what he was trying to do in Gorazde, but he was unsuccessful. We have garrisons in the other safe havens, and that aspect of General Rose's policy is much more likely to succeed in respect of the other towns.
Mr. Harry Cohen: What are the Government doing to get the release of the UN hostages who were taken by the Bosnian Serbs? Is the Secretary of State still satisfied that the humanitarian aid policy is the one which results in the least loss of life in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: I understand that some 16 UN personnel have been released, and efforts are continuing to ensure the release of the others.
On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is at the heart of the dilemma we all face that there is no doubt that the humanitarian efforts lead to the saving of many thousands of lives, yet one is conscious that, by themselves, they do not contribute to ending the war. Therefore, it is constantly necessary to balance the factors and to come to an honest judgment on where the interests of the people of Bosnia most lie.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that military advice on the ground should not be ignored? If that military advice says that 8,000 more troops are required, but those troops are not forthcoming from the other member states, my right hon. and learned Friend may well have to decide, in the interests of British troops, between leaving those troops there and facing yet more casualties and withdrawing them and their armaments from the UNPROFOR.
Mr. Rifkind: Twelve hundred of the 8,000 have arrived and, as far as I am aware, the other countries that have promised troops have not said that they have changed their minds or that they are no longer proposing to send them. It is clearly important that they act as quickly as possible, so that the troops can arrive in Bosnia and be available to General Rose to help carry out the policy that he is seeking to implement.
Ms Kate Hoey: Does the Minister realise that many of us—on both sides of the House—have been saying for more than two years that the Serbs were not interested in diplomacy, discussions or talking, and that they were interested in a Greater Serbia? Does he now agree that, as the international community has failed so dismally, we cannot sit in the House of Commons and say that we will prevent the people of Bosnia, including the Government and the Muslims, from being armed and able to defend themselves if we are not prepared to do it?
Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point of view, which is perfectly respectable, but she must accept
654
that it implies the ending of the humanitarian operation in Bosnia. She must also realise that there are practical difficulties in implementing such a policy, given that it would require the repeal of Security Council resolution. As Russia—a permanent member of the Security Council—has made it clear that it would not support such a resolution, any ending of the arms embargo would have to be in defiance of a UN resolution. I am afraid that that cannot be ignored.
Mr. Roger Gale: May I take this opportunity, which has been denied me by parliamentary convention for two years, to pay tribute to members of our armed forces who have fought the humanitarian war in Bosnia, sometimes at the ultimate cost? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he has given, and will give, General Rose the UK military support that he demands? Was not General Rose right to say that wars cannot be fought from white trucks?
Does it not behove those who appear to wish to fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood to say clearly how many troops they wish to send, how long they want them to stay there, and how many body bags they are prepared to see come home? If they are not prepared to do so, should they not recognise that there is a limit to what the United Nations can achieve?
Mr. Rifkind: May I use this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my colleague, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence? I agree with his assessment that it is important that we do not create false expectations. Nothing could be crueller to the people of Bosnia than to use rhetoric that creates an expectation which, in the event, cannot be fuilfilled.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As the Government's current policy is based on the Serbians not turning their fire on United Nations personnel but confining their attack and slaughter to civilians and others in Bosnia, is there not a moral imperative to permit the Bosnians the right to defend themselves?
Mr. Rifkind: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey): this is a dilemma, and there is no simple answer to it. But the hon. Gentleman must also question the implications for the UN humanitarian operation, which, I notice, he carefully avoided referring to.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those hon. Members who subscribe to the "something must be done" school of thought and talk airily about committing more troops to Bosnia, should be pressed to say exactly what they mean, so that their constituents can weigh up the dangers to which those hon. Members are prepared to expose British troops?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently and reasonably. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that if this House is to command respect, it must not call for policy through rhetorical flourishes unless it is prepared to live with the consequences of what it recommends.
Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly described to the House the vicious and nasty civil war in what was Yugoslavia. Bearing in mind the events of the past few days and the huge contribution

655
made by British troops towards reducing the slaughter in that country, does he feel that the UN mandate can continue to be applied without further resources from other countries, and the burden being shared by other nations? If that proves impossible, can British troops continue to carry out their present role without that further help?
Mr. Rifkind: I said in my statement that careful thought will have to be given to how the mandate is operating and whether anything is needed to increase its effectiveness. At present, we should attach importance to the successful achievements which General Rose and his colleagues have to their credit in Sarajevo and the Croat and Muslim areas of central Bosnia. Their achievements have brought a welcome peace to many hundreds of thousands of people. Were that to be put in jeopardy by a withdrawal of the UN, it would be a heavy responsibility, on which we would not wish to embark unless there was no credible alternative.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In rightly stressing the importance of having realistic objectives, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that that must extend also to existing UN stated objectives? Does he accept that there is no historical example of safe havens being maintained by air power alone, the first unsuccessful attempt at that being Dien Bien Phu?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that the use of air power alone will rarely have more than a limited military consequence, which must be borne in mind in any statements of policy by either the Security Council or others interested in these matters.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is it not remarkable that those who advocate more troops and a more aggressive military stance are at a loss to explain where they will get those extra troops? Is it not now clear that, unless we can sustain our peacekeeping role and allow our troops to protect themselves effectively—that requires United States involvement to have any credibility—we shall have to look seriously at withdrawal? I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that it was Lord Owen who drew our attention to the fact that we might have to withdraw.
Mr. Rifkind: Certainly the United Kingdom makes the second largest contribution of forces to the United Nations in Bosnia. I do not believe that anyone would want to suggest that we are not carrying our full share of responsibilities. If there were a need for a significant number of additional UN forces, that burden would have to be shared more widely.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be more forthcoming about nations that have promised troops and not delivered them, and about those that have not promised any at all? Surely that is the point that gung-ho types opposite should take into account before running the risk of shedding the blood of our own forces.
Mr. Rifkind: The immediate objective is to meet the need for the 8,000 personnel whom General Rose has said he requires to carry out his current policy. If the countries that have pledged troops are able to ensure their arrival, that requirement will have been achieved.
Lady Olga Maitland: What discussions has my right hon. and learned Friend had with the Russians in the past 24 hours, and what discussions does he plan with them? Does he agree that Mr. Churkin has been disappointed by the response from Belgrade, but that any hopes that we may have must rest with the Russians exerting due influence on Belgrade? After all, that is where the sheer energy for this brutal war has been coming from.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Russians have been constructive over the past few days. The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, has been in Belgrade; Mr. Churkin has been negotiating in Bosnia. It is therefore important that all the permanent members of the Security Council speak with a single voice on this matter, as far as possible.
Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State for Defence has continuously referred to the "warring factions" of the Croats, Bosnians and Serbs, ignoring the American-brokered agreement between the Croats and the Muslims. That agreement makes it clear that the only aggressors in the current circumstances are the Serbs. The Muslims are not trying to break out of Gorazde to gain territory, certainly. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman essentially telling us that the west, the international community, is incapable of dealing with Serbian aggression?
Mr. Rifkind: The events in Gorazde of the past few days have undoubtedly been the consequence of Serb aggression, but there still are a number of warring factions in Bosnia. One of the British soldiers who lost their lives in the past week was killed by Serbian action; a Bosnian Government soldier shot the other one dead. The hon. Gentleman must therefore appreciate that the war continues, although I welcome the progress made in respect of the Croat-Muslim relationship.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This statement has run for nearly an hour, showing that there is widespread interest in and concern about the terrible events in Bosnia. You well know that you have said in the past that, when applications are made for an emergency debate, you are highly unlikely to consider them unless there has been a specific change of Government policy.
The horrors of Bosnia continue day by day, and the Government are clearly unwilling to provide a debate in their time which would give critics of Government policy time to expand on our arguments and a chance to answer the challenges that have been made to us during questions on this statement.
If the Government on Thursday do not announce a debate on Bosnia next week, would you be prepared to accept an application under Standing Orders for an emergency debate, to allow the Government to explain their policies on Bosnia, and to give critics of Government policy time to advance our arguments?
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the hon. Member for Bradford, West has made an important point. People outside do not understand why this grave international crisis is not properly debated in this House. In the whole of the two and a half years or more since the Serbian aggression began in Croatia, we have had a handful of debates, and most of those were not exclusively on the Yugoslav situation.
Therefore, may I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider most sympathetically the point of order by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden): that, if a debate is not announced on Thursday, you might be minded to consider its importance next week?
Madam Speaker: I never divulge my thinking in advance. The matter is rather hypothetical, and the House will have to leave it to me. I have clearly heard what hon. Members on both sides have had to say about the matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) AMENDMENT (No. 2)
  Mr. Michael Clapham, supported by Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Tony Patchett, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, presented a Bill to amend the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations to reduce to 10 years the aggregate period of underground work required to qualify for benefits in cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; to amend the regulations relating to medical examinations for these diseases; to amend provisions relating to the percentage levels of disablement required to qualify for benefits in respect of these diseases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 April, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
Orders of the Day

  Trade Marks Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill represents an important measure for industry and commerce in the United Kingdom. Though long and, in many areas, complex, the Bill will make it easier for industry and commerce to register their trade marks and will provide owners of registered trade marks with wider infringement rights.
  The Bill will harmonise our law with the laws of other members of the European Union. That is important, because business wants to have the same registration criteria and protection for its trade marks as are offered in other member states. It also implements our obligations in respect of trade marks arising from the final act of the GATT Uruguay round which was signed last week.
  The Bill is also deregulatory, because it sweeps away the need for businesses to present the Patent Office with legal documentation for relatively straightforward changes to trade marks registration.
  The importance of trade marks in day-to-day commercial activity is easily recognised. I doubt whether any of us could go through the day without using someone's trade mark, but trade marks are seldom recognised by most people as valuable assets. That is, of course, exactly what they are. Some have been valued in company balance sheets at several hundred millions of pounds, and the transfer of ownership of registered trade marks internationally each year is valued at billions of pounds.
  There are some 350,000 trade marks on the UK register. Each year, there are approximately 35,000 new applications for registration. Therefore, it is important that the statutory framework that surrounds this important area of commercial activity should reflect the needs of businesses. The Government believe that the Bill does that.
  The Bill completely replaces the current Trade Marks Act 1938. At present, the law does nothing to support the international marketing strategies of our large exporting companies; nor does it reflect the needs of small and medium-sized companies for an easy registration system.
  When we started to discuss the draft European directive on trade marks with representatives of industry and commerce, it became obvious that there was a need to reform the whole of our law on trade marks. Therefore, the Government set out in the White Paper "Reform of Trade Mark Law" proposals for legislation. The White Paper was published over three years ago and received a very favourable response from business.
  Since that time, extensive consultation has continued with organisations representing industry, commerce, the legal and trade mark professions and consumers, usually through the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property. Of course, that does not mean that the particular wishes of every sector have been met, but the result is a Bill which commands the full support of industry and companies large and small. The Government believe that it

  659
  reflects industry's needs for a law that maximises the protection given to owners of registered trade marks, yet reduces to a minimum the amount of regulation. It means that the direct costs to industry and commerce will be reduced and, therefore, their ability to increase investment in product development and marketing will be enhanced.
  Part I of the Bill implements the directive and, in doing so, establishes a new code for the registration of trade marks. Clauses 1 and 3, in essence, provide for a mark to qualify for registration if it is capable of distinguishing one trader's goods or services from those of another. This means that it should be possible to register as a trade mark, for example, a container or a geographic name, where those have proved to be distinctive in the marketplace. Those are unregistrable under the current law, which defines a trade mark in a narrow and restrictive way.
  Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend will have read in the press that some manufacturers seek to use the Bill as a means of restricting or phasing out own-label products. Does he agree that own-label products in the grocery trade—about which the Minister for Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is also present on the Front Bench, will be happy to inform my hon. Friend—offer the consumer greater choice and more competitive prices, and that it would be wrong to use the Bill to phase them out?
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend anticipates a matter that I may mention later.
  Clauses 9 to 13 specify the rights given under registration. The infringement rights are widened. Under the 1938 Act, the owner of a registered mark can sue someone for infringement only if that person uses the same mark on the same goods or services as those for which the mark is registered. The Bill extends infringement rights to cover similar goods or services. That means that if the owner of a registered mark observes that his mark is being used by someone else on goods or services that are the same as, or similar to, those covered by the registration, he will be able to sue that other person for infringement and seek damages.
  The directive is the result of negotiations in which the UK participated fully. United Kingdom industry and commerce were, through interest groups, fully consulted. Harmonisation occurs only in those areas where differences in the substantive law of member states could distort competition. The directive does not affect procedures connected with the registration of a trade mark. For example, it requires member states to protect the rights of earlier registered marks, but does not tell them how that should be done.
  We decided, after consulting users of the trade mark system, that in the United Kingdom the registrar of trade marks will continue to carry out a search of marks already registered and to refuse an application for registration where that conflicts with an earlier registered trade mark. Clause 5 reflects that. Small companies, in particular, will benefit.
  As I said, the Bill deregulates in a number of ways. In particular, the procedures for the registration of assignments and licences of trade marks, which are also dealt with in part I, will be much simplified. The current law requires the registrar to fulfil a kind of consumer
  660
  protection role. That is an old-fashioned notion. Other bodies and modern legislation can do that job far more effectively. Customers are far more sophisticated than they were in 1938, when the current trade mark law was enacted. More important, it is not in the interests of the trade mark owner to do anything that would cause confusion in the market—and registration could be revoked if, through the actions of the proprietor, the trade mark becomes misleading.
  It will not be the registrar's job to police the assignment or licensing of trade marks. The present requirement for the registrar to examine in detail the deeds of assignment and the licence agreements will be discontinued. That will reduce the burden on owners of marks as well as the running costs of the trade mark registry.
  Industry tells us that will save it more than £30 million a year. In addition, the resources saved in the Patent Office will be applied to the more positive objective of meeting customer service targets.
  Current trade mark law does nothing to support the international marketing strategies of companies in the United Kingdom. Part II remedies that. It makes provisions for the United Kingdom to ratify the Madrid protocol concerning the international registration of trade marks. That will make it much easier for UK industry to protect its marks overseas.
  An international trade mark registration system known as the Madrid agreement has been in operation for more than 100 years and has a membership of more than 30 countries. That membership has, however, been fairly static. It has not appealed to countries that, like the UK, examine trade marks before registering them. They include the United States of America, Canada, Japan and the Scandinavian countries.
  For that reason, a protocol to the Madrid agreement was agreed in 1989, which overcomes all the disadvantages of the old agreement. The UK took a leading role in the negotiations on the protocol and we signed it. Ratification, however, needs the Bill, which provides for the making of regulations to bring the protocol into force here.
  Once the protocol comes into force, a simple arrangement will enable UK companies to obtain an international registration, covering any or all of the countries party to the protocol. The registration will have the same rights and legal effect in those countries as a national application.
  That will be of considerable financial benefit to UK trade mark owners. At present, a UK trade mark owner who wants to protect his mark overseas must apply separately for registration in each of the countries concerned. That involves observing whatever procedures each country requires and paying fees in local currency. Some countries insist on the use of a lawyer. All that, as can be imagined, involves a great deal of trouble and expense. Industry told us that the new international registration arrangement should save it up to a further £30 million per year—a considerable benefit.
  A further option for companies wishing to protect their trade marks overseas will be the Community trade mark, which will come into being as a result of an EC Council regulation that was adopted last year. The Community trade mark office will open for business in about 1996, in Alicante. The test for obtaining a Community trade mark will, of course, be the same as that applying in all member states. But, through a single application, a proprietor will be able to secure a unitary right that is effective in all

  661
  member states. Therefore, in the European Union, industry has a further choice when managing its international trade mark portfolios.
  Parts III and IV of the Bill deal with administration and general provisions. I should like to single out the provision dealing with trade marks counterfeiting. That is a growing problem throughout the world and the United Kingdom is not immune to it. The offence trades on the reputation of famous and established trade marks. Unscrupulous traders copy goods sold under well-known trade marks. That devalues the reputation of the trade mark, because the counterfeit goods are frequently of inferior quality and might even be dangerous. Moreover, it also harms traders in the genuine goods, who, consequently, lose business. The Bill, therefore, will strengthen the protection against trade mark counterfeiting.
  It is an essential ingredient of the offence under the current trade mark law that a trader intends that a consumer should believe that the goods were genuine. There has, however, been a dramatic growth in the practice of selling counterfeit goods clearly advertised as "brand copies".
  Until recently, it was believed that that was, none the less, an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. However, the divisional court held in a recent case—Kent county council v. Price—that this was not so, observing that the Trade Descriptions Act existed to protect consumers and, as the defendant was advertising the goods as fake, they were not deceived. There was, therefore, no offence.
  However, as the Bill is concerned with the protection of trade marks, clause 87 defines the offence in terms of unauthorised use of the mark. That protects the legitimate rights of trade mark owners. Even if an unscrupulous trader sells the goods as "genuine fakes", it will still be an offence, because he will be deliberately exploiting someone's mark without their permission.
  Some concerns were expressed, both in another place and elsewhere, that the anti-counterfeiting provisions in the Bill went too far and could have made the person who inadvertently infringes someone else's trade mark liable to criminal charges. They felt that such infringements should be left to the civil courts. The Government believe that the changes that have been made in another place remove that danger and better focus the criminal sanctions on deliberate counterfeiting.
  It will not have escaped notice of hon. Members that one of the issues surrounding the Bill has been given wide coverage in the press and on television—the issued termed "lookalikes", which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) raised earlier. The issue, however, is a new one. It was not raised until the end of last year, despite the fact that the Government consulted exhaustively on the White Paper and the Bill for some five years.
  Last December, a number of large firms banded together to form the British Brand Owners and Producers Group, with the aim of pressing for the inclusion of a clause in the Bill to curb what have become known as "lookalike products". These are own-branded products allegedly designed to look like the brand leader's goods. It is claimed, for example, that supermarkets sell their instant coffee in jars with labels designed to look like other, well-known brands. Industry is divided and although the brand owners are pressing their case vigorously, many others feel that existing remedies, such as passing-off, are
  662
  adequate, or that it is not a matter for the Bill. Furthermore, many organisations have emphasised that distinctive shapes and packaging will be registrable under the Bill.
  During consideration in another place, an amendment was tabled that would have made it an infringement of a trade mark to market goods designed to look like those of the trade mark owner, even though the actual trade mark was not used. The Government resisted that; it was, in any case, incompatible with the EC trade marks directive.
  Those advocating action then changed the amendment to introduce a new cause of action for unfair competition. The Government, therefore, decided to consult via the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property. The committee was a channel through which the discussions on the White Paper and the Bill were carried out, and it is appropriate that it should be involved here.
  The advisory committee met on 30 March and discussed the issue. Many other organisations with an interest in the "lookalikes" issue, including the British Brand Owners and Producers Group, were present. Each organisation put its case, and made written submissions. The Government have not yet taken a view. We are continuing with the consultation process, but at this stage we do not believe that it is an issue that can be addressed under trade marks legislation.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I must tell my hon. Friend that there will be considerable relief that he does not believe that the action of the British Brand Owners and Producers Group in its amendment in the other place forms a proper part of the Bill. He will know, no doubt, that National Opinion Polls carried out a survey on whether people can be confused by so-called "lookalikes", and found that 78 per cent. of consumers, who, as my hon. Friend said, are very sophisticated, are never confused. MORI carried out an even more recent survey and came to exactly the same figure. I hope that he will regard this as a competition matter and not at all a matter for the Bill.
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has adequately voiced the concerns of other people as well as the Brand Owners and Producers Group, which has voiced other concerns. This is something that, obviously, will be addressed throughout our consultation process. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her view.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I am tempted to say that any politician will tell my hon. Friend that opinion polls are invariably wrong, but I will not go down that line.
  My hon. Friend said that this was a relatively new subject in that the representations had come fairly late. I stress that they did so because the problem is growing, and growing daily. As I heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) say, one has only to look at the Coca-Cola issue in Sainsbury today.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his cautionary word about opinion polls. I wholly agree with him. I never agree with them unless they say what I want them to say. That is possibly the line that we

  663
  politicians always take. I am, therefore, very cautious about opinion polls. But he rightly points out the way in which this issue has, perhaps, come more to the fore. It did so rather late. The Bill had been widely debated for a long time. That was the point that I was stressing. We must address ourselves very carefully to whether this would be a right issue for the Bill. That was the point and concern that I was reflecting to the House a while ago.
  The Bill, though long and complex, meets the Government's objectives in relation to UK industry. It simplifies and deregulates the national trade mark registration system and, therefore, saves time and money. Reduced costs will assist UK industry to compete in international markets. The provisions in the Bill for the Community trade mark and the Madrid protocol will help also. But, perhaps more important, the Bill represents what users of the trade mark system want. I hope that the Bill will command the support of both sides of the House and that we will give it a fair wind. The sooner that it is on the statute book, the sooner will the benefits start to accrue. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill: we understand the importance of trade marks to both British business and national and international trade. Unlike the Bill, however, the debate is concerned with the Government's delays and dithering over the presentation of legislation.
  As we all know, trade marks are among a company's most valuable assets. Household names such as Persil and Pedigree Chum are all protected by trade mark legislation. Trade marks are a token of the esteem in which the public hold consumer products, and of a company's investment in achieving quality in a product.
  The problem is the time that it has taken for the Bill to be presented. On the Government's own admission—the Minister has just said as much—the measure is likely to save British business £30 million. Why have the Government dithered for four years, while a White Paper published in 1990 has gathered dust on the Minister's shelf? He has had to blow the cobwebs off it.
  The Minister must also explain why, during those years of dithering, businesses spent an unnecessary £90 million that would have been better spent on jobs in the businesses concerned and on taking up opportunities that they lost because of the delay. Those costs—and £90 million is the Government's figure, not mine—have all been passed on to the consumer. Businesses have begged the Government for action, but little has been done.
  In October 1991, a letter to The Times stated:
  "Industry will continue to be deprived for at least two years and probably more of the proper means for the protection of its trade marks."
  The delay has cost business dear. Despite that plea, however, nothing was done.
  In June 1992, even Conservative Members were concerned about the Government's dithering. In reply to a parliamentary question, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) reminded the House that there had been many representations on the matter from business—from the
  664
  Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, Sir John Banham, to the president of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, Richard Abnett.
  The Minister said that there was no time: that the Government's priorities did not allow them to legislate, although business was losing £30 million a year because of the delay. Yet in that very year, although they could spare no time for an important Bill for businesses, the Government found time for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and 51 other measures that were deemed to have a higher priority than the reform of trade mark law. There was no movement for yet another full year—until the end of 1993, when a Bill was at last produced and debated in the House of Lords.
  That, however, was only part of the culmination of a number of lengthy delays. More than 20 years ago, Sir Reginald Mathys reported on British trade mark law and practice, and made a number of recommendations to amend the law. None of those recommendations have been implemented in the intervening 20 years, save one—the requirement to register trade marks.
  The White Paper published in 1990 followed extensive consultation on the Mathys plan. During the White Paper's consultation period, businesses were asked to make representations by the end of 1990; no action was taken for three years, however. Apparently, the Government had other priorities. Certainly, the President of the Board of Trade has had other priorities recently—for instance, ceasing to be President of the Board of Trade as quickly as possible.
  We have four key concerns: the issue of "lookalike" products, the problem of brand copies and disclaimers, the return of seized copied goods to the copier and the future and role of the Patent Office. Recently, there has been much belated lobbying on the issue of lookalike products. On one side, some manufacturers and copyright holders fear that the public might make a mistake in their local grocer's shop or supermarket—that, for instance, they might mistake Coca-Cola for Sainsbury's cola. On the other side, are the British Retail Consortium, the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council, all of which believe that public choice would be restricted if—in the Bill or in future—the Government introduced provisions to protect packaging in itself, as a concept, and to prevent non-branded goods from being marketed in packaging that might resemble that of branded copies.
  In fact, non-branded goods are often merely using packaging that the public have come to accept as symbolising a certain type of product, rather than the particular product being offered by the branded producer. We all find it useful, for instance, to see yellow bottles of washing-up liquid when we are shopping: the colour tells us that the fragrance is lemon. Similarly, the red tops of some coffee jars tell us that the coffee is decaffeinated. Those who lobby for the banning of non-branded similarities would condemn consumers to a lack of choice and much higher prices. The Consumers Association estimates that non-branded goods are between 20 and 25 per cent. cheaper than branded goods.
  If the House accepts the arguments for an amendment now or later, it will pander to some of the companies with near-monopolistic market shares. Procter and Gamble and Unilever have 87 per cent. of the market share in detergents; Kelloggs has 57 per cent. of the share in cornflakes. Last year, Kelloggs was involved in a

  665
  disgraceful attempt to stop its cornflakes being sold at a discount by Shoprite and the Great Northern Co-op chains because it wanted to set the price; no doubt it colluded with other outlets that were not prepared to cut the price of Kelloggs cornflakes. Nestle has more than half the market share in instant coffee, and Pedigree—which I praised earlier—has built up nearly 60 per cent. of a sector of the dog food market.
  Mr. Douglas French: Would it make any difference to the hon. Gentleman's views if the branded product and the alleged lookalike were manufactured by the same source?
  Mr. Griffiths: I do not think so. The packaging of some products that I buy looks remarkably like some branded packaging, and the contents also look very similar. I was taking it for granted that I could buy the original product at a discount. Let us say, however, that I was wrong, and that I was buying an inferior product. In this sector of the market, where products often cost pennies rather than pounds, the scope for a consumer to make an irretrievable mistake or to be deceived is much more limited, and the scope for damage to the consumer is narrower as well. Provided the consumer is not being deliberately deceived into thinking that he is buying branded goods and the manufacturer is not being cheated out of moneys, I can see no harm in it.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman gave figures showing that Kelloggs remains the brand leader. It remains so not because of the protection of the Bill but because it has marketed a product that people want to buy. Is not that far and away the best practice, because people are capable of making a rational choice? The hon. Gentleman is right in his line of argument: the suggestion that branding requires the additional protection of law is contrary to the consumer's interest.
  Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member makes a forceful point.
  The second matter that I wish to deal with is disclaimers, which were mentioned by the Minister. I am sorry to say that his interpretation seems to differ from that of the industry or of trading standards officers and otherenforcement officers. I hope to have a chance to question him further on that in Committee.
  One of the problems is that people running car boot sales at the disreputable end of the market, as against the majority of highly reputable market stalls, are getting away with selling illegal fakes and copies by putting up a sign declaring that goods are copies. It is no comfort for businesses that have invested in the development of a product and have tried to ensure its quality to find that it is a defence in law for someone who has illegally manufactured similar goods at far lower cost and of a far lower quality to say that they are copies.
  Kent county council trading standards officers have drawn my attention to problems that have arisen 'when counterfeit items have been seized. I received a letter dated 2 September 1993 from the British Phonographic Institute on the problems of securing convictions. It believes that
  "the stance adopted by the CPS will enable criminals to trade in illegal goods with impunity especially in the wake of a recent decision of the Divisional Court",
  which the Minister cited,
  "in 'Kent County Council' v. Price which has permitted the use of disclaimers on counterfeit goods as a defence to charges under
  666
  Section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968."
  That Act is the key measure that trading standards officers use to combat counterfeiters. The BPI continues:
  "As a result of the Court's decision, Kent Trading Standards Officers are no longer taking action if disclaimers are used in conjunction with the sale of counterfeit goods."
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am aware of the BPI's point, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill deals not with counterfeiting but only with trade marks. In opening, I specifically referred to counterfeiting of trade marks.
  Mr. Griffiths: The Minister has now made it clear what he is saying, but that reinforces my fear that laws on other areas of counterfeiting do not have the support of enforcement officers. The Crown Prosecution Service has been singled out for criticism for not taking a sufficiently vigorous approach to the prosecution of criminals who trade in illegal goods.
  The Minister mentioned the importance of the clauses that address the problem, but potential loopholes have been drawn to our attention. Clause 87 proposes the insertion of the words
  "with a view to gain",
  which may cause problems because they imply an element of guilty knowledge. Trading standards officers, who are in the front line of enforcement, tell me that they can foresee an offender evading liability by claiming that he or she was not selling for profit. Clause 87 (3) contains the phrase,
  "knowing or having reason to believe".
  Again, difficulties may arise in proving guilty intention.
  Trading standards officers show a distinct lack of confidence when they ask why the word "infringement" is used in the defence subsection—subsection (5)—and not in the offence subsection. They ask whether a defendant will be able to claim that he was not aware that the use of a sign infringed a trade mark. They point out that prosecuting counsel may have problems securing convictions.
  Like trading standards officers, we believe that the Bill is a clear improvement, but it should contain a strict liability element. Our fears are echoed by market traders closer to home. Jubilee Market Hall in Covent Garden is concerned about the Crown Prosecution Service's failure to act in several cases where illegal traders are offering counterfeit goods and have been arrested for doing so.
  We seek a guarantee that, under the Bill, at least at
  some, if not all, of those practices will be eliminated so that a prosecution can be brought without any difficulty and, if proven, a conviction secured.
  Concern has been expressed about the inadequacy of provisions for returning goods that have been seized where, for some reason, a conviction has not been secured. Kent county council drew our attention to a recent case in which a consignment of counterfeit clothing and Reebok and Adidas sportswear was imported into the United Kingdom. The consignment was seized and detained by Customs, but, because there were no apparent perpetrators in the United Kingdom, it was difficult to institute proceedings. Customs rightly ask what it is supposed to do with 5.5 tonnes of counterfeit clothing. There is no quick way of ensuring that it can be disposed of legally or that it does not go back on the market.
  There are, of course, more serious cases in which the people responsible for the illegal manufacturing plants in this country that make fake goods are detained and charged, but, for technical reasons, are not convicted. In such cases, there is no way in which the legitimate

  667
  manufacturer who holds the trade mark can have the counterfeit goods properly impounded and destroyed instead of being returned to the person responsible for manufacturing but against whom no prosecution is likely or whose conviction has not been secured. British business has pleaded for the trade mark provisions to be put on a par with those in section 100 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
  My fourth concern relates to the role and future of the Patent Office. For 119 years, we have been fortunate in having a public body, paid for by business and the taxpayer, to monitor the registration of patents. It is probably one of the reasons why British manufacturers secured a world lead in protecting their investments. The sad fact is that, had the Government acted quickly to implement the White Paper published in 1990, we should have been in pole position to have the European service based here. Due to their dithering and failure, the new trade mark is to be administered by a Community trade mark office located in Alicante, Spain, instead of in its rightful place. Because of the length of time that we have had a Patent Office and patent protection, that rightful place was in this country, in south Wales or elsewhere.
  As we have lost the opportunity to have the European trade mark organisation and office in this country, just as we have lost so many other opportunities in Europe because of our dithering stance, we want an undertaking from the Minister that he will not weaken the service provided by the Patent Office either by embarking on an unwanted and costly privatisation exercise, in which neither the consumer nor business would have much faith, or by hiving it off in any other way. It is important that an office with such a responsible function, and which deals with thousands of millions of pounds' worth of business covered by patents, remains firmly in the public sector and remains open in Britain and does not move to Alicante or anywhere else.
  As I said, my main regret about the Bill is that there has been so much delay and dithering. The opportunities and the £90 million which the Minister said that business had lost because of the delay in implementing the Bill are history. The Bill's best provisions should be introduced as quickly as possible so that businesses and their employees and consumers can benefit without further unnecessary delay.
  5.13 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: I broadly support the Bill and its objectives, which have been admirably outlined by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology. The Bill will achieve the necessary updating, which is overdue. I do not agree with the criticisms expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), but I do agree that there has been a delay, although it is sometimes wise to proceed carefully to get things right and experts believe that the Bill represents an advance and is right in many respects.
  I must declare an interest in that I have been involved in the industry for more than 30 years, although not as a trade mark expert. I have been connected with trade marks that affect a business's progress. I am also connected with a number of companies that manufacture consumer goods
  668
  and, in view of my earlier intervention, it will not come as a great surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister if I concentrate primarily on that issue.
  The need to include in the Bill powers to deal with the problem of look-alike products has already been explained to the House. My hon. Friend may say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for that, that representations have come too late or that other considerations need to be taken into account, but look-alike products are a serious and growing problem. Lookalikes is the generic term used in the industry. Such products have packaging and labelling deliberately designed to resemble the overall appearance of existing brand leaders.
  The House will be aware that counterfeit goods are passed off as originals. That is rightly regarded as a criminal activity because it harasses legitimate manufacturers. However, producing look-alike goods is not a criminal activity although it is undesirable and, in my view, as morally reprehensible as passing off goods as something that they are not. It is subtle and deceptive.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South implied that the manufacturers of brand leaders want to run own-label goods off the supermarket shelves, but that is not the case. I must emphasise that I am not against own-label or own-brand products, whatever one wishes to call them. What the supermarkets and big retailers are doing is a perfectly legitimate sales operation, which has grown enormously in the past 25 years; it has added to competition and helped to increase sales and the prosperity of this country. However, I decry their deliberate imitation of brand-leader goods, which is wholly wrong. I shall not mince my words: it is cheating, and it is not legitimate competition, which is so necessary in our society. I am all in favour of proper competition, but it must be fair and should not involve the deliberate copying of someone else's products.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) is closely involved with the British Retail Consortium, the retailers' trade organisation. Via that organisation, retailers are making much of the fact that their own-label approach is in the consumer's interest and helps to reduce prices, but they have no logical excuse for blatantly copying other people's products in order to mislead or confuse the consumer into believing that it is the same product or from the same source. They ruthlessly and unscrupulously imitate goods with household names, and it is sometimes very difficult to tell at a glance which is the house brand and which the brand leader. There will be serious long-term consequences unless unfair competition legislation is introduced in due course.
  Branded goods have been developed after considerable investment and with much expertise and research. Someone who gains from that investment by selling a look-alike product gains an unfair advantage. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South mentioned the share of the market gained by certain dog foods, by cornflakes and other products. It is extraordinarily important to remember that companies have developed their share of the market through their skill and by producing an excellent product. The fact that they have been able to obtain a large share should not be to their detriment. I am all against total monopoly; there is plenty of room available for others who want to come in to segment the market. However, I do not believe that it should be done in this way.
  If the branded goods manufacturers are gradually run out of town—there were recent suggestions that at least

  669
  one big manufacturer was considering dropping one in five of its brand names because of falling markets—there will be a serious effect on employment, not only in manufacturing industry, but on allied industries.
  Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend accept that in many cases, the branded goods manufacturer agrees to be the producer of the own-label or other look-alike product? What does my hon. Friend say to that?
  Sir Dudley Smith: That is sometimes true. Speaking personally, it is not a process that I like or with which I agree. The vast majority of branded products are produced by a company that does not also produce a duplicate range for the supermarkets.
  I was talking about the erosion of branded goods and the difficulties that it will present for employment and for our industrial effort; I think especially of television and newspapers. Consumer goods advertising is one of the bulwarks of the television industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), whom I see here today, probably knows more about advertising than any other hon. Member. He knows that advertising involves the jobs of hundreds of people. If we constantly erode the advertising base, we shall suffer the
  consequences.
  Perhaps even more important than the loss of jobs in various activities is the fact that branded goods sales in Europe and the rest of the world will be undermined. Who can carry on exporting if his home market is fatally undermined by lack of action by the Government:? We shall penalise ourselves, yet again, in terms of exports.
  The consumer is called in aid by the retailers, and has already been referred to in this debate; I have no doubt that we shall hear of the consumer again. Will he be so pleased when, in years to come, he can buy any cornflakes, any soap powder or any toothpaste he likes as long as it is a Sainsbury's or a Tesco product? That will be a possibility as a result of the road down which we are going. Will he be happy when the supermarket chains, having cornered the market in branded goods, proceed to increase their prices? That is the logical end. We may get cheaper prices at first, but when a monopoly begins to be established as the branded goods drop off, extra charges will begin to be put on.
  We used to pour scorn on the fact that in communist countries, only the state version of anything was available. I hope that in the years ahead, we shall not have to fight a rearguard action to save our own competitive practices. Supermarkets are rightly appreciated by the public because of their convenience, service and simplicity; we all use them. They have an important place in today's society, but surely they cannot be allowed to undermine and to finish off the branded goods industry as they have the small trader through the determination and advocacy that led to the Sunday Trading Bill.
  I believe sincerely that the present Bill gives us an opportunity to do something about unfair competition. It is the first vehicle before the House for a long time which would allow a clause to prohibit the practice about which I have spoken and which would allow fairness for a significant part of British industry. The EC directive, which the Bill necessarily follows, gives that opportunity. I am subject to correction, but I do not believe that the practice to which I have referred is allowed in other European countries. I can see the day coming when we
  670
  shall have a European directive on this issue. We shall then have to comply with it, although we appear to be a little hesitant at present.
  I realise from what my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he has no intention of accepting an amendment on this matter in Committee, so I suppose that it would be fruitless to table such an amendment. However, I warn him in the most friendly way that we shall inevitably have to come back to this issue. It is of great importance to many people —not only to the consumer, but to British industry. Those people are entitled to be heard and to have the foremost consideration in the matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a reasonable man, so I very much hope that he will take on board what I have said and what, I hope, other hon. Members will say as well. I hope that in due course, we shall see some light from the Government on the issue.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I quote:
  "Nid da He gellir gwell."
  The motto of the Bettws comprehensive school in my constituency is appropriate to the debate for two reasons: first, this is a good Bill, and the motto means that there is no good that cannot be improved on; secondly, the young people at that school are looking to the Bill, although they may not know about it now, because it may have a profound effect on their futures. Almost the largest employer in my constituency, which is certainly the provider of the best-paid and highest-skilled jobs in my constituency, is the Patent Office. We look to the future of the Patent Office with some confidence based on its success in relocating in Newport, but also with some trepidation because of the many threats to it.
  We shall want to make improvements to the Bill in Committee. I found the convoluted argument of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) rather strange. He seemed to say that the Bill was likely to take the'bread out of the mouths of billionaires. We see on the Conservative Benches two groups of vested interests: those who run the supermarkets and those who produce the main branded products. The two groups are in dispute; both are very prosperous. It is an artificial dispute because, in many cases, although the branded product has a different label, it is chemically identical to the product in the other
  package. As the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) made clear, the reason is that many who manufacture branded goods also produce those goods for supermarkets where they are sold under own-name labels. The consumer has the choice between having branded names on her or his shelves for snob value or not paying the advertising costs and buying the unbranded goods—the supermarket's own brand. That is the real battle that is going on; in terms of the Bill, it is very much a side issue.
  The Bill has been long awaited and will do a great deal of good. It comes after the almost complete relocation of the Patent Office from London to my constituency, which was the subject of an Adjournment debate in 1988. There has been a splendid report on that relocation by the National Audit Office. The report praises the relocation as a success which has worked in all aspects, especially the trade marks aspect.
  The alteration or registration of trade marks almost always requires a face-to-face interview between the people who want to register the trade mark and the Patent Office. Many of the interviews are carried out in London, but some are carried out via video links and some are

  671
  carried out in Newport. I can foresee difficulties when the move is made to Alicante. Although that move may be inevitable, we must continue to ensure that the maximum number of registrations are carried out in this country and that we keep the national interest.
  A matter about which I am greatly concerned may be dealt with under clause 5; I seek the Minister's guidance. I refer to the use to which trade marks are being put. There is one trade mark in particular, which has been used abroad and, to a small extent, in this country, on which I think we should legislate because it is used by companies in a way that is surreptitious and deceptive. We were all astonished when, about 30 years ago, one company, Guinness, advertised without using the name of its product. Now many products are advertised in a totally mysterious way, with advertisements which to many of us seem meaningless. Unfortunately, many of those advertisements are produced by cigarette companies, which have perfected the art of the advertisement that mentions neither the product nor the name of the company. There is a grave danger in that art, which we must address because there is a Bill going through the House at present that would ban the advertising of cigarettes. We know that there is a trade mark registered for cannabis cigarettes called Marleys, which may well have come about as a crime-reducing measure.
  In other countries, cigarette advertising is banned. In Hungary, there is no advertising of cigarettes, but there has been an enormous growth in the consumption of cigarettes. Two brands in particular—Marlboro and Camel—are involved. The company that owns Marlboro has persuaded all the clubs and many of the pubs in the area to become Marlboro clubs. The signs above the clubs say "Marlboro Magyar Club"; they are in red and white and mimic the well-known Marlboro advertisements. Camel cigarettes are banned, but on almost every bus in Budapest there is a sign showing the familiar camel advertising not Camel cigarettes but Camel shoes; I do not know whether such shoes exist.
  In Britain, Dunhill produces a whole range of goods which are advertised. It sells a cigarette lighter that looks similar to the design of the Dunhill cigarette packet. Also in this country we have recently seen subtle advertisements by a tobacco company which I shall not name, which uses blue and white and a certain kind of lettering. That company advertised at a sporting event in my constituency without mentioning the name of the company or the product; however, it was clear from the sign what it was advertising.
  It is sad to note that those advertisements were criticised because it was claimed that, because of the moronic jokes that they included, they appealed especially to children and young people. Unfortunately, the danger is that the work of the House and its possible future decision to ban or to restrict the advertising of certain products, which may well happen with cannabis cigarettes, could be frustrated if we allow the trade marks for products to be used to advertise different products.
  There would be no difficulty in avoiding that under clause 5, which lists a number of reasons why a trade mark should not be registered. It specifies, for example, that a product shall not be registered for goods or services similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected. I
  672
  should like some guidance, either later in the debate or in Committee, on whether that would apply to a cigarette company that decided to produce Silk Cut tee-shirts, trainers, computer games or anything else that might appeal to young people, thus advertising its product in a devious way and abusing its trade mark. I have no argument with companies such as that which owns Mars, which has used its product to advertise similar confectionery. There are frozen Mars bars, Mars drinks and so on and that seems perfectly legitimate. However, either we need a new clause or we need to expand clause 5 to ensure that that cannot happen in future, because I am afraid that the clever and subtle advertising that occurs could well mean that, against the wishes of the majority of hon. Members and the people of the country, advertisers get round the new laws.
  The future of the Patent Office is of considerable importance and is certainly a matter of great concern in my constituency. While I do not wish to press the Minister on that matter with too much urgency, because we want the right decision rather than an early decision, may I gently remind him that in October he told me and a number of representatives of the Patent Office that a decision would be made by Christmas? There have been claims that a decision has, indeed, been made. It was claimed in The Daily Telegraph that the Price Waterhouse report suggested that what has been planned—possible privatisation, contractorisation, management buy-outs—was not practical because it would require primary legislation. I know that the Minister appreciates the anxiety felt by many people who work at the Patent Office and realises that they have been in a state of uncertainty for a long time. Although I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman to make a bad decision rapidly, I hope that he will give the matter serious consideration.
  One point that I commend to the Minister, if he is considering the future of the Patent Office, is contained in a letter to the President of the Board of Trade from the Minister of State dated 14 February. The Minister of State, Welsh Office referred to a meeting attended by representatives of a number of unions and myself at which he said that the points about the future of the Patent Office and other agencies of the Department of Trade and Industry were strongly made. He went on to say:
  "It was suggested, for example, that the existing agency status could be developed further, to enable them"
  —the agencies—
  "to bid for a wider range of work."
  That point may be developed in clauses 78 and 79, because they concern the register of trade mark agents. I hope that the Minister and his Department will seriously consider adding the comptroller general of the Patent Office to that register. If the chief executive of the Patent Office became a patent agent and a trade mark agent, it would be a useful way for the agency to improve and enlarge its role and make its role far more profitable.
  There are resources available in the Patent Office which may be used profitably so that it becomes competitive in the uncertain years ahead. However, that means a change in the status of the office. The Patent Office has existed for a long period. The Government must not be hide-bound on the issue. There was a certain resistance to "next steps" agency status at first, but it has been a success in managerial terms and in the running of those bodies. They were great monoliths before and could not be run effectively by Ministers in Whitehall. There have been

  673
  obvious gains in management efficiency in the process and there are now about 75 such agencies. It would be a bad move if "next steps" agency status led to the further steps of contractorisation, a management buy-out or privatisation. In the case of the Patent Office, that would be especially disastrous.
  At last, the Government are saying that certain bodies are unable to be privatised. It was a great pleasure to see that the Department of Transport recently decided that the Vehicle Inspectorate was one such body. There must be a similar case to be made in respect of the Patent Office. There is not a patent office in the world in commercial hands. The office cannot conceivably be placed in a position where it would be subject to commercial influential and control. Its independence is paramount; it must exist in that way. It has become a great national resource. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) paid tribute to it and we may take some pride in our role over the years as a world leader in the registration of patents and trade marks. The White Paper has already been mimicked in several countries—even before the introduction of the legislation—and the processes that take place in Britain lead the world. We cannot conceivably go down the at of contractorisation, privatisation or management buy-out.
  Our intellectual property is a great national resource. It is difficult to think of the design on a can of baked beans as intellectual property, but it is of enormous value. It is a priceless resource. We have excelled at the fascinating business of registering patents and trade marks and vie can continue to do so. I appeal to the Government, and to the House generally, to invest in the Patent Office, expand its work and enlarge the area in which it works. The message is clear from the users of the Patent Office—those who register trade marks—from the industry generally and from the staff of the office at virtually every level: do not change the status of the Patent Office; we must remember that the Patent Office at Newport is a world brand leader; beware of cheap imitations.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Iain Mills: I am glad that there seems to be cross-party support for the Bill. It is a most significant and important measure. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) felt that we had been laggard in introducing it. I have some sympathy with that view—I should have liked to see it earlier—but having introduced it in the teeth of a fairly hectic parliamentary programme in the second year of the Government's office ain't half bad. The ensuing advantages to industry have been made clear in answers to my questions and in debate. All those who have spoken so far have referred to those important advantages.
  A sad feature in one sense—if I am fortunate enough to be called to serve as a member of the Committee that will consider the Bill, I am sure that we shall go more fully into these matters—is that the office that will administer the Community trade mark, which is one of the main planks of the Bill, will be located at Alicante. I know that some hon. Members will say that it is an area of low employment. I am sure it is, but the United Kingdom has the necessary infrastructure.
  I chaired a committee that considered measures designed to promote the interests of London. Against that background, the only serious location for intellectual
  674
  property of the sort that we are discussing is London. I should have said that any interests I have in intellectual property are clearly defined and registered in the Register of Members' Interests, which has recently been republished. Anyone who wants to read about any of my involvements will find the relevant information in the Register, including my chairmanship of the committee that considered the Community trade mark.
  The Community trade mark office will be extremely important because it will to some extent, if it is not effective, become marginalised. Like the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), I have the greatest admiration for both the London and Welsh operations of the Patent Office, but we must remember that we are seeking the Community trade mark to lower costs for industry, especially for small and medium enterprises that are trying to build up their brands. It will be a disaster if we do not have a good and effective trade mark office to administer what we shall be enacting.
  I have written to the comptroller general of the Patent Office to suggest a meeting between myself and members of the committee I represent—they are eminent people who are involved in intellectual property—to discuss, if not a sub-office in London, a facility rather like that which we have at Newport, where there could be videos, faxes and other electronic communications with Spain. I have written to Mr. Jacques Delors, who is well known to us all. His reassurances on the facilities that will be provided at Alicante leave me with some doubts. Air services and the ability for people to register trade marks give rise to doubts in my mind. We must proceed with the Bill, however, and I look forward with enthusiasm to the Committee stage, if I am involved.
  There are aspects of the Patent Office's work that I should be happy to see privatised. I recognise, however, that the judicial and quasi-judicial features of Patent Office judgments would be difficult to put into private hands. Perhaps the privatisation of some aspects of registration and marketing could be considered. The Patent Office exercises a judicial function in making judgments when companies are in dispute over trade marks, and I would be concerned about privatisation in that context.
  I welcome the Bill, because it will update the Trade Marks Act 1938, which is something that those of us who are involved in trade marks and intellectual property have been seeking for years. The Bill represents the best news that we have had for a very long time. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Bill implements the protocol to the Madrid conference, which the United Kingdom negotiated. It is rather miserable if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, is downscaling the benefits to Britain that will flow from the Bill. I hope that he will not be too negative when the Bill is examined in Committee.
  I strongly support the Bill, but I have some questions for the Minister, which I shall put briefly. I have met him and warned him about most of my questions. The rights of representation for trade mark agents and trade mark courts are important. They reflect the Government's philosophy in introducing the Bill and trying to lower the costs of registering trade marks and patents for those in industry and business.
  I am informed that trade mark agents do not have the same rights as patent agents in terms of a trade mark court, which would be a court of first instance. There is a means of lowering quite considerably the cost of registering trade

  675
  marks. I am informed that, in France and the Benelux territories, such as Holland, the cost of registering is between £3,000 and £5,000, whereas in the United Kingdom, because of the way in which our system works, it could be between £20,000 and £50,000. Everything that hon. Members have said about the value of trade marks to our companies, large and small, makes it that much more expensive to obtain registration and protection.
  Many of those who are seeking registration are put off by the high cost of doing so. If there are international boundaries and difficulties in deciding where a case will be brought, the likelihood is that the companies concerned will seek to register their trade marks in France or in the Benelux countries.
  The Community trade mark will help, but it is necessary that we have rights similar to those in other countries in Europe. That means that trade mark agents will be able to plead, just as patent agents do. I understand that most parties to the institutions that are concerned are happy—except, I guess, solicitors, who have right of audience and may not wish to see that right extended to trade mark lawyers.
  Let us move to simplified court procedures, agreed facts, a statement of case, discovery only with the leave of the judge, and cross-examination on matters that we could discuss in Committee. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister and with the Lord Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his letter of 8 February, stated:
  "The proposal to introduce a county court jurisdiction for trademark cases is not one to which the Department would be opposed in principle, but it is something which we would wish to consider carefully before committing ourselves to it."
  My hon. Friend goes on to explain that it is not primarily a matter for the Bill, and I am happy to accept that. It is relevant, however, to the climate that the Bill will introduce, of lower costs for those who are wishing to involve themselves in the registration and protection of intellectual property.
  The term trade mark attorney was discussed during the consideration of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, as it then was, in Committee. It was discussed also in the other place on several occasions. I would hope to raise the matter if I am called upon to serve as a member of the Committee that will consider the Bill. I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will write to me if he feels that it is not appropriate to respond today—that at present a trade mark agent could call himself a trade mark attorney.
  There is no inhibition, but there may be some who are involved in intellectual property, such as solicitors, who feel that the same level of qualifications as solicitors should be required. As a result of the Government's efforts and the responsibilities of the institute that represents trade mark agents, which it has accepted gladly, qualifications for agents have been introduced over the past few years that leave them extremely well qualified.
  The structure of qualification is such that, should I wish to find another job and to qualify as a trade mark agent —I am already somewhat qualified in marketing—I would seek the leave of the House to spend time late at night not voting after debates, but studying carefully, as a solicitor would, to qualify to practise as a trade mark agent.
  676
  I want to raise a few brief matters with the Minister. The remedy for groundless threats is perhaps best left to Standing Committee. However, clause 19 provides a right of action against those who threaten retailers and other non-primary infringers—both manufacturers and importers—with infringement proceedings unless the trade mark proprietor can show that the acts complained of are an infringement. I hope that I will be able to raise the problem of groundless threats with my hon. Friend in Committee, as they are likely to disadvantage trade mark proprietors.
  I was involved with the work of the anti-counterfeiting group long before I became a Member of this place. When I worked in the motor industry, I looked after new products, branding and counterfeiting. The anti-counterfeiting group is, by and large, satisfied with the agreements made in the other place in respect of the counterfeiting measures.
  However, I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South that there are questions about the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service. Are we really happy about the problem of disclaimers, particularly with regard to the lower market car boot sales and the less responsible car boot sales, when we are keen to deregulate local authorities' powers in respect of trading standards officers? My constituency is in the centre of England, crossed by the M6 and the M42. We have an awful lot of car boot sales in my constituency, and I am concerned about the laundering of counterfeit products through those sales.
  The Minister referred to Kent county council v. Price. Are we satisfied with that judgment? Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, I am concerned about the apparent ease of return of counterfeit goods when no court action is taken against an infringement. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that that matter can be controlled, or that an amendment may be tabled to deal with that. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could reassure me on that point, either by letter or in Standing Committee.
  Without such a provision, if the owner of the goods is identifiable, the trade mark owner will still be put to the trouble and expense of taking civil action, or threatening it. It has been recognised that we do not want counterfeit goods. We estimate that counterfeit goods cost more than 100,000 jobs in this country as they are brought in to compete with our brands. I seek advice from the Minister on that point.
  I want now to consider lookalikes, and I assure the House that I will be brief, as other hon. Members have referred to them already. I have been involved in intellectual property in the House, and before I became a Member, for nearly 30 years. The late entry into the Bill in respect of lookalikes is controversial. I have some support for both sides, in that it is clearly competitive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) said, to have goods competing on the shelves.
  As hon. Members have said, people who are selling products to big retailers may be producing the same goods, in the same packaging, as their own brands. Having examined the information and spoken to most of the key players over the past few days—I hope to meet representatives of the Consumers Association and the retailers when they come to the House tomorrow—I find it difficult to be convinced that the public are totally fooled by the fact that a bottle may be the same shape and colour, when the trade mark is clearly quite different.

  677
  Sainsbury markets Head and Shoulders, and also its own brand called Headway. In terms of legal action, that is not counterfeiting. It may he considered to be passing off, but I very much doubt it. I strongly suggest to the British Brand Owners and Producers Group, the Consumers Association, the retailers and anyone else involved—I spoke to most of the main parties on Friday and today—that they should get together and discuss the matter. If they believe that a legislative solution is required, they should offer a proposal to the Minister.
  I recall with almost burning interest the problems we had in the Standing Committee that considered the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill. Group after group approached the Minister, or asked for my help to meet the Minister. The interests involved car part design versus car manufacture design. In that regard, who has the design rights—must match, must fit? The two parties must manage to iron out their differences and produce an acceptable proposal.
  There have been discussions among the various parties. I have received a fax of a letter from Paul Walsh of the British Brand Owners and Producers Group. He states that the group has presented its case to the Government and to the standing advisory committee:
  "We have also had separate but inconclusive meetings with the Consumers Association. We would therefore be happy to meet with the British Retail Consortium"
  and the Consumers Association
  "in a further attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution to the problem of copying brands."
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of this, but, during the growth of own labels, there have been only 25 cases of manufacturers talking to retailers and they have been able to resolve their differences. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that such consultation has been informal, but it has worked.
  Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments. Perhaps what she and I have said will help to persuade the two parties to get their heads together to produce a solution, instead of posing problems for the House and the Minister to resolve. There are clearly arguments on both sides. I do not wish to take sides, but I believe that the problem must be resolved. If we do not resolve it, a European solution may be imposed.
  I want to leave some minor drafting points with the Minister. Clause 3 states that a sign shall not be registered as a trade mark if it is a
  "shape which gives substantial value to the goods."
  That phrase is taken from the directive. Similarly, a trade mark shall not be registered if the application is made in bad faith. If an applicant files in respect of a very broad range of goods going far beyond those on which he does intend to use the mark, is that bad faith? No doubt the Standing Committee will have to examine what is in accordance with honest practices. As it is incurably vague, "honest practices" will be very difficult to define.
  I want to end, as it would be most unfair of me not to leave sufficient time for this important Bill. The Minister rightly referred to the significance of trade marks and brands. Many companies are now assessing the value of their brands and including them on their balance sheets.
  As chairman of the all-party motor industry group, I found it interesting when we talked to BMW. The people at BMW told me that they valued Rover's brands very highly. BMW purchased Rover not just because Rover was
  678
  most attractive in terms of work practices, cost-efficiency, unit labour costs and attitude: it purchased Rover because of its brands.
  Increasingly, we must protect our companies from predatory purchasing—no longer because a company wants the factories or assets, but because that company wants the intellectual assets. I appreciate that the Minister has emphasised the importance of assessing brands. The Bill is important, and, if I am fortunate, I look forward to discussing it further.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As the debate proceeds, it is clear that we are finding controversy only around the edges, because there is wide agreement that the Bill is needed. Indeed, it has been needed for some considerable time, as it is more than 50 years since the last major piece of trade mark legislation in this country. The Bill appears to have hit the right balance in most areas. It seeks to simplify and lower the cost of trade mark legislation, and to achieve our obligations within the European Union, at a time when we are moving into the next round of talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
  I wonder whether the Minister can comment on the fact that it is unfortunate that two different systems of trade mark registration are being established almost simultaneously, as the Bill acknowledges—the Community trade mark and the international trade mark, which is promoted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation. I wonder whether there is a possibility of harmonisation, rather than divergence. If not, it is clear that we will be back here in a few years to see how we operate in that situation. We should be aiming for a worldwide system, rather than two different systems.
  The Bill addresses in some detail anomalies that have been outstanding for some time, such as introducing the idea of a sign that can be represented graphically. I know that at least the Coca-Cola people wish that that had happened a little earlier, because it would have saved them some money. There are others for whom the development is obviously welcome. The Bill has also got rid of one or two anomalies, such as the idea that drug manufacturers can register the colour coding of their pills. That seems to take the matter to an absurd degree, but SmithKline-French got away with it for a while.
  The reference to lookalikes seems to have sparked off the liveliest debate. That may be because, in a technical and specialised area, it is the one area of populism with which even the tabloid newspapers can get to grips. Obviously, the issue is generating heat, even if light is not flooding in everywhere at present.
  I can understand why people who have invested money in developing innovative products, marketing them, advertising them and securing acceptance for their brand names may want to protect their investment. However, marketing in the proper sense of the word is the best way to protect the investment. The quality of the product, the quality of the marketing and the consumer's acceptance of the product ensure that branded goods secure a premium position in the market.
  People know that branded goods are more expensive than own-label goods. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), someone like Kellogg—which produces a basic commodity—has two simple practices. First, it makes it clear, and

  679
  advertises, that it makes the product for no one else; if people want the product, they must buy it under the company's brand name.
  While the hon. Gentleman said that it was disgraceful —perhaps it was disgraceful in the context in which he referred to it—that Kellogg was somehow trying to protect the price level at which its product entered the market, nevertheless he acknowledged that it was the brand leader at that price. Clearly people believe that it is worth spending more money to buy Kellogg's Cornflakes than any other cornflakes.
  In addition, do we need to amend this or any other legislation to protect the position of Kellogg in the market? The Armageddon suggested by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)—the elimination of brand products—takes a lot of believing in reality. Indeed, I have a great deal of confidence that most of our manufacturers and marketers of fast-moving consumer goods know how to ensure that they stay ahead of the game.
  At the risk of detaining the House any longer on this matter, I should say that the debate has a slightly historical connection for me. In a previous incarnation a long time ago, I worked as a buyer of proprietary products for Boots the Chemist. At that time, I discovered that Boots was wasting an awful lot of space marketing its own brand of toothpaste, and it was losing the company money. When Boots realised that, it decided to discontinue its own brand
  and market Colgate; it subsequently produced a better product, and marketed it more successfully. That shows that own branding does not always come out on top, even in profitability.
  The representation we received from Boots summarises the matter well. The company has some qualification to make a special plea that it is in the unusual position—the company describes it as "probably unique"—of being a major manufacturer of branded products such as Nurofen, Strepsils and so on; a contract manufacturer of own-label products; and one of the largest retailers of own brands which are accepted as national brands in their own right, such as Boots No. 7 cosmetics.
  Boots summarised its position by saying:
  "We do not believe that a wish on the part of manufacturers to protect market share is in itself a reason for legislation which can only operate against the public interest."
  In referring to the amendment tabled in another place, Boots said:
  "The remedy is to develop and launch an even better product that leaves the competitor standing … This amendment is protectionist, anti-competitive and clearly against the public interest."
  That sums up the situation well.
  I have no objection to the argument that those who believe that there is a point of concern should talk about it, but I am not at all sure that the House should do anything about it; indeed, I am glad that the Minister has said that he does not intend to do anything in terms of this Bill.
  It is interesting that the Bill has addressed some issues that have caused controversy. For example, it recognises that we can have a concept of well-known makes; clearly, that is a Community idea which has been imported here. It also provides a new protection that does not exist in United Kingdom law at present, which allows goods to take advantage of an established reputation. Whatever the merits of the argument, presumably it would have
  680
  foreclosed in advance the elderflower champagne argument and, ultimately, would have saved both sides some money.
  It is also interesting that the Bill specifically provides for the introduction of collective marks. That seems a useful way of enabling smaller businesses to group together and secure the brand identity of products in the market which they could not afford to secure individually. That is a welcome and positive development, as is the recognition that where small businesses have been trading under a name locally, they will continue to be allowed to use that name even if a similar name has been registered nationally.
  Once again, that arises out of the Chelsea Girl and Chelsea Man case. Chelsea Girl tried to prevent a small shop from operating under the Chelsea Man image; Chelsea Girl tried to shut it down. That was a case in which a big operator managed to invest in registering its brand and tried to shut down someone who had been in business long before the big operator. I am glad that the Bill recognises that situation and seeks to protect small local businesses by allowing them to operate within a locality, given that they have already established their reputation even though they have not registered the brand name.
  The provisions relating to infringement and the remedies for infringement clearly recognise the way in which things have moved since 1938. Big business needs to take on board the potential disadvantages of being so successful in its branding that a brand becomes generic, and it can no longer protect it. The question whether the Hoover company has necessarily lost by that is debatable. I think that Hoover lost more as a result of the way in which it promoted the brand, rather than the quality of the brand itself.
  One issue that arises is that exclusive licensees will be able to bring infringement proceedings in their own name without having to wait two months to see whether the proprietor commences proceedings. It has been argued that the Bill says that non-exclusive licensees must still wait two months. The simple question is: why is there a distinction?
  In the context of a major national brand, two months is probably not a long time. However, for a small retailer, two months may be the difference between being profitable and being forced into loss. It is not clear why that time delay is still allowed in the Bill. It has been suggested that, at the very least, there should be a provision to allow an interlocutory injunction while a case is pending. That seems to me to be in the interest of small business rather than big business.
  In general terms, the Bill clearly has support on both sides of the House, and it meets needs that we must address under international and national obligations in an area of law which certainly needs updating. There has been some comment on the delay, and some concerns have been expressed about the role of the Patent Office. The Minister must take on board the fact that, in updating and changing the intellectual property law, we should be mindful of what is going on outside the United Kingdom.
  We should not do anything to prejudice either the interests of our businesses or our ability to ensure that British practice becomes part of the shaping of international practices. Rather than making any ideological attack on the Minister about the future of the Patent Office, I would ask him and the Government to be mindful of those considerations.

  681
  I am sure that he will recognise that we have a reputation in this area, not least because we have some world brand leaders and because we have been succesful at brand marketing. We must also ensure that changes and updates that may be necessary advance our interest, and do not set it back. The important thing is trade marks, patenting and intellectual property as it matters to UK business, and ideology should not get in the way of it. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that that is the balance that matters.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: As has been said, this is largely a technical Bill and, despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), I suspect that it is unlikely to generate too much party political controversy. I therefore do not wish to detain the House for too long.
  Nevertheless, it is an important Bill and one for which British business has been calling for a long time. The central concern of the Bill is protection of intellectual property, and it is closely related to the laws governing counterfeiting and piracy which are increasing dramatically. One of the helpful results of the Bill will be that it will provide a clearer and less ambiguous definition of what is a trade mark.
  Some have tried to argue that trade marks are an attempt by manufacturers to inhibit competition or to create a type of monopoly. I do not accept that argument. I believe strongly that trade marks are in the interests of consumers. They are an essential means of identifying a manufacturer's product and they are frequently symbols which are guarantees of quality. They are also labels of origin which are an acceptance by manufacturers of responsibility for the product which bears them.
  The law rightly confers on the owners of trade marks protection to prevent them from being abused by other manufacturers. Those who attempt to abuse are trying to con the public, pass off goods as being of a different origin and defraud manufacturers of the genuine article. Manufacturers, it has been said, frequently invest millions of pounds in the advertising and promotion of their products. They are also entitled to protection to ensure that that investment is not stolen by companies that pass off the goods as being of a different origin.
  I therefore strongly welcome the provisions of the Bill. A harmonisation of the laws on trade marks across the European Community will be of great benefit to British business. I have not always been a totally enthusiastic supporter of all matters related to integration across Europe, but, in this instance, I firmly believe in the single market. Like my hon. Friends, I have taken pleasure in pointing out the excellent record of the Government in implementing single market measures. This particular one has been a glaring omission and I am therefore pleased that we can now add it to our record. It is high time that we did so.
  The measures to implement the Madrid agreement are of equal importance. The protection of trade marks and copyrights cannot be achieved on a national, or even a Community, basis alone. They must be tackled internationally and that is one of the reasons why the general agreement on tariffs and trade was so important.
  I want to say a few words on piracy and counterfeiting which have been mentioned in the debate. There is no
  682
  doubt that piracy is costing industry millions of pounds every year. The video industry has estimated that it loses £150 million each year through counterfeiting. Gucci has said that it costs the watch industry £450 million each year, and makers of perfume, jeans, computer software and sports equipment are all victims of counterfeiting.
  Manufacturers lose sales and the consumer loses any form of protection given to him by law. Usually, the quality of counterfeit goods is poor and the product frequently is not even safe. Recently in Essex, trading standards officers discovered that even the spare parts of cars were being sold under counterfeit brand names. Those spare parts were not just of poor quality, but were unsafe and certainly would have led to serious accidents if they had been used.
  Every-day products are sold in car boot sales and by street traders in Oxford street and elsewhere which purport to be brand-named goods. In many cases, the consumers who buy them know that they are not the genuine article since they are paying sometimes one tenth of the price. Nevertheless, manufacturers are still losing sales as a result and their products are being devalued.
  The Bill will help improve the situation. It will extend the definition of trade marks and make it easier to register them. The provision to prevent traders selling so-called brand copies is particularly welcome. Traders have attempted to get around the existing law by placing disclaimers on the goods and by acknowledging that they are copies. That has been become a commonplace practice at car boot sales where trading standards officers have been powerless to act. I welcome the fact that the Bill closes that loophole.
  However, I am disappointed that the Bill does not go further. In particular, it will not benefit copyright goods such as compact discs and music cassettes. Traders simply delete the trade mark since the product is sold, not on the basis of that trade mark, but on the basis of the artwork, packaging and content. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the music business to this country. It is one of our most successful industries, contributing some £800 million in exports and invisible earnings. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other field in which British artists and performers have such a commanding lead.
  Yet the music industry is seriously threatened by piracy, with thousands of counterfeit CDs pouring out of China and elsewhere. It is estimated that 14 per cent. of music sales in Europe are now pirate recordings, rising to 30 per cent. in Asia and the middle east and to more than 50 per cent. in Latin America. That is not only depriving British record companies of potential exports worth about £160 million, but it is affecting the domestic market.
  By simply removing the company trade mark—while otherwise copying every aspect of the packaging—traders will be able to sell goods without fear of seizure by trading standards officers. I recognise the argument by my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill is narrowly defined and is concerned simply with trade marks. I still regret that it was not possible to include a provision to allow trading standards officers to seize goods that they believe infringe the Copyright Act 1911, as they will be able to do in future for those goods that they believe infringe the trade mark laws. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the matter again and see whether there is any way in which the Bill may be amended to allow the problem to be addressed.

  683
  Finally, I hesitate to plunge into the argument between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on the subject of look-alike products. However, I recognise that there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of look-alike products sold by major retailers. Frequently, they are manufactured and marketed under similar names in similar packaging to the brand name goods with which they are competing. It is, therefore, understandable why the manufacturers of the original brands should feel aggrieved and should want the provisions of the Bill to be extended to ban look-alike products. Although I understand their view, I could support such a measure only if I thought that consumers were buying such products believing them to be the branded article. The fact that they are usually sold next to the brand-name product and at a cheaper price suggests that they are not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) has already referred to opinion surveys that show that consumers purchase look-alike products knowing that they are not brand-name products. I therefore tend to share the view of the Consumers Association that outlawing own brands would have nothing whatever to do with consumer protection but everything to do with market protection.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that own-brand retailers such as Sainsbury, Boots and Tesco essentially market a brand image and that they need to maintain a quality standard if they are to sustain consumer confidence?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely accept that. Those manufacturers have taken great pride in the quality of their products and it is clearly in their interests that all their products should be of a high quality. If not, they would do substantial damage to their general image.
  However, retailers have a duty to ensure that their own brands are not too similar to branded products. I understand the argument that the shape of a container may be dictated by its function, and I should not want a manufacturer to be given a monopoly over a product's shape or function, but if it becomes apparent that the only reason for choosing a feature or shape is to increase the product's similarity to a branded product, the manufacturer of the brand-name product would be entitled to take action under existing law covering the passing off of goods.
  Although the law already covers that problem, I hope that both manufacturers and retailers will take advantage of the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who has a long and distinguished history in the field, to come together and discuss what can be done to allay the fears that undoubtedly exist among brand-name manufacturers.
  The Bill represents a valuable step forward in increasing the protection of trade marks and thus intellectual property. It is no doubt a field in which British companies need all the protection that they can get. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will see whether protection can be increased in any other way, particularly to cover the problems faced by the music industry. If it is not possible to amend the Bill to cover that problem, I hope that in the near future he will consider introducing additional legislation to deal with it.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Minister and the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I could not escape from an earlier meeting. Secondly, may I, at the outset, declare an interest—I am a parliamentary consultant to Chanel. I am grateful to Chanel for its briefing, but wish to make it clear that any opinions that I express are entirely mine and should not be laid at its door.
  Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the Government on the Bill—on how it has been presented and on the accent that it has placed on the seriousness of trade marks and counterfeiting. From what I have heard from the professions involved outside the House, thanks are due to my hon. Friend's departmental officials for their consultations and positive reactions to representations made to them. In the same breath as welcoming the Bill, may I welcome the amendments that the Government made in another place, particularly the closure of the loophole in current legislation, which does not allow the seizure of goods in the form of a trade mark—a small element of counterfeiting—and the criminal provisions forbidding the use of the phrase "brand copy" or similar phraseology. Those are both important small additions to the Bill for which the Government deserve praise.
  I also welcome the easier qualification of trade marks for registration, the simpler procedures for assigning trade marks and the better protection of trade marks overseas. I hope that that will lead to general ratification by all European Community members of the protocol to the Madrid agreement on the international registration of trade marks. Will my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me about the Government's position on that?
  I wish to raise one or two questions, the first of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand better than most because you have shared with me a certain amount of time in the woolly world of advertising. It concerns comparative advertising. I am worried about the effect of clause 9, which can weaken the trade mark's legal protection. That would run contrary to the thrust and point of the Bill. It could allow unknown or lesser-known competitors to ride in unfairly on the coat tails of brands that are well established in the marketplace at the cost of those brand producers, and could even mislead consumers. I should prefer the whole question to wait upon the European Community trade marks directive, which the Bill has over-anticipated. The directive on misleading advertising will probably appear in the next few months and certain words have been suggested as a specific clause to deal with imitation products:
  "comparisons must not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods and services which are already protected by registered trade marks, trade names, and/or designations of origin."
  Whether we adopt those words now as an amendment to the Bill, or postpone action until the directive exists, the directive will come down the road towards us and this country, like others in the European Community, will have to fall in line. That is particularly the case as the Government have emphasised their intention to achieve that position on other trade mark issues. So I hope that action on that front can be delayed.
  In the meantime, if action is to be taken, it is important to understand properly the meaning of "unfair use". The concern has been expressed to me that the clause could lend itself to litigation to establish the meaning of "unfair

  685
  use". In the interests of clarity and certainty, and even if it may keep some business away from my hon. and learned Friends who are lawyers, it would be better to deal with the matter as straightforwardly as possible. On that basis, I hope that the Community wording will be adopted. The overriding concern must be that comparative use of trade marks is fair and safeguards are sufficient.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), may I say a word about lookalikes? What has been said so far may have caused people to mix up the problem of lookalikes and the question of private labelling. The problem of lookalikes is about identifying an act of unfair competition to supply goods that look similar by shape, colour, design or name to goods with a distinctive appearance, where it would take unfair advantage of that appearance or lead to an association between the goods.
  The Paris convention on the protection of intellectual property requires EC countries to provide effective protection against such forms of unfair competition. The United Kingdom, unlike most of the rest of Europe, has no such legislation. The directive itself must conform with the Paris convention, and the Government aim to align the Bill with the directive.
  It seems from the debate in another place that the Government believe that they are fulfilling their obligations under the Paris convention by means of the laws governing trade mark infringement and consumer protection. It was on that basis that an amendment was withdrawn in another place while the Government reviewed the matter. I understand from what the Minister said that the review has taken place and it has been decided not to include such a measure—I therefore hope that a further review will take place.
  I welcome the Government's confirmation of the serious nature of product counterfeiting and their requirement to retain current sentencing provisions—an unlimited fine and up to 10 years' imprisonment. I hope that the courts will bear that in mind when dealing with counterfeiting cases. As we know, sentences are sometimes provided for the courts, but then not sufficiently used, even though certain cases may deserve them.
  Counterfeiting certainly acts to the detriment of consumers, who are entitled to expect protection against products that are not what they claim to be, of legitimate retailers, who are entitled to expect fair competition, and of brand owners, who are entitled to expect protection for the branded products in which they have invested and for which they have offered quality control guarantees. It is to the advantage of this country that we set an example in our legislation, with effective enforcement and deterrent sentencing.
  The Government have offered reassurances in another place that police and trading standards officers continue to have a duty to enforce the criminal laws against counterfeiting. I should welcome further confirmation from my hon. Friend of police powers and duties in this respect.
  My last worry concerns the doubts that some have expressed about when the Bill, if it passes smoothly through its parliamentary stages, will become law. I am led to believe that that is unlikely to happen before the end of the year. If so, it will allow counterfeiters to exploit the weaknesses of current legislation during the most lucrative time of the year—the build-up to Christmas. It would thus be of significant benefit to the prosecuting authorities, to
  686
  legitimate retailers, to consumers and to brand owners if the Bill were delayed as little as possible and if the Government made every effort to ensure that at least the anti-counterfeiting provisions come into force by September or October. If the Minister cannot reassure me about that today, I hope that he will do so at a later date.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has given the Bill—in general —a warm welcome. It would be wrong to answer some of the questions that have been asked in a Second Reading closing speech, but they will be dealt with in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) did his best as an Opposition spokesman to attack the Bill in the expected manner, but he may have gathered from the tenor of the rest of the debate that this really is not the sort of Bill that demands his sort of attack. It comes a little rough to hear him criticising the Government for not being consistent on Europe; his party has changed its policy on Europe at every single general election. The same goes for his accusations that we are putting extra costs on British industry; his party would implement the social chapter, so that, too, was a bit of a joke. I therefore cannot take too seriously some of his objections.
  I am nevertheless grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome for the Bill and in Committee we shall —rightly—examine some of the important cases and points that he highlighted.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned the review at the Patent Office. We had hoped to make an announcement about that before today, but we are not in a position to do so. We shall make one to Parliament in due course.
  I am grateful for the credit that the hon. Member for Newport, West gave to the operations of the Patent Office. I seem to recall hearing him, in the distant past, attacking "next steps" agencies of other kinds—
  Mr. Flynn: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Leader of the House who, in an uncharacteristic moment, paid tribute to my work criticising the lack of accountability of "next steps" agencies, and said that he agreed with my campaign, supported by the Rowntree Foundation, which aimed to get the Government to publish replies from "next steps" agencies. Those replies used not to be published in Hansard: now they are.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get across some of his points to a caring and listening Government.
  I recognise immediately the expertise that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) brings to the subject. Probably most of his questions will be dealt with in greater detail in Committee. He asked me about trade mark attorneys. Proposals concerning the use of the title trade mark attorneys were received only recently, so it is difficult to give full consideration to that at this stage. Again, it is doubtless a point for Committee.
  My hon. Friend also asked me about county courts. He will know that the Government are considering extending their jurisdiction to allow them to hear trade mark cases. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, however, contains all the necessary powers to confer such jurisdiction on county courts, so it would be wrong to use this Bill for that purpose. I know that my hon. Friend has

  687
  made representations on the subject to the Lord Chancellor and I have no doubt that we shall discuss it again in Committee, as it is important.
  In my opening speech, I explained why I believed that the proposals in the Bill deal with a number of the points that arose out of the Kent County Council v. Price case. We shall return to that in Committee, too. It is related to many of the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talked about establishing two systems. The establishment of a Community mark as well as the international protocol is not at all unfortunate. Those systems are complementary and provide international business with a choice, according to where its interests lie. The confusion suggested by the hon. Member does not really exist.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon made some wider points about counterfeiting; some of what he said certainly concerns the British Phonographic Institute. It has discussed those concerns with me. We are dealing primarily with trade mark legislation rather than counterfeiting legislation, and it is important that that is understood.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked about comparative advertising, which is addressed in clause 10. My information is that clause 10 does not go against the draft directive on comparative advertising. Clause 10(6) is very much in tune with the directive in its most recent draft. My hon. Friend asked why comparative advertising was allowed to be used. The Government's intention was announced in the White Paper. We think that the present position is too restrictive on competition.
  It is reasonable to be able to identify competing products by reference to their trade marks. However, use must be in accordance with honest practice. To do otherwise would allow an unknown brand, for example, to get a leg up on the chain by claiming equivalence with the
  688
  brand on which the marketing effort was being expanded. We shall return to that issue in Committee and possibly on Report.
  May I put my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes right on the issue of lookalikes. As I said, the Government have not yet taken a view. We are consulting on the matter, but at this stage we do not think that the issue can be addressed under trade marks legislation. I think that that also answers the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D.Smith). I can tell him that that matter did not come up during the early part of consultation on the Bill, but came to us fairly late. Many of my hon. Friends raised that matter in the debate.
  The Bill will replace an outdated Act that has ceased to serve the best interests of industry and commerce by making it easier to register a trade mark, widening the rights given to a registered trade mark and deregulating procedures. United Kingdom companies will undoubtedly benefit. The international aspects should enable those companies that export their branded products to register more easily and protect their trade marks overseas. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords] [MONEY]:
  Queen's Recommendation signified.
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Marks Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

  TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Marks Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of applications and registration and other matters under the Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

  Isle of Wight (Structural Change)
  6.42 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
  That the draft Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has carefully followed all the debates, has made many representations and has kept himself closely in touch with opinion throughout the island. I hope that the legislation attracts widespread approval in his constituency. I hope that in subsequent orders we shall achieve a similar measure of consensus, because that would be helpful.
  The draft order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's main recommendations for local government structure on the Isle of Wight. We think that more effective and convenient local government on the island will be achieved by establishing a unitary authority for the whole island—the commission's first recommendation—and that that will reflect the identities and interests of local people. That recommendation has received all-party support from the local authorities on the island and from both district and county councils.
  The order provides for reorganisation on 1 April 1995. On that date, the functions and powers of the borough councils will transfer to the Isle of Wight county council, which will become the sole principal council for the island and will be known as the Isle of Wight council. I emphasise that under reorganisation entirely new councils will be established. We are not debating the takeover of somebody by somebody else—the destruction of one form of council and the exaltation of another form. What emerges will be borrowed from both, but will be different from both as they are presently constituted.
  To ensure a smooth transition to the new structure, the county council will be given some extra powers from 3 May. Those will enable it to make the necessary preparations, including budget setting, and appoint staff for the assumption of its full competence under its new powers the following April.
  In response to local views, we are providing for elections to the Isle of Wight council in May 1995 so that councillors with a fresh mandate may take over responsibility for providing all local authority services. The Local Government Commission recommended that the unitary authorities should continue to produce separate local and structure plans. In the only amendment that we have made to the commission's proposals, we say that the planning needs of the island would be better served if the unitary authority were to prepare a unitary development plan rather than to continue the two-tier planning system. The draft order provides for such a requirement.
  It will probably be more helpful to the House if I confine my introduction to those remarks. By leave of the House, I shall sum up and answer questions that are directed to me.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The Minister said that he wants to expedite the business of the House by reserving his position until questions are posed to which he will try to provide answers. I am pleased that he has taken that position because a number of
  690
  questions are pertinent to the Isle of Wight and also to the order's implications for the rest of the country. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on such matters.
  The Minister is aware that local government reorganisation is controversial in the areas that are affected —potentially in 39 county areas and in various district councils. It is controversial within the political parties. As the Minister will also know, it appears to be controversial in such beautiful parts of the country as Oxfordshire and, I think, Norfolk. I have always believed that it is never wise to listen to too much gossip in the House, but there is considerable gossip that reorganisation is controversial in parts of Suffolk—even in south Suffolk. Plainly, many hon. Members are deeply concerned about the matter and I share many of those concerns.
  I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition firmly support the principle of the establishment of unitary authorities in England. We have not been converted recently to that: we have believed in it for a long time, and even before the 1974 reorganisation of local government. We support the principle because we believe that boundaries that can be established on a unitary basis in many instances better reflect the communities that the local authorities based in those boundaries seek to represent. There is a sense of identity that is sometimes missing from the structure of local government in some parts of the country.
  The Opposition have also supported the principle of unitary authorities because an effective and efficient unitary authority can avoid duplication—of which, as many hon. Members know, there are many instances in local government. On planning, for example, district and county councils have to liaise and there is sometimes a certain amount of difficulty in understanding who has responsibility for what. On recreation and the link with school sports, there can often be different responsibilities for providing similar facilities.
  The avoidance of duplication has always been impressed on me as being important. Cost savings may not necessarily occur, but they can accrue if there is greater efficiency, better service and more value for money. That would allow more services to be provided to communities throughout the country for the same money available now. If more money were allocated, even more facilities could be provided if efficiency gains are made.
  One strong argument in favour of unitary authorities is that the public know who is responsible for issues affecting them and administered by local government. I have always found that helpful in my own local authority. The public know that if the matter is one dealt with by local government, Newcastle city council is the responsible authority. They do not have to determine whether it is a district or county council issue. Those arguments have long been held by the Opposition in supporting unitary councils.
  I shall comment on how the order will impact on the Isle of Wight, but also refer to its implications for the other 30 authorities.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Although the House may have a wide-ranging debate as to the order's effects on the Isle of Wight, I caution the hon. Gentleman against extending his remarks to the rest of the country.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for that reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before entering the Chamber, I

  691
  noted that I should refer only to general issues affecting the Isle of Wight, but which may have similar implications elsewhere.
  With specific reference to the Isle of Wight, the Opposition support the establishment of a unitary authority. Island authorities are different and the order reflects their special position. It is similar to the type of authority established in the Scottish islands, where there is general agreement that a unitary authority is the best way forward.
  Representatives of work people in the Isle of Wight and both district councils informed me that although the people of the Isle of Wight support a unitary council, they do not support a takeover by the existing county council of the functions of district authorities. People view as democratic the establishment of a new Isle of Wight authority that would embrace the powers previously held by the county council and district councils.
  If a new authority is not established from the word go in new elections in which the people of the Isle of Wight can judge who they want to represent them, it is likely that the authority will get off to the wrong start. Some practices prevalent in the old county council, but which the new authority might want to change, could become re-established. When a new authority was eventually elected in May 1995, it would be unable to change established practice. That would put district authority staff at a disadvantage by comparison with county council staff, because they will prepare the plans for the new authority. That strengthens the argument for a democratic structure from the word go, in which new councillors bring together the experience of the county council and district councils in saying how they believe the authority should be shaped in future.
  Mr. Curry: This should not become a point of contention, so perhaps it would be helpful if I intervened. If the successor organisation is coterminous with an existing organisation, we have no choice but that it should acquire the formal status of the existing council. On the Isle of Wight, we decided to entrust the county with preparing the elections because the overwhelming majority of representations were to do that, so that the new authority could be established. It is clearly intended—it is spelt out —that virtually the first act of the new council will be to hold elections. Elsewhere in the country, in the overwhelming number of cases—I say that because one does not know the exact circumstances—it is the intention to hold shadow elections that will prepare for the new councils, and the hon. Gentleman's point will be met. In the Isle of Wight, the circumstances are a little particular, which is why we chose the route that we did.
  Mr. Henderson: The Minister anticipated my question. Many legal interpretations of the Local Government Act 1992 confirm the Minister's assertion that where boundaries are coterminous, the Government have no option but to proceed in the way that they intend. Given that situation, is there not political advantage to all in acknowledging that weakness and that any new structure would be strengthened by having a democratic basis from the word go? Even in the Isle of Wight, where there is no great opposition to the concept of a unitary authority, there is enormous strength of feeling on the issue. That perhaps
  692
  undermines the arguments for a unitary authority there—but that concern would pale into insignificance by comparison with the opposition that the Minister would meet in other parts of the country, where there may be a majority but no consensus on what should happen.
  I will give way to the Minister, if he will confirm that with every other order that comes before the House, there will be no question of not establishing a shadow authority from the word go.
  Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of Cleveland we indicated that we are considering whether to follow the Isle of Wight precedent, to get the new authority operational, where there is a shift to councils that are established—in the sense that no entirely new entities are being created. Our general intention, however, is to have shadow elections, for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman gave—and particularly so that people may feel that recruitment, and so on, is on a level playing field.
  Mr. Henderson: My interpretation of the Minister's intervention—he will correct me if I am wrong—is that there may be circumstances in which, in instances where boundaries are coterminous with existing boundaries, the Government will not feel under an obligation to initiate a shadow authority from day one. If I am right—and I note that the Minister does not seek to intervene again—that will cause considerable concern throughout the country. I can assure the Minister, on the basis of telephone calls that I received all last week, at the weekend and this afternoon, that many authorities have a deep interest in the matter.
  Mr. Michael Bates indicated assent.
  Mr. Henderson: At least one Conservative Member acknowledges that that is so. Those authorities will be watching this debate like hawks for any guarantee that will prevent something being imposed in future that they would find unacceptable.
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I express my appreciation to my hon. Friend on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House with an interest in Cleveland for teasing that out of the Minister. Many in Cleveland will be deeply disappointed at not having a chance of democratic elections as part of any changes.
  Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my interpretation. I should not like to be left standing in the cold on the platform at Darlington station on my way to Newcastle, with a lobby of Cleveland councillors asking me for a definitive interpretation of the Minister's remarks.
  Mr. Curry: I always acknowledge the dexterity of Opposition Members in teasing out of me something that we stated publicly to the local authority associations.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that that takes the debate much further. Local authority associations may tell me that even after teasing something out of the Minister, they are not clear what it means.
  Mr. Bates: Had not Cleveland county council decided to waste taxpayers' money by challenging in the High Court the decision of the local government commissioner, the situation that the hon. Gentleman advocates could have been possible.
  Mr. Henderson: I understand the strong views that are held in Cleveland and I will not comment on a case that may go before the courts. If the courts endorse the view that an error was made in the way that recommendations were prepared, it would be difficult for hon. Members to be critical of a county council that took action to protect the services in its area. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited, he should wait for the court to make its announcements on that subject.
  I shall try to categorise my comments into two parts. The second part is about the implications of the order on the rest of the review, or, in other words, the general principles that apply to the order and which will apply also to the rest of the review. There are many suspicions in the country about the Government's motives in the order and elsewhere. I notice the Minister smiling at that point, so he obviously recognises, as I have, that that is the case. There are suspicions, because many people throughout the country, especially in areas such as Cleveland and Humberside, fear that, with the local government review, the Government are attempting to cherry-pick or pick off councils with which they do not agree—for example, Labour-controlled councils and councils that have adopted policies with which the Government differ.
  Other suspicions are held by people who want to have a review and have a unitary authority established in their area. They feel that they will not have that opportunity, because the Government will run for cover after cherry picking Cleveland and Humberside and not complete the review. That would mean that some areas—in, for example, East Anglia, the midlands and the south—that would want a review, to have the chance to make the case for a unitary authority, will not have the opportunity to do so. They do not believe that the review will be completed.
  I can understand why those suspicions exist, because local government members in areas such as south Norfolk and Oxfordshire—I have even heard it said of members in parts of Yorkshire, who are in power—are opposed to the review and the impact that it will have on their areas. It will not be easy for the Government to ramrod any order that they want through the House. If the Government want the support of the House for their orders, they will have to make arguments that can be supported by hon. Members and which will take on board or counteract the suspicions that are held not only by hon. Members but by councillors, officers of authorities, staff and the public in many parts of the country. I do not want the local government review to be discredited. I do not want it to lose public support, but I believe that, if the Government cannot allay those suspicions, there is a risk that the whole review will be sidetracked into oblivion.
  I make the Opposition's position clear to the Government. We stated in meetings that were held with authorities throughout the country that we will examine each order on its merit. But that approach is not without condition. The Government should not take our attitude to the order as a signal of our attitude to mainland reorganisation. I warn the Government tonight that parliamentary support for the procedures of the review will depend on undertakings being given on the following five issues: first, that the review will be thorough and genuinely cover the country as a whole; that there will be no cherry picking of areas such as Cleveland, Humberside, Derbyshire or Avon; that the review will be completed; that recommendations will be acted on; and that consistent principles will be adopted throughout.
  694
  Secondly, there should be no gerrymandering of specific boundaries for narrow party political advantage. Thirdly, in shadow authorities, there should be all-out elections—as I argue for the Isle of Wight—from day one. Fourthly, in subsequent years, a third of the council should be up for election annually. That could be advantageous for the Government, because if they accepted condition three —that there should be all—out elections—and suffered an horrendous defeat, if there are elections on the basis of a third of the council, it is easier for the Government to recoup some of their position in later years. So there may be strong arguments in that for the Government. Fifthly, the Government should meet the reasonable representations that will be made to them by the staff commission about the way in which staff are treated when their jobs have been changed as part of the reorganisation.
  I do not wish to detain the House further than is necessary, but I should like the Minister to reconsider establishing a shadow authority on the Isle of Wight. If primary legislation is required to achieve that, I assure him that there will be no obstruction from the Opposition.
  The Minister will recognise that he has a problem, because it will be difficult for the Government to get any recommendations through the House in relation to reorganisation. We support the principle of unitary authorities, but we want that principle to be established fairly. I do not believe that it can be, unless those five conditions are met.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: In the Southampton Evening Echo last week, my star sign said:
  "The world owes its onward impulses to those who are ill at ease; permanently happy individuals confine themselves to ancient limits!"
  The following day, my right hon. Friend the Lord President announced the debate on this order, for which I have campaigned for so long. The day after, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister for Roads and Traffic, announced that there would be signing on the M27 to the Isle of Wight—the completion of a nearly seven-year campaign. So, all in all, the Isle of Wight's birthdays have almost all come on the same day.
  It is a privilege, given to few in the House, to be afforded the opportunity to move history an inch. It is probably rarer still that an hon. Member may have the opportunity to legislate for his or her constituency in total isolation from the rest of Her Majesty's kingdom. Tonight, a possibly unique and historic occasion is taking place, when just one hon. Member has that opportunity on behalf of an entire county and two districts or, in the Isle of Wight's case, the two borough councils of South Wight and Medina, which, coincidentally, comprise in their entirety a parliamentary seat.
  So here we stand on the threshold of the most major and radical reorganisation of local government that the island has seen in contemporary history: a single authority for the delivery of all the services throughout the island. We could debate the warts and glitches in the enabling legislation and the fact that we have an inheritor authority, as has already been mentioned, and not a fresh start as was envisaged by the local government commission. We could debate the lack of a true shadow authority and the peculiar election cycle and adjustments that the parish and town councils will have to make in due course to their own election cycle. We could debate the fact that, of the four times that I have

  695
  lost my temper since becoming an hon. Member, two of them were over this order, and were directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I should like to apologise to him and thank him for his great kindness and understanding of my frustration. We could debate the merits and demerits of the unification of the planning process and its application and possible precedent, like the inheritor arguments, for those who may yet follow the island's example towards the unitary goal.
  But, tonight, I do not intend to follow those points, for some of them, as has already been mentioned, require primary legislation. I had to exercise my judgment as to whether I could and should hold out for further changes and embellishments, or accept that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In my opinion, the proposals for a change in local government in the shire counties probably no longer command a majority in the House, and certainly do not warrant further delay.
  Did I therefore gamble the art of the possible on all the vagaries of the legislative wheel of fortune, whose uncertainties are all too well known to hon. Members? It is true that I upped the ante, as they say; but then, if I had not, would we ever have got this far? I doubt it.
  It is not often that a Back Bencher has the opportunity to pray in aid the opinion of a leading counsel; but South Wight borough council, which was particularly concerned about this point, sought the opinion of Mr. Jeremy Sullivan QC. In his concluding remarks, he stated:
  "I would have thought that litigation which prolonged uncertainty as to the future of local government structure for the Island would not be desirable from the Council's point of view."
  I took that view in regard to further legislation. I know that that counsel's opinion has been sent to Opposition Members.
  As so often happens in the House, the devil is in the detail. The detailed requirements of these changes nearly unhinged the consensus that had been built up on the island in favour of this reform. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning has promised me in private to give an undertaking that, when the reorganisation for the whole country is complete, he will review the electoral cycles of the new unitary authorities vis-a-vis the existing and/or remaining authorities to see whether any alignment would be welcome; I hope that he will put that on the record tonight, as well as the arrangements for aligning the parish and town council elections on the island, which do not appear in the order.
  There remains the concern that I have already expressed on the Floor of the House about the combination of the three standard spending assessments and their effect on the island's future spending pattern. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is minded of that.
  Having spent nearly nine years working towards the success of this change, both inside and outside the House, I have never lost sight of the fact that, while the loudest noise comes from the councillors, those most affected are the men and women for whom local government service is both a career and a livelihood. I would fail in my duty to those who have given such excellent service to the island if I did not tell the Minister that there remains a substantial reservoir of mistrust among staff at all levels that the staff commission does not seem to have fully hoisted on board their concern that we are to have an inheritor authority.
  696
  Only last weekend, another staff deputation came to see me and expressed continuing concern about the fact that although the county council gives the appearance of consultation, it also gives the impression that everything has been fixed in advance. Feelings are running high on this aspect of the reform. I accept that the masterly inactivity occasioned by the delay in the order has not helped, and that once the process is embarked on some of the fears will evaporate; I must put it on record, however, that if the employees' misgivings turn out to have some foundation, it is to the staff commission and only the staff commission that they can appeal. The Minister must ensure that the commission has the teeth to give effect to the need for transparent and fair decisions, especially in regard to borough council staff.
  The other matter that I wish to raise concerns unfinished business. The commission did not deliberate on the question of the island's boundaries in relation to the Solent, but drew attention to our concerns. The Select Committee on the Environment, of which I am a member, has touched on the subject again in recent weeks. Judging by the interest that that has caused, I feel certain that every hon. Member with a coastal constituency considers that the problem must be addressed sooner rather than later.
  Some on the island have eased the process; others have opposed it. I have no wish to mention any of them tonight, however. We have an island saying: "No one mentioned, no one forgotten." So, to councillors and officers who have helped the process I say thank you; as for those who have opposed it, my most fervent hope and prayer is that their misgivings will be proved to have been unfounded. As I have said on many occasions, I have carried a far heavier burden in obtaining these reforms than may be realised. I am very conscious that the last thing that those of us who value local government want—after all the dust has settled and all the changes have been made—is for the man on the Southern Vectis omnibus to go around saying, "Who on earth thought this one up?" After all, the purpose of the reform is to make local government more user friendly, more efficient and—dare I say it—more comprehensible to the good citizens of the Isle of Wight, who are paying for it.
  I will let the House into a secret: I have a horror of having any road or building named after me. I believe in the words, "If you wish to see my monument, look around you." To have delivered this reform to my own constituency in under seven years in the House is a piece of remarkable good fortune—but, like so many of my constituents who are lucky enough to live on the Isle of Wight, I sometimes do not want to share the island and my good fortune with anyone else.
  Although I am mindful that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the President of the Board of Trade, who put the legislation through the House, I hope that he will accept that he will not find a coded message in my likening myself to Frodo Baggins in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". He had to destroy the one ring that his Uncle Bilbo had obtained, against all the odds, to keep it from Sauron the Dark Lord so that he could not use it for his evil purposes.
  I have been pleased to hold the ring for the Isle of Wight's reform, but the Dark Lord that I see in the national picture of these reforms of local government is a bill that the nation can ill afford, and a reform that exactly fits the rule of Hapsburg politics so eloquently articulated by Count Taaffe:
  697
  "Beyond the achievement of a level of supportable dissatisfaction on all sides, I have no political ambitions."
  My constituents, and the nation, will have to wait for my memoirs to learn of the effort that went into securing this order and the consensus on the island that lubricated its path. It has not been easy, but then anything worth while in this life rarely is.
  I understand that the other place has provisionally set aside 28 April for debate on the order, subject to what happens here tonight. I hope that the order will be approved in this House without a vote: that is what the island would wish, and I believe that it would clearly reflect the island's views.
  As I said at the beginning of this short debate, I am conscious of a sense of history in the making tonight. 11 feel that I can only close by paraphrasing the time-honoured words used to launch every ship that has served the island since time began. Accordingly, I wish this order and the new Isle of Wight council Godspeed: may all who serve in it, whether as employees or as councillors, find fulfilment, and may all its deliberations and decisions be to our island's advantage.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I was waiting for the bottle of champagne to be broken over somebody's head, but I am glad to see that that does not happen in the Chamber.
  I was interested by the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), in which he spoke of opposition and the Isle of Wight in one breath. Iterestingly, on the island, the opposition are the Conservatives and the administration is the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure where the Labour party stands —I suspect virtually nowhere.
  The Government have shown uncharacteristic generosity in introducing the order before any other. If there is any cherry picking on the Isle of Wight, the cherry certainly is very orange.I say "uncharacteristic" because if the order is passed, as I hope it will be, considerable power will be put in the hands of the new Liberal Democrat administration, which won an increased majority last May. That is very welcome.
  Almost everybody agrees that the order should be passed. I understand that all three parties represented here and people on the island agree, so I very much hope that the order will be passed, but there is a difficulty in the way in which it has been handled, which has been mentioned and to which I should like to refer briefly.
  An inheritor authority—a continuing authority—will take over straight away. The difficulty is the possibility of some unfairness to the staff of the two councils that will be abolished, compared with staff in the other council, and to a certain extent, although this is probably less important, to the councillors concerned.
  More important than either of those possibilities is the lack of democracy. It is clear that some electors will choose different candidates—perhaps even different parties—for different jobs in government. One obvious example is the Isle of Wight, where the electorate, for reasons best known to themselves, chose a Conservative Member of Parliament but a Liberal Democrat administration for their county council. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that the electorate would wish the same people on the successor authority as on the county council. It is unfortunate that they should be unable to make that further choice. I hope
  698
  that the Minister will address the lack of democracy and will assure us that this situation will never arise again in any other reorganisation.
  Mr. Barry Field: Would the hon. Gentleman put himself in my shoes for a moment? Would he have continued to try to force the Government's hand and have occasioned a delay in the introduction of the order of a year, or perhaps two years, or would he have taken the view that uncertainty is the bedevilment of good management in local government and have taken the opportunity afforded now to get on with it?
  Mr. Rendel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention as it gives me the chance to say that I agree that any further delay would be unfortunate. It is in the best interests of staff that they should know where they stand and I would not have tried to delay the order in the way that he suggests. In that sense, he has acted in the right manner, but it leaves us, nevertheless, with the difficulty that, unless we receive an assurance from the Minister, further reorganisations may get into exactly the same trouble as we have got into here. I hope, therefore, that we shall receive an assurance from the Minister later.
  I have a personal interest in this matter not only as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats on local government, but as the Member representing the area covered by Newbury district council, which may retain exactly the same boundaries when it becomes an unitary authority if an order is proposed later this year. I do not want an unitary authority in my area to be simply a continuing authority, as is proposed for the Isle of Wight.
  It seems that the situation arose originally from a simple drafting error in the legislation—or that is what we are led to believe, but perhaps the Minister will comment on that, too. There is every sign that the Government, in promising a completely fresh start, originally thought that a completely new authority would be set up in advance of any powers being transferred. Clearly, all three authorities on the Isle of Wight originally believed that that would be so and welcomed it.
  It is clear that the Association of District Councils and Association of County Councils believe that a new authority should be in place before any transfer of powers and are sorry that that will not apply in the Isle of Wight. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: are we setting a precedent today that will be followed on another occasion, or will the law in effect be changed to ensure that the precedent does not apply in future?
  Despite what I have said about that difficulty, I believe that the order should be passed because my criterion for whether reorganisation should take place is somewhat different from the five criteria given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. My criterion is simple: is there a clear majority in favour of the reorganisation proposed among the people of the area concerned? On the Isle of Wight, it seems that there is such a majority, so I welcome the order and hope that the House will approve it today.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I am quite neutral about the wording of the order. I have never visited the Isle of Wight, so I have little knowledge of it. If MORI polls and polls conducted by local government commissioners show strong support for a unitary authority

  699
  in the area, I shall support the order. The problem is the implications of the order and the procedure being followed to introduce it.
  The Boundary Commission for England is reviewing local government in England. Counties are at different stages of their analysis, but we should be conducting an overall investigation of local government boundaries and functions, after which we should discuss primary legislation to enact those proposals, rather than debating an order that might be used as a precedent for other areas.
  Unitary authorities have served local government well in some areas, especially where there has been strong local support for them, but I see no grounds for saying that they should be the general pattern or that they should be stablished by order. I am conscious of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this debate is not on the local government review. Therefore, my concerns about Derbyshire may not be held to be entirely relevant, but, because of my concern about Derbyshire and similar areas, I am concerned about the procedure that we are pursuing tonight and the implications of it.
  I do not necessarily agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said; he was more sympathetic to the establishment of unitary authorities, albeit within a regional structure, than I am. Some functions of county areas may have to be rationalised, and in some areas unitary authorities should be established. In the county of Derbyshire, there seems a reasonable case for Derby itself being a unitary authority. A MORI poll conducted there showed that it was the one part of the county that was in favour of that arrangement. However, the people in the rest of the county strongly favour the status quo and see no need for any adjustment to the basic boundaries between the district and county authorities. That view needs to be taken into account.
  If the argument in favour of this proposal rests on the views of the people of the Isle of Wight, what happens elsewhere in the country and the attitude taken by the House should also be dependent on the views of people in a particular area.
  Although the arguments might be strong in favour of the order, I am fearful of the procedures that we use to introduce it and of its implications, whether or not there is cherry picking and whether or not this is only the first stage of the new structure for local government. It is on those grounds that, unless I can be convinced otherwise, I am disposed to seek to divide the House.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was not able to be here earlier for the very good reason that I have been engaged in trying to help save Tower colliery, the last pit in south Wales. I hope that the Minister will understand. I shall probably still be here making telephone calls to that end, after all other hon. Members have gone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) knows, I had intended to be here, but there have been some new developments with a view to another mass meeting of NUM members at the colliery in the morning.
  I have taken a keen interest in the local government review, and not only in the present one of which the Isle of Wight order is the first segment. It has disturbed me from
  700
  the very beginning that, unlike the Local Government Act 1972, when issues and areas were debated as the Bill, as it was, passed through its parliamentary stages, this order is probably only one of many which are to come in the next few months or the next year.
  Many of us are worried about the system that is being used to introduce the order. It is pretty clear what the Government are up to, whether one describes it as Machiavellian or in some other way. In 1972, we were able to debate the proposals in principle. Now—to use a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East—we have cherry picking, whereby the Government and their Back Benchers can say that what is proposed does not matter much to them so they will proceed.
  According to what I have read, most of the people of the Isle of Wight are happy with the new proposal, which may or may not be true. However, a constituency can be happy about something but the national scene may be quite different. What disturbs me is the fact that, if we allow the order to go through on the nod, we leave it open for the Minister to be able to say in future that hon. Members were not against the issue in principle because we allowed the Isle of Wight order to go through without a Division.
  That causes a problem for people such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East because our county is in line for the same treatment. We also worry about Cleveland because, presumably, the Cleveland order could be next. The Government and others might say to Cleveland that, as the Isle of Wight order went through on 18 April with hardly any opposition, every Member of Parliament accepted the system in principle. I am against the system that is being used because I can see what might happen.
  Some of the counties and areas that have traditionally been hostile to the Tory Government for many years—for example, Cleveland, Durham and Derbyshire—may well be regarded as prizes to be dealt with in similar orders. The Government will say that they are using the same procedure that they used for the Isle of Wight order and the subsequent orders will be passed while most of us in Derbyshire believe in retaining the status quo. It may not be satisfactory for people in the Isle of Wight, but that is the conclusion of the majority of people in our part of the world. I think that the same is true of many other areas, too.
  Some of us are astonished by the amount of money—probably £1 billion in the whole of England and Wales, including the Isle of Wight—being spent on the reorganisation of local government. Many of us believe that if such a large amount of taxpayers' money is available, it should be used to build houses and improve amenities in our towns and cities.
  The Isle of Wight is minuscule in relation to the country as a whole, although I accept that it is important to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the people who live there. However, it could be symbolic because the Isle of Wight order might set a precedent. I should therefore like the Minister to tell us whether he regards this order as a precedent for others. Will all the rest be dealt with enbloc? He shakes his head, so we know what the answer will be.
  I predict a scenario in which the future of a few authorities such as Cleveland, Derbyshire and Durham could be subject to the vote of Tory Members of Parliament and perhaps others who will vote for similar orders, even in counties where we know that Tories are up

  701
  in arms against the proposal. I was in Somerset a couple of months ago to address about 500 people, almost all of whom were opposed to it. There was tremendous opposition from all parties.
  I can envisage a situation in which several orders are introduced, but Tory Members of Parliament will say that they have had enough and are going to pack it up. The Government then have a reshuffle and the Secretary of State for the Environment is moved on, and the same happens to the Minister for Local Government and Planning. If they are moved to other Departments, what they have said will not longer matter. The Minister smiles, but that is what happens and that is what is likely to happen. The net result is that the Government will say
  that they have a new brush and wish to make a clean sweep. It would mean that what we fought for in Derbyshire and some of the traditional Labour territories could be changed at a stroke.
  Although we are not allowed to talk specifically about Derbyshire, the Government are insisting on continual revisions. I do not know whether this happened on the Isle of Wight, but the local government commissioners are repeatedly sent back until they get the results that the Government want. The Government are shifting the goal posts whenever the people of Derbyshire speak. The Minister has already said that he is not prepared to propose all the changes en bloc so that some Tory Members could vote with us against massive changes in some parts of Britain. The Government's agenda is clear: the Isle of Wight tonight, the rest later.
  I do not know my party's position in this instance, but, as we are all concerned about the massive amount of taxpayers' money to be spent on this wholly unnecessary reorganisation, we have no alternative but to oppose the order on principle because it will be the start of many more orders. I do not want the Government to be able to say that nobody voted against the first. Once we have accepted in principle the idea of orders late at night, we shall not have a case to answer.
  Mr. Barry Field: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done me a great favour in describing me as "minuscule". I do not think that I have ever before been thus described, but I take it as an honour to be described by the hon. Gentleman, who is a great parliamentarian. I shall try to clarify the precise position. The hon. Gentleman says that he will vote against the principle, but not against the order as it affects the Isle of Wight. Do I have him right?
  Mr. Skinner: No. I am saying that the local government reorganisation in 1972 was brought before the House in the form of a Bill. We had Second Reading and Committee debates. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who had grievances were able to play one off against the other, and the result was that certain changes were made. On this occasion, the Government have operated differently, knowing that they are dealing with massive changes which will alienate many Tories in certain parts of Britain—although not, perhaps in the Isle of Wight. As a result, the Government are introducing the changes order by order. I have a feeling that the hidden agenda is for the order to go through—no one will get too excited about that—and then to start on the traditional Labour areas.
  702
  I am not privy to what people on the Isle of Wight have said. From what I have read, I assume that most people are satisfied with the new arrangements. However, if I accepted the order, in future, when fighting for some of the other areas nearer and dearer to my heart, I could be accused at Question Time and on other occasions. Ministers might say, "You did not fight it on principle, Skinner. You let it go through." On those grounds, I believe that we have no alternative. The Minister has made it clear that he will introduce orders in a cherry-picking fashion.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Curry: It is not my job to speak for the business managers. I am sure that if the Opposition made an approach about the manner in which the orders could be taken, the business managers would be more than receptive. However, the fact remains that the Commission makes recommendations in a certain sequence and we have to lay them in front of the House. I should have thought that those who have talked about gerrymandering or about the democratic system would have believed that on the whole, giving the House the opportunity to vote on the organising proposals as they arrive would be the best guarantee of democracy. As I said, I am not one of the business managers. If the Opposition have a better idea, I have no doubt that we shall listen to it.
  What lies behind the argument is that the process is what has been described as cherry-picking. I make it clear that we are proceeding with the reorganisation. There is no thought in my mind that there would come a point at which we would say, "That is it, chaps. It is all getting too difficult." It is, of course, true that the parties are divided. Conservatives are divided against Conservatives, Labour is divided against Labour and Liberal Democrat is divided against Liberal Democrat. Provided that the debate is about the correct, sensible and most responsible form of local government, it is a good debate and there is no reason why it should not take place. We do not want it to become a debate on the basis of mistaken information or of misleading propaganda, or for it to become a Hobbesian battle for survival when people forget that the issue is delivering services. I have no problem with there being argument, however inconvenient that is, because we all share the inconvenience.
  Mr. Barnes: But it will not be a full-fledged debate in the House. There will be statutory instruments—bits and pieces—and a bit of a debate. There are only a handful of us here tonight. If we had a Bill similar to the Bill that brought about the changes in 1974, we would have massive discussions, a proper Committee stage, serious considera-tion and the possibility of amendment. Instead, we have a statutory instrument—a matter of "take it or leave it". Unfortunately, some of us will have to leave it.
  Mr. Curry: I am delighted to know that the Labour party has been so profoundly content with the procedures adopted for the reorganisation of local government in Wales and in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, there has been a Bill for each of those reorganisations. The decision in England was to set up an independent commission. The commission is independent because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I consult him about appointments to maintain the

  703
  balance in the commission; that is thought to be the best way forward. In any case, that is now water under the bridge.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North asked me about five conditions; I shall respond as precisely as possible. As I told him, we are not in the business of cherry-picking. We intend to pursue a universal review. He also talked about gerrymandering. As he knows, the commission has to make recommendations and then has to confirm or change its recommendations. The recommenda-tions come to the Government who have to judge them in the light of criteria that are set out clearly in statute. We then have to invite the House of Commons to act on the recommendations.
  Leaving aside the commission's consultations, I point out that we consult very widely. I have had as many delegations of Opposition Members come to talk to me about proposals as I have had from other interested parties. We are not in the business of trying to rig the change. That would be foolhardy and extremely difficult to pull off. I must make it clear that that is not part of the game.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for not having listened to the whole debate. Do I understand it that once the commission has made its recommendations for my county of Devon and the west country, the Government will then decide whether they will go along with them? When the proposal comes to the Floor of the House, what will happen on each order that affects Devon? Will there be a debate such as this one for Devon and will there be a Division, or will a statutory instrument be discussed in Committee, in which case there will be no opportunity for a real debate?
  Mr. Curry: I do not claim to have any particular expertise in procedure, so if I am wrong, I shall correct my remarks. My understanding is that each order will come to the Floor of the House for debate and that each order will have a separate vote attached to it so that hon. Members on both sides will have an opportunity to express themselves on each proposal.
  In general terms—I use the words "in general terms" because we consult people about what they want—we intend that shadow elections will take place a year before the new council comes into operation. The people who have been elected to the shadow council, which prepares for the new council, will be the people who assume the full responsibility. In other words, our expectation is that people will usually vote for a new council to reorganise and then to implement the new proposals.
  Mr. Henderson: I am sorry that I was not able to catch the Minister's attention a second before he moved on to shadow authorities. Cherry-picking is the issue which concerns many hon. Members. Can the Minister suggest to the House a commitment that would be binding on the Government which would give hon. Members confidence that the Government were not going to change direction somewhere along the line? Can the Minister raise confidence by saying that when orders come before the House in future, he will say what the Government want to happen with the complete review? Can he give an assurance that there will not be back-tracking at some point
  704
  down the line? Can he give a minimum assurance that he would demit his office if there were any abandonment of the review?
  Mr. Curry: The only assurance that I can give is that it is not the Government's intention to abandon the review. Frankly, if we had intended to bail out of the review, the time to do so would have been about a year ago; it would not be now. The review is on course, the commission is on schedule and the timetable is being adhered to. Of course, the fact that a number of councils have chosen to go to judicial review has meant that the short-term timetable has had to be amended. However, what matters ultimately is our intention that in May 1997, the last of the new authorities will assume their full responsibilities. We are still on target to reach that date.
  As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North will appreciate, I cannot speculate about what may happen in future reviews, because the commission still has the competence. It is not for me to speculate on what the commission may produce. As we do the reviews, I am perfectly willing, if any general threads or patterns emerge, to discuss what we might be learning. That is as much as it would be right for me to do constitutionally.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North made a point about one third being elected at a time. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer he seeks because under legislation, it is and will be up to councils to tell the Government the basis on which they wish to organise their elections. I would have to have very strong reasons to say no to a proposal.
  Currently, it is up to a council that elects by an all-out system, to come and ask whether it can move to a system of election by thirds. Of course, councils must start with the big bang, as it were, because there is no other way in which to start the process. However, if councils then prefer to have elections by thirds, they have the ability to ask for that and I cannot think of reasons for which we would wish to deny that request. That is all that I can do under the legislation.
  I note the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North makes about the staff commission and its recommendations. We are about to consult widely on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) mentioned those points and I noted them carefully. The staff arrangements made under the order will have to be the subject of legislation.
  My hon. Friend asked me about a commitment that I gave to him and I am happy to repeat it. I told him that the Isle of Wight unitary council was technically the continuation of the county council. Therefore, it will follow that electoral cycle. The next set of elections will be in 1998 to allow the new councillors a reasonable period of office. After the transitional arrangements, the unitary authorities will return to the county council electoral cycle. However, once a structural review of shire England has been completed, and we have a clear view of the future structure of local government, we intend to review local authority electoral cycles and to consider whether and how the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 may be amended. The possibility of considering the whole question of electoral cycles may be the point which my hon. Friend wishes to discuss.
  Our review will also cover the need to align unitary authorities and parish elections in the way that is recommended for the island by the commission. We accept

  705
  that recommendation and agree that it would be expensive and wasteful to have parish elections in different years on the island. I think that that meets entirely my hon. Friend's point. I have covered the point about staffing. That will be an area on which, in future reviews when we have gained some experience, we shall be able to have a slightly fuller discussion. On the question of the extension of the coast, my hon. Friend will be aware of the especial constitutional position. I am perfectly willing to write to him in detail on the constitutional points which may be helpful as they are not germane to today's argument.
  Points were made by two hon. Members who represent Derbyshire constituencies. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked whether, if we let the order go without opposing it, it would be taken as a precedent and people would say that he did not oppose the principle. I would argue the other way. If the hon. Gentleman votes against a measure such as this order, which, it is commonly understood, has a broad measure of support and is broadly supported on the island, surely he would be establishing precisely the opposite principle that, come what may, he would vote against the orders. His Front-Bench spokesmen are in favour of the local government review, but the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the whole thing was a waste.
  The fact remains that there is a broad consensus in the House that we should test the efficiency of local government against the possibility of the new structure being more efficient. There is no magical or secret blueprint. We do not have our mind set on the outcome. Being the first order, it is widely supported and it gets us a run on the board, if I may use a metaphor which is popular in certain areas of my party. I think that it will be widely welcomed on the Isle of Wight. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's activities and commend it to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 10.

  Division No. 212]

  [7.52

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Elletson, Harold

  706

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Page, Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Paice, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Pickles, Eric

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Forth, Eric

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Rendel, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Richards, Rod

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  French, Douglas

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gallie, Phil

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hague, William

  Sproat, Iain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Hendry, Charles

  Sweeney, Walter

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Sykes, John

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thomason, Roy

  Jack, Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilyrn (Cardiff N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Tredinnick, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Trend, Michael

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

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Legg, Barry

  Waller, Gary

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Malone, Gerald

  Willetts, David

  Mans, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Merchant, Piers

  Mills, Iain

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  NOES

  Bayley, Hugh

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Wise, Audrey

  Dafis, Cynog

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Terry

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

  Somalia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Before the House adjourns, I should like it to give some consideration to the subject of Somalia. On a day on which the world's attention is once again on Bosnia, it is impossible to give Somalia the attention that I should like it to receive.
  I propose to talk about recent visits made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) and myself to Somaliland. I express my appreciation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration for the support that they gave both before and afterwards. The circumstances were really quite difficult at times. I want also to express my appreciation to Action Aid, which sponsored the visit to Somaliland and whose work we should have liked to see more of but could not. All the signs are that its work is successful. It includes extremely valuable work both in water and in veterinary projects. I was pleased when the ODA recently increased its contribution to Action Aid for that work.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I echo the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to Action Aid for everything that they did for us during a difficult time.
  Mr. Worthington: I shall talk about Somaliland to some extent, but I shall also broaden my remarks to encompass the whole subject of Somalia. There is no doubt that Somaliland is more stable than many parts of Somalia. Despite the experiences that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I had, there is no doubt that there are some encouraging activities taking place in Somaliland. I draw attention to two in particular. One was a conference at Boroya, which lasted for five months. The clan elders—the traditional leaders of the area—came together and hammered out a constitution and a plan of campaign for the territory. The second encouraging event was one at which the hon. Gentleman and I were present: I refer to the giving up by the people of Somaliland of their heavy weaponry. We went to the national stadium to see the handing-over of the heavy weapons by the fourth brigade of Hargeisa. Things are being accomplished by the people of Somalia without the help of the United Nations. Activities are being undertaken in the cause of peace and development by the people themselves, and that must be encouraged.
  I gather that this debate can continue until 10.30 pm —it is certainly not my intention to speak for two and half hours, and I see the Minister wince at the idea. We want to know from the Government just what they regard as British responsibility. What do they consider to be the British link? When we ask questions of the Government about areas of concern in Africa, they understandably express nervousness and say that they do not want to be deeply involved in every trouble spot. I can understand that approach, but that does not mean that I support it. When I table questions about Rwanda or Burundi, for example, Ministers say that the Government are not taking a lead in those countries. Those are not parts of Africa with which
  708
  we have been traditionally associated; I can understand the expectation that in those countries the Belgians should take a lead.
  The concomitant of that, however, is that in those parts of Africa where we have traditionally been involved, we should be giving a lead. There is no doubt that in Somaliland, the former area of British Somalia, we are the donor country, the northern country, the developed country, the country that is seen as having unparalleled knowledge and experience of and a shared history with Somalia. I should like to know whether the Government accept that link. Do they see some special duty falling on Britain to give a lead in Europe and in the United Nations in respect of Somalia and other countries? Obviously Sudan and perhaps, Sierra Leone, come to mind. Those countries were part of the empire and their peoples expect us to be involved.
  I raise that point because, in the economic sphere, it is accepted that Britain has a special interest. It is accepted that, in a discussion with those at the World bank or the International Monetary Fund of the affairs of African countries with which we have been associated, it is expected that the British director of the bank will speak first; he will have a particular interest and locus in that area. If we were talking about francophone Africa, the French director would speak.
  Does the Minister believe that there is a special responsibility or special relationship—if I dare use that expression—between this country and some parts of Africa? What is our role? It is wishy-washy simply to say that the international community has a role. The international community does not exist in an enveloping way; it exists to he driven by some parts of that community. The international community is only as strong as the nations within it.
  With regard to parts of our colonial inheritance, I should like to think that we accept at least a moral responsibility. I am not talking about money. I am not saying that huge amounts of extra money should go to the area—although the Minister will be aware that the Opposition believe that our aid budget is shamefully low. We are talking about commitment and political leadership.
  Such leadership is desperately required. If one visits Somalia or Somaliland, it is clear that the United Nations is floundering. We visited Hargeisa, which is the chief town of Somaliland. At the United Nations Operation in Somalia office in Hargeisa, we were deeply dispirited by the coherence of the UN effort. When we asked the UN representatives—the UNOSOM task force—what they were doing, they said, "We are here to support." It is very difficult to support without resources. It is difficult to have credibility in relation to support if one has nothing to give. The people in the Hargeisa office of UNOSOM say that they are there to support. They say that they send messages to Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, but that they disappear into a black hole and no response is received. It is very difficult to see how stability can continue if the world community does not provide real support and resources for Somaliland. There is an utter lack of purpose there. The staff have no idea what they are supposed to be doing.
  These matters are heavily bound up with a thorny and difficult issue: three years ago, the people of Somaliland declared themselves to be the independent republic of Somaliland, but no one has recognised Somaliland. That is easy to understand: it seems to be an article of faith of the

  709
  Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League, for their own reasons, not to recognise the break-up of other states because they fear a domino effect in their countries. Because no one has recognised Somaliland, we are paralysed in terms of how to react to it.
  We experienced the same paralysis in relation to Somalia in the first place. Hon. Members may recall the questions asked about the situation in Somalia in 1991 and 1992. We were told—and we knew—that there could be no reaction to Somalia because there was no Government there. The UN, the European Union and the other international bodies can operate only when there is a sovereign Government in that country. Paradoxically, when there is nothing but chaos and when there is the most need, the international community can do nothing because its charters prevent a response. We were in that mess in 1992 with regard to Somalia as a whole and we are in that mess now with regard to Somaliland, because no one recognises Somaliland.
  There is a form of Government and order there to which we are unable to respond. We can send humanitarian aid into the country or region or whatever one wants to call it. We can set up water and veterinary projects. But when it comes to meeting the country's major infrastructural requirements to prop it up and stop it retreating into disorder, we are unable to respond.
  Last autumn, a UN official in Somaliland—Mr. McAteer, who has since understandably disappeared from the scene—said that it was time to dismantle the nonsense of Somaliland. He was obviously chased out of Somaliland by the people of the area. I am not arguing for the recognition of Somaliland. Far too many Europeans have been telling Africans what their borders should be. That is not for us to do. But if a bit of a country is behaving in the right way, is having peace conferences and is disarming itself, it is important to pile in behind that bit of a country and assist it. One should not become paralysed in that situation, but that is the current position in Somaliland. The paralysis of Mogadishu has become rigor mortis by the time it reaches Hargeisa; nothing happens there.
  I believe that the budget must be devolved from Mogadishu to Hargeisa so that the people on the spot can work with the authority in Hargeisa. That could lead to many kinds of development. During our truncated visit to the country, before we spent time on a Somali hill side, we saw a port where animals had to be taken out on the small dhows that were moored in the bay. At some stage in the past, the piers, jetties and lifting gear had been destroyed or had fallen into decay.
  That port does not require an Overseas Development Administration project. It needs serious money to help the people of Somaliland to re-establish their traditional trade in livestock to the Yemen or to Saudi Arabia. At the moment, we are paralysed. What is the Government's response to UNOSOM's paralysis in that regard?
  For the benefit of those who are not fully aware of the situation, let me explain that UNOSOM has overwhel-mingly been a military operation. In 1993, about $615 million was spent on UNOSOM. Some 85 per cent. of that was military spending. None of it was spent in Somaliland: there are no troops there because there has never been a need for troops there.
  The UN must also begin to call its separate organisations to account. Those organisations sometimes work well, but sometimes they fail to deliver. We cannot just let them go their own way. In Djibouti we went to see
  710
  the person who ran the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees operation for Somalia and Somaliland. As it happened, the person in Djibouti showed us the programme of what was occurring. A lot was occurring and much of it seemed to be worth while. However, what was striking was that the people virtually said openly that we must understand that they do not get tangled up with UNOSOM in any way at all. They preserve their freedom and they guard and defend their turf.
  At least they were doing something. What was the World Health Organisation doing in Somaliland? All we got was the information that it was delivering some drugs. Since I came back, I have asked the Foreign Office some parliamentary questions. Apparently, the World Health Organisation in Somaliland has developed, with non-governmental organisations, a detailed plan for the problems of Somaliland. It would be more convincing if the NGOs in Somaliland knew that that is what WHO said. When we met representatives of the NGOs, I thought that they would say that they had been working with WHO. However, they said that the trouble with WHO is that it is elsewhere. The WHO is spending its time in Kenya; Kenya is a more comfortable place than Somaliland.
  What was the Food and Agricultural Organisation doing there? I do not know what it was doing, but we must get some sort of accountability. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how he, as a representative of the Government, keeps tabs on what is happening in areas where relief operations are supposed to be taking place.
  I cannot convey strongly enough the extent of the deprivation in places such as Somalia and Somaliland. We are talking about countries without the fundamental apparatus of a state; we are talking about countries without income, revenue, a taxation system and a civil service; and we are talking about countries that have no power system, no communications system and no reliable water supplies.
  There is also a total lack of education and health systems; at present, there is a great threat of cholera throughout Somalia. The response must come from the NGOs. A generation of Somalis have not been educated. That can be rectified only if the international community responds in a more sensible way. The Government must tell the House why Britain is not the key player in that response. Who else will provide the motivation in terms of Somalia if it is not Britain? Who is more qualified? I hope that the Minister will address that issue.
  As I said, we are talking not about recognition but about support. It is a question of encouraging those who are doing the right thing. If one does not do that, there are two potential sets of beneficiaries. The first comprises the gunmen—we ran into five of them——who will take over again. Another thing that is happening in Somalia at present is the first substantial stirring of fundamentalism. If this country does not like fundamentalism, it must prove that it is a trustworthy supporter of those who are trying to work well in countries such as Somalia. That deals with Somaliland.
  I shall now spend a little time talking about Somalia as a whole and the situation that we found there. I have extremely mixed feelings about what is happening in Somalia. Undoubtedly, there is the threat of a real problem arising there. I suspect that most people in the United Kingdom think that the troops have withdrawn because CNN said that the Americans are out. Of course, CNN showed the landing of a vast number of American troops in December 1992. The Americans became very chastened

  711
  by their experience. One needs knowledge, appreciation and subtlety in dealing with a country such as Somalia. The troops have not withdrawn; there are 20,000 troops from 25 countries still in Somalia. What are they doing there? I am not quarrelling with the fact that they are there. But if United Nations troops are there, there should be clarity about their purpose.
  Some 25 nations are represented in Somalia in the 20,000 strong task force. The task force is dominated by western troops—the Americans and others have by and large withdrawn. There are 12,000 troops from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. If I simply mention those three countries together, it is a little tricky to imagine great harmony of command and unity of purpose. Another 22 nations are part of the task force.
  Today, we have been wincing about the forces in Bosnia and the difficulties that arise when those over whom one is trying to keep peace start turning on one. What are the troops doing? What is their mandate? Some of them are said to have done extremely good work—I have heard praise for the Botswana troops in Somalia, for example. I suspect that some countries will say that it is a good training exercise; some will say that it is a good place to get hard currency; and some will say that it is a good place to get their troops paid for.
  If the clans start to turn on the troops, what is their mandate? Are they able to shoot if there is no way out? I suspect that the troops will spend a great deal of their time in compounds. They will be there in a peacekeeping role, but they will not be out on the streets because the streets are fairly dangerous.
  Mr. Peter Hain: And Rwanda.
  Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend mentions Rwanda. In Rwanda, there were 2,500 UNIMIR troops. When things started to turn nasty, they had to be withdrawn. At this stage, we should be thinking about the role of the troops.
  What we need now, above all, is to be clear about the purpose of the United Nations operation. Part of it may be military, but of a lot of it is not; it is about getting good political leadership in Somalia. The catastrophe of the Somalia operation had the most profound consequences for the Americans. The Somalia exercise heavily conditioned the American response to Bosnia and the response of America and other countries to the situation in Sudan, Liberia and so on.
  We need to start thinking about the troops and what they are doing. We need to ensure that they are getting good political leadership because there seems to be a vacuum. For some time, the leadership of UNOSOM was identified with Admiral Jonathan Howe of the United States navy, but he has gone now. Who has replaced him? Who is looking after Somalia now?
  There are some encouraging signs. I know that Oxfam would want me to praise the Hirab peace initiatives which have brought about agreement between the Abgal clan and the Haba Gadir clan in the southern part of Somalia, and to praise the work being done by the Iman of the Hirab.
  Those are the good things that are going on, but there are other, very worrying, things. Aid agencies talk about how difficult and unpredictable the streets of Mogadishu are now, and the International Committee of the Red Cross —of all organisations—has moved its expatriates out of
  712
  Somalia. The World Food Programme had to shut down the expatriate component of its offices within Kismayu because they were being attacked by Somali fighters.
  It is not uncommon to be kidnapped now in Somalia —if I dare to mention it. In the first few months of the year, there were six kidnapping incidents. Aid agencies are seriously considering their positions because a worrying situation still exists there. Even where good things are occurring—for instance, a week or so back there was said to have been an agreement between the Aidid faction and the Ali Mandi factions in Nairobi to bring about peace in Somalia—they do not seem to be followed through. There seems to have been cynicism about that agreement, and it was thought that it followed a UN threat to stop paying the Somali delegates' expenses in Nairobi. The UN said it would not keep paying them to stay in Nairobi hotels unless they came to an agreement.
  As far as I know, a meeting that was supposed to have occurred last Friday in Mogadishu to take through the peace agreement between the Ali Mandi supporters and the Aidid supporters has not occurred. I am told that fighting occurred when the Aidid forces seized control of the town of Merca, south of Mogadishu. It is a volatile situation. There are reports of inter-clan fighting and the technicals are said to be back on the streets of Mogadishu. A political initiative is needed to take things further and to work with the people of the area in a much more subtle way than has occurred so far.
  On paper, the UN Security Council resolution that we are now working to seems to be better than the previous one in terms of working in local centres of strength. However, it is one thing to say such things and quite another to deliver. I should like to see the UN report on the 5 June incident published. That incident began the escalation of the trouble and led to the hunting down of Aidid. Apparently, there is a 260-page report which is highly critical of the UN operation and which has not yet surfaced.
  We must look at the human rights abuses that have been occurring in Somalia—both by the Somalis and by UN operators. I applaud the Canadian Government, who have been prosecuting UN peacekeepers who went too far and tortured or abused people in their care. Progress in Somalia is possible only if the UN peacekeepers have credibility. It was disastrous when Admiral Howe decided that he was against Aidid, because that in itself led to the deaths of hundreds of Somalis and there are now difficulties in overcoming that particular bitterness.
  In conclusion, we have a great opportunity tonight to hear until 10.30 pm the policy of the Government on Somalia. It will not take until 10.30 pm, but it will give us an opportunity to explore the Government's thinking on the issues and to discover its commitment to further humanitarian aid. However, I do not think that fundamentally the issue is one of humanitarian aid; the debate is about political initiative. On my first visit to Somalia, I was disturbed by the Foreign Office's lack of knowledge about what was happening in the Mogadishu area. Diplomats were not paying visits to Mogadishu. The responsibility for Somalia still lies with the Nairobi high commission. I think that more visits are now paid and there are better contacts. However, it is inadequate that one diplomat in Nairobi has his Kenyan responsibility and also has an oversight for south Sudan and Somalia. That is an under-representation of Britain.

  713
  I am grateful to the Minister for listening, and I hope that I have given him some areas on which he can respond.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: On behalf of the all-party group on Somalia, and also the Somali community in Britain, may I express our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank (Mr. Worthington) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) for the interest that they have taken in the situation in Somaliland, and in Somalia.
  News of their kidnapping and swift release led for the first time to coverage on television and radio about the difference between what was happening in the south of the former Somalia and what was happening in the north. I am sure that it was not a plot on their behalf to be captured and released so quickly, but it is true that the situation in the north was virtually invisible for a period. The period of danger which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman faced had a beneficial side-effect of, for the first time, concentrating the attention of the British and world press on the different situation in different parts of the country.
  For the sake of shorthand, I intend to use the name "Somaliland" for the area that covers the former British Somaliland—the Republic of Somaliland—and "Somalia" for the former area of Italian influence. It is difficult to be precise in the circumstances, but I think that that is the easiest shorthand to use.
  I intend to refer primarily to Somaliland, because that is where most of our Somali constituents around Britain come from. We have had an historic responsibility in that area, albeit one which was broken by the time it united with the south.
  My hon. Friend was correct to talk of the initiative that has been shown by the people of Somaliland in trying to address their problems. The way in which they have sought to pull themselves up out of a situation of complete despair is remarkable. There have been extended discussions over months, rather than days and weeks, and without hotels, cash or help.
  Efforts have been made by the Somalis towards disarmament initiatives, and the mayor of Hargeisa has attempted to establish a police force. There have been attempts to rebuild the infrastructure and to retrain, and these things constitute a modern human miracle—especially when the situation is compared with the south.
  I pay tribute to Save the Children—and to other organisations such as Oxfam, to which my hon. Friend referred—which have been involved in the aid effort and the attempt to support the north. I should also like to refer to the positive response that we always received from the Under-Secretary and, on a personal basis, from the Minister. Baroness Chalker has travelled and seen the situation at first hand.
  One of the examples of the sort of help that is being given, and which arose from a suggestion made on a cross-party basis from the all-party group was the sending of a chief superintendent from the Metropolitan police to assist with the attempt to reconstruct the police force.
  That initiative was positive, not only in the advice that he gave and the information that he brought back, but in the fact that it was seen as a symbol of Britain's interest in the problem which they were trying to tackle. The Foreign Office, however, needs to go further and shrug off its fear
  714
  of becoming involved in Somaliland. It must accept that the people of that area, and the Somali community in this country, look for more from Britain.
  President Egal recently referred to the difficulties of surviving as an Administration. He said:
  "We haven't got the resources and the international community is … turning its back on us. Our great danger is if we cannot promise, nor deliver on our promises to these people. That's our greatest danger."
  The Administration—let us not call them a Government if that offends—who are running Somaliland cannot deliver, police or pursue the reconstruction, because it is difficult for any organisation that is not a Government to do so. The present system is in danger of breaking down and returning to the previous disaster.
  I endorse the comment made by my hon. Friend, that the issue is not recognition of the state but recognition of the Administration and its efforts, which require support. At some point, the international community must recognise either an independent state in Somaliland or a reconstructed state in the Somalia area. I support my hon. Friend's view that the matter must be decided by the Somalis. The problem is that the international community provides neither a framework in which they can take that decision nor a mechanism by which the people of the north can choose to become independent, and nobody in the south has formed an Administration with whom agreement can be reached.
  I recognise the difficulty for the British Government and the international community, but hope that the Minister will assure us that Britain will press the international community to decide how the Administration in the north can, at some point, achieve independence or recognition, and ensure that it is not left in limbo for a long time.
  We have seen two cases in which a Government have disappeared—first, in former Yugoslavia; secondly, in Somalia. Those parts of the country that try to exercise responsibility are left in a catch-22 situation, because they cannot win recognition until they have taken steps that require the help of the international community, which comes only after recognition. I realise that that vicious circle is not of the Minister's making, but I hope that he agrees that the problem must be dealt with, as it is not of the making of the Somali people, either.
  Martyn Lewis, the BBC broadcaster, recently commented about the need for good as well as bad news to be portrayed on television. When I first heard his remarks, I thought that they were a recipe for unfounded optimism, but he has taken a personal interest in Somaliland and expressed concern that the good news about achievements in the area has not found its way on to our television screens.
  Last week, the School of Oriental and African Studies in London organised a seminar on media reporting in the Horn of Africa. I commend the college for an excellent seminar that led to some good debate. A point made strongly was the prevalence of the "lighthouse" approach to reporting: a light flashes on to one area, part of the world or topic for a moment, and then flashes off.
  I commented in a contribution that all of us in politics —I suspect that the Minister will agree that not only the Opposition have this experience—live in an atmosphere where the light flashes on and off just as rapidly in domestic politics. When it comes to Somalia, the problem

  715
  is that images showing disaster in Mogadishu flash on to our screens every now and then, while images showing positive events in the north are extremely rare.
  We have seen a sad piece of history. The people of the former British protectorate entered a quick marriage with the people of the former Italian protectorate. For a short period at an early stage, President Egal was Prime Minister in that united country. Over the years, however, the terrible human rights violations that occurred under Siad Bane, and then the civil war, have led Somalis in this country to find it difficult to contemplate the idea of returning to a single Somalia. They also find it extremely worrying that the coverage of debate is between the two factions in the south, while the north is totally ignored.
  The lighthouse may flash back on to Somaliland in the immediate future. Is the Minister aware of something of which I learned just before coming into the Chamber—the declaration of a water crisis in Somaliland, made by the presidency in a press release only yesterday? The recent problems of water shortage are now becoming acute and, coupled with the neglect of the past 10 years of civil war, which have rendered engines at most boreholes inoperative due to disrepair and, in some cases, destruction, they are now bringing the country close to another crisis.
  If the Minister is aware of that, will he explain the position? If not, will he undertake to look into that news? It is argued that there is an urgent need to deal with the cost of the rehabilitation of boreholes for an initial period of 20 days, in the hope that the long rains will satisfy water demand in the longer term.
  The other day, I jumped from my seat when I saw a television programme, which I hope the Minister saw, by an independent news agency, Front Line News, presented by George Alagiah on BBC television. For the first time, the whole country was depicted, and we saw the dotted line showing the difference between the north and south in the figure seven. I am glad to see that the Minister has a map that reflects that distinction in greater detail than the BBC normally does, and that he comes to this debate well prepared and well informed.
  It was almost a physical shock to see that portrayed, yet request after request from the all-party group and others has gone unheard. We have pleaded for the reality of the situation to be recognised. It is depressing that it was not a mainstream BBC programme, but produced by an independent contributor. I suspect that, had it been a hard news night with major news in Bosnia or the United Kingdom, that programme would not have seen the light of day. However, let us be thankful for small mercies, and grateful for the fact that it was shown. One of the producers of the programme, Anna-Wynn Roberts, summarised the situation of the inhabitants of Somaliland thus:
  "They feel very let down by Britain in terms of aid, and as President Egal told us, they are receiving no aid from other countries due to a tendency to defer to the old colonial power. However, many do have rather good memories of Britain's colonial rule and speak of Britain with great fondness."
  I know that Ministers are sympathetic, and that some effort has been made to send aid, but we need to go beyond that —to help with infrastructure and to support the Administration, so as to make what has been a minor miracle into the major miracle of a country re-establishing itself with a positive Government.
  Only a few months ago, there was an exhibition in this
  716
  House in which the images captured by the camera of Hamish Wilson showed the efforts being made in training and education. They showed images of Somaliland at peace, as well as the liberation of Hargeisa and the destruction that the war has caused. I hope that those images and the images shown on television recently will elicit a greater response from the Government.
  I have already said that other countries look to Britain to take a lead—that at least is the expectation expressed to me by the United States Under-Secretary of State. He told me that the Americans look to Britain, because of its historic interest, to take a lead in Somaliland.
  The Somalis in this country feel that they have contributed by serving in the Army and the Navy ever since the turn of the century. The Somali community in Cardiff, which I know well, has been there for 80 or 90 years, and the Somalis believe that their service in wars up to and including the Falklands and the Gulf should be recognised by Britain. We should put pressure on the international community to recognise what has been achieved in Somaliland.
  Like my hon. Friend, one of the members of the Anglo-Somali Society has reported back on the difficulties caused by UNOSOM and other UN organisations being late with police pay. I am sure that the Minister recognises that, in the volatile north, that can cause problems. I know that the British Government have had to pressurise other Governments to come up with the share of finance for mine clearance that they have promised to pay.
  Demobilisation and resettlement must be effected quickly if the fears expressed by President Egal are not to be borne out in practice. Moreover, the reconstruction of roads, which would help the economy to take off, would be a great help.
  Mr. Worthington: By allowing me to intervene, my hon. Friend gives me a chance to add something that I missed earlier. I want to pay tribute to the group of Zimbabweans who are undertaking the extremely difficult task of safeguarding the weaponry that has been given up, and of planning the rehabilitation of the militia. It might appear an extremely simple task voluntarily to disarm former soldiers, but we cannot even cope with that, so I hope that the Minister will agree to press for more funds for the Zimbabwean team.
  Mr. Michael: I am glad to endorse my hon. Friend's comments. He covered so many issues that it is not surprising if he left out one. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
  I want to underline one or two pleas before I close. It must be frustrating for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome not to be able to speak in the debate because of the burdens of office. Were he able to speak, I am sure that he would do so eloquently; in any case, his attendance is silently eloquent of his interest.
  The Republic of Somaliland requests a recognition by Britain that resolutions do not guarantee the delivery of financial assistance. I am sure that the Minister can easily endorse that. Not only Somaliland but many Somalis here would appreciate it if the British Government, either via the British high commissioner in Nairobi or via New York, would play a more distinct role in directing in the work of UNOSOM and the United Nations Development Programme, in the interests of Somaliland. There is a lack

  717
  of information from UNOSOM about the expenditure that will be available for Somaliland, as distinct from the south or from Somalia in general.
  President Egal received a letter stating:
  "UNOSOM has not got budgetary resources for demobilisation activities, but a proposal is currently being considered by the General Assembly."
  The letter was dated 23 February, and it goes right to the heart of the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the demobilisation efforts should be underwritten and urgently endorsed before things start to break up again. The danger is that such efforts may teeter unless they are provided with immediate help.
  I have referred to resources for police salaries. Until recently, funds from UNOSOM were not known to be available beyond April; were they to be cut off, there would untold consequences. I hope that the Minister can tell us about that. If he cannot, I hope that the British Government will strongly take up the issue with the United Nations and UNOSOM.
  Does the Minister agree with my hon. Friend's eloquent point that there is a need to work to promote stability and rehabilitation within existing civic structures? Will he press for the United Nations to end the skewing of funds towards the south, and to build on the foundations established in the north—foundations of hope that may prove a model for other parts of Somalia and of the Horn of Africa?
  In the longer term, it is important that there be an expression of the wishes of the people of Somaliland for their own future. The referendum has been wisely delayed for the moment; if one is undertaken, it is important that the UN and the international community be able to recognise it as a valid statement of the views of the people of Somaliland. Our problem hitherto has been that parliamentary organisations cannot help, because there is no parliament there.
  Will the Minister try to ensure that Britain and the international community give the Republic of Somaliland some light at the end of the tunnel and a way to establish the view of its people, so that they can resolve the situation in which they find themselves? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that that should not be an issue now, but I hope that it can be resolved at some time in the future.
  Will the Government seek to be a broker with regional and European countries to make progress towards some agreement? Will they, alone or with other countries, seek to build on the work of the NGOs, and accept the view that we have been pressing for some time, that we must build on the administration and the police and proceed with disarmament, demobilisation and the encouragement of economic development? That should be done in advance of any recognition of, a Government or a resolution of the issue of the birth of a new state.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to some of those points. I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for his initiative in initiating the debate.
  8.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I welcome this opportunity to respond to the comments on Somalia by the hon. Member for
  718
  Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I congratulate him on making himself a considerable expert on the subject and I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has been an established expert on the subject for some years.
  I am glad to see that the people of Somalia have two Opposition spokesmen. They certainly have one spokesman on the Government side in my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). There is much expertise in the House on this subject.
  Before I respond to the debate, may I say that I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on overseas development, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and all other hon. Members were relieved to know that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome got safely back to Britain. It was a worrying moment for all of us and I thought keenly about the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend at that time. I am pleased that the experience in no way seems to have dampened the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for Somalia or his determination to continue to work to assist its people, particularly those in the north-west of the country which has so exercised the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others.
  Hon. Members are right to draw the House's attention to the needs of Somalis as they strive to rebuild their country, a process which I hope to show in my brief speech the Government are assisting in no small measure.
  Over recent months, the United Nations intervention in Somalia has been the subject of much criticism which we have heard repeated in the debate. I heartily agree that there are certainly lessons to be learned from the UN's experience in Somalia as a whole and not only in the north-western part. However, even the most vociferous critics have to accept that the involvement has meant that hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved and significant humanitarian and political progress has been made. Those are important achievements for which the United Nations can rightly take considerable credit. However, I accept the strictures on other activities that have been voiced in the debate.
  Following the decision of the US and a number of other troop contributors to withdraw by the end of March, a new Security Council resolution, adopted on 4 February, gave a reduced UN force of up to 22,000 troops a mandate to protect ports and airports, keep open supply routes for humanitarian aid, take forward reorganisation of the police and judiciary and assist with the repatriation of refugees and the supply of emergency relief. That is the current role of UNOSOM.
  The resolution also made it clear that although the international community remains ready to assist the people of Somalia to rebuild their country, the onus for that lies firmly in the hands of the Somalis, as has been acknowledged in the debate. It will be for them to show that they are ready to work together and for them to provide a safe and secure environment in which reconciliation and redevelopment can take place.
  It is surely right that the solution to the problems of Somalia should be agreed and implemented by the Somali people themselves. The Government will continue to work closely with our partners in the United Nations and with those in the field in support of that approach. I hope to say more about that shortly.

  719
  The United Nations has brokered many meetings between the warring factions. An agreement reached in Addis Ababa early last year came to nothing. A further political conference in Addis Ababa in December also failed to reach agreement, and the year ended on a decidedly gloomy note.
  However, last month's Nairobi agreement has bought a small degree of hope. An agreement was also struck on Lower Juba, the centre of the famine in 1992, and the scene of much of the recent inter-clan fighting.
  We have now seen clear indications that there is a will among the Somali leaders to reach a political settlement. It is important that the follow-up meeting in Mogadishu on 25 April should prove to be a further step towards the formation of a national Government in Somalia.
  The international community, through the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the Horn of Africa Standing Committee, has worked tirelessly, often behind the scenes, to try to help the Somali people along the path to political reconciliation. Support for those efforts is the way ahead. Ultimately, only the people of Somalia themselves can bring about the peace and stability that they seek.
  I refer to a specific point made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, and agree that the United Nations Development Programme's office of procurement services—the Zimbabwean team working with the Egal Administration—has done an extremely good job. We expect soon specific proposals for assistance with demobilisation and reintegration of the militia. We are certainly ready to help and we will urge the United Nations and other donors to do the same.
  The security situation remains a major area of concern. Developments in both the political and humanitarian fields will be at risk unless security on the ground can be improved. We have been particularly worried about the security of British non-governmental organisation staff in Somalia, and officials in London and in the field continue to work closely with NGOs in Britain on that issue. British and Irish NGOs have been active throughout the crisis, working in a difficult and dangerous environment to bring help to thousands of Somalis. The hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie and for Cardiff, South and Penarth and the House will join me in paying tribute to the commitment and bravery of both their expatriate and Somali staff.
  Somalia is not at all an easy place in which to work. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie observed, banditry and armed gangs are prevalent. Local authorities have to take a leading part in working with the international community to establish a secure environment. Only then will it be possible to move ahead with much-needed reconstruction and rehabilitation.
  In those circumstances, all agencies face difficulty in operating, and it is true that the work of UN agencies has been variable. Some have made a valuable contribution, but we have been frustrated by the performance of others. The United Kingdom has continually urged UNOSOM and UN agencies to improve their performance and to put greater emphasis on the wider relief effort outside the capital, including the north-west.
  We understand that it is the UN's intention to establish a mine clearance training establishment in Mogadishu for
  720
  Somalis throughout the country and that it hopes to increase local involvement in mine clearing. Fourteen mine-clearing initiatives are under way.
  Mr. Worthington: Mine clearance was under way in the north, but, now that it has been centralised in Mogadishu, it has stopped in the north. I confidently predict that there will be no mine clearance in the north this year.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which emphasises his earlier observation. We urgently and consistently press international donors and agencies to recognise the needs of the north-west that the hon. Gentleman described.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A meeting in the House that we organised jointly with the Anglo-Somali Society was attended by someone who had been directly involved with mine-clearance operations in the north. He made the point that moving the operation to the south had stopped progress in the north, which is precisely where progress was being made. That characterises so much of the United Nations approach.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding grist to his hon. Friend's mill.
  I shall say a few words about the British Government's recognition of the need to help the people of Somalia as they strive to return their country to normality. I shall speak of Somalia in general and then come to the areas of the north-west.
  In the absence of a national government, we have no mission in Somalia. However, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in London maintain regular contacts with a broad spectrum of visiting and expatriate Somalis. We also keep in regular touch with the United Nations and other international bodies involved in the Somali problem. Staff from our missions in Nairobi and Addis Ababa continue to pay regular visits to Somalia. Our high commission in Nairobi covers central and south Somalia, while the embassy in Addis Ababa is responsible for the north-west. That arrangement takes account of the access routes to Hargeisa and Mogadishu, and is in line with the arrangements of NGOs and agencies. In addition, an NGO liaison officer has been appointed for the north-west to develop new programmes with international and local NGOs in health and education.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie expressed particular concern, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, about the plight of Somalis in the north-west, on which I have already commented. We understand and share his concerns that the interests of that region sometimes get forgotten, and must not be so. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to restate the Government's position on the self-proclaimed secession of north-west Somalia. We believe that the future of Somalia must be decided by its people as a whole. The north-west should play its full part in the emerging constitutional dimension.
  We hope that the Administration will participate fully in the forthcoming Mogadishu meeting. That is surely the way forward. We recognise the progress that has been made by the Egal Administration, and have made it clear that we are willing to join the rebuilding process. Since May 1991, we have provided almost £5 million of emergency assistance to the north-west. As hon. Members

  721
  know, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited north-west Somalia last summer in connection with her aid responsibilities. British aid is funding NGOs and UN relief agencies, not only in Hargeisa but throughout the region.
  With UNICEF, our assistance is helping to re-establish water supplies in the Toghdeer region. We have supported Action Aid's programme in Sanaag since 1992, which is helping to establish water supplies and livestock services crucial to the local economy. The hon. Gentleman has, of course, judged the value of Action Aid's work at first hand and will be pleased to know that, since his eventful visit, we have agreed to continue funding throughout the whole of 1994.
  We are also supporting Save the Children with local health authorities to establish health services throughout the region. We have provided funds for an important mine-clearance operation, as I have mentioned, on which hon. Members have commented. That has successfully cleared mines from strategic locations in and around Hargeisa, although I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. In short, our assistance has made, and will continue to make, a vital contribution in north-west Somalia.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to police assistance. In conjunction with UNOSOM and the local authorities, we are helping with the development of a police force in the region. Two missions have been sent. They have been somewhat hampered by some problems and unrealistic expectations among the Somalis, and progress has been slower than we had hoped. Nevertheless, a small team of officers will go to north-west Somalia shortly to work on training. We are also ready to help with equipment and building repairs.
  I will say a few words about the declaration of a water crisis. We are very concerned about water problems and reports of cholera outbreaks and we certainly stand ready to assist in that area.
  Our working relations with the north-west are not in any way dependent on recognition of the referendum on independence or any recognition of that kind. Irrespective of that, as I have said, we have consistently urged all the international donors to pay much more attention to the north-western area, and we will continue to do so. We need UNOSOM to play a much more strategic and co-ordinating
  722
  role in that region: I quite agree with that view. We shall also press the point in the Somali aid co-ordinating body meeting which is now taking place in Nairobi. One of the issues that we intend to raise there is the need for a devolved budget.
  Somalia is at a crossroads. The last three years have left the country's infrastructure in ruins, and its people with no institutions of government. The international community is prepared to assist the Somalis in rebuilding their country. To enable that to happen, the Somalis must show that they are prepared to work together to provide a secure environment and a measure of stability. Her Majesty's Government will do all that they can to encourage and support progress towards that end.
  Let me end with a quote from a speech made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in a debate on Somalia that took place in this House some two years ago, in the early days of United Nations humanitarian intervention. She said:
  "We hope that Somali leaders themselves will also have learnt from recent events that the international community can provide the assistance which is so desperately needed only if they also commit themselves to a policy of peaceful resolution of their disputes."—[Official Report, 12 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 1090.]
  That message is still valid in the context of the present day. I am sure that all hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, will wish to join me in urging the Somali people to seize this opportunity to return peace and stability to their country.
  I have been able to comment briefly on only some of the important points raised by both hon. Members, and I apologise if I have not covered all the points that they wished me to cover. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be reading the report of tonight's debate, and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will be visiting her in due course. I know that she will be able specifically to answer his detailed comments during that visit. I will invite her —and I know that she will respond—to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and to comment on his remarks more fully than I have been able to tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Nine o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Services Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has finalised his plans for the Court Services Agency; what consideration has been given therein to the current responsibilities of(a) tribunals, (b) social security commissioners, (c) Judge Advocate General's offices, (d) Official Solicitor, (e) Court Funds Office, (f) Lord Chancellor's visitors and (g) the Northern Ireland Court Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Plans for the creation of a Court Service Agency are yet to be finalised. Such plans will not, however, affect the responsibilities of those bodies and officeholders which the hon. Member has mentioned.

  Minor Disputes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to ensure that minor disputes can be resolved in court or at arbitration at less cost and greater speed than at present.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since the publication of the civil justice review in 1988, my Department has been engaged in an ongoing programme targeted at reducing cost, delay and complexity in all forms of civil litigation.

  The small claims procedure in the county court aims to provide the benefits of arbitration to litigants with minor disputes. Various changes have been made to this procedure in recent years in order to increase its speed and accessibility. In 1993 106,000 cases were heard as arbitrations in the county court, more than twice as many as in 1990.

  My Department has recently consulted on proposals that small unliquidated claims should also be heard in this more informal forum, and we are currently evaluting the results of this consultation.

  Inns of Court School of Law (Admission Procedures)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ask the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct to conduct an investigation into the admissions procedures for the Inns of Court school of law for the academic year 1994–95.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct is currently conducting a wide-ranging review into all aspects of legal education. It is due to complete this review at the end of 1995. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to request the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct to examine the specific procedures of the Inns of Court school of law in isolation.

  Immovable Property Transactions Report
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 100, what response his Department made when approached in connection with the report to the European Commission on information and protection of transactions concerning immovable property purchased by consumers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I assume that the question refers to an answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 12 April. The Lord Chancellor's Department was approached in the context of a study of the existing position in the United Kingdom. The Department offered to assist, but the offer was not followed up by those preparing the report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parish Constables
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pilot projects have been undertaken using parish constables; and what resources his Department has contributed in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are 46 parish constable schemes in operation. They are listed in table A.

  Parish constable schemes are the responsibility of chief officers and are funded in the same way as other policing activities. Additional resources allocated by the Home Department to police forces involved in the development of schemes for the supply of essential communications equipment are shown in table B.

  Parish Constables

    Table A
    There are 46 parish constable schemes in operation, of which 39 are parish special constable schemes and seven are parish warden schemes. Further details are given in the table.
    Thirty nine parish special constable schemes were fully operational at 31 March 1994, including some arrangements which predated the launch of the initiative but which have now been adapted to fit the recommended criteria. The schemes are:
    Cambridgeshire

    Bottisham

    Derbyshire

    Chapel en le Frith

    Little Eaton

    Duffield

    Draycott

    Breaston

    Ironville

    Aldercar and Langley

    Chinley

    Hartshorn

    Overseal

    Hilton

    Devon and Cornwall

    Lewannick

    Dorset

    Winterbourne Strickland

    Yetminster

    Durham

    Langley and Burnhope

    Essex

    Hockley

    Southminster

    Hampshire

    Silchester

    Tadley

    Overton

    Baughurst

    Kingsclere

    Bramley

    Sherfield-on-Lodden

    Kent

    Capel, Tudeley, and Five Oak Green

    Pembury

    Frittenden

    New parish special constable recruits are being trained within the communities to which they will eventually be dedicated in:

    Goudhurst

    Paddock Wood

    Cranbrook

    Hawkhurst

    North Yorkshire

    Sleights

    Northumbria

    Corbridge

    Nottinghamshire

    Kirkby

    Beckingham

    South Yorkshire

    Hooton-Pagnall and Clayton

    Thurcroft

    Aston-cum-Aughton

    Bramley and Ravenfield

    Maltby

    Suffolk

    Elmswell

    Warwickshire

    Curdworth

    PARISH WARDEN SCHEMES

    Parish warden schemes fully operational at the end of March 1994 were:

    Dorset

    Schemes run and funded by the county council:

    Broadwindsor

    Stalbridge

    Holt

    Leicestershire

    Scheme run and funded by the local parish council:

    Glenfield—Five neighbourhood watch street wardens

    West Mercia

    (schemes which predate the launch of the parish constable initiative).

    Schemes run and funded by the police:

    Eardisley

    Weobley

    Pembridge

    33 schemes were still in development at 31 March 1994, ie with ongoing negotiations with communities or recruitment drives for volunteers:

    Bedfordshire—2, parish special constable

    Cambridgeshire—1, parish special constable

    Cleveland—4, parish special constable

    Derbyshire—4, parish special constable

    Leicestershire—1, parish special constable

    Norfolk—5, parish special constable

    Northamptonshireb—1, parish special constable

    Northumbria—1, parish special constable

    356

    Nottinghamshire—6, parish special constable

    Staffordshire—3, parish warden

    Surrey—5, parish special constable

    Table B

    £

    Cambridgeshire

    1,420·00

    Cleveland

    410,00

    Derbyshire

    3,180·00

    Dorset

    400,00

    Essex

    330·00

    Kent

    7,840·00

    Norfolk

    2,330·00

    Northamptonshire

    2,050·00

    Nottinghamshire

    560·00

    Surrey

    2,040·00

    Warwickshire

    280·00

    North Yorkshire

    350·00

    South Yorkshire

    690·00

    TOTAL

    21,880·00

  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary Police Federation about proposals to alter the arrangements for criminal injury compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have not received any representations from the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. The new arrangements for awarding criminal injuries compensation in Great Britain came into effect on 1 April 1994. Separate arrangements continue to apply in Northern Ireland.

  Unemployment and Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the results of the recent study on the link between unemployment and crime, conducted by the crime policy division of his Department;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the document on the link between unemployment and crime, prepared by the crime policy division of his Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is no such study or document.

  Public Meetings and Demonstrations
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bans on public meetings and demonstrations were issued in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no power to ban public meetings. The power under the Public Order Acts of 1936 and 1986 to prohibit public processions was not used in 1979, and was used five times in 1985 and twice in 1993.

  Emergency Services Equipment, Durham
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the revenue and capital expenditure of the Durham fire brigade on mobile communications equipment and command and control systems in each financial year since 1991–92; and what plans exist for 1994–95.
  357
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Expenditure on mobile communications equipment and command and control systems is a matter for individual authorities and detailed information is not held centrally.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the revenue and capital expenditure of the Durham police constabulary on mobile communications equipment and command and control systems in each financial year since 1991–92; and what plans exist for 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Revenue and capital expenditure by Durham Constabulary on mobile communications equipment and command and control systems since 1991–92, and current plans for 1994–95, are shown in the table.

  Revenue and capital expenditure by Durham Constabulary on mobile communications equipment and command and control systems

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95 (plans)

  Revenue (£)

  235,470

  278,240

  277,420

  258,600

  Capital (£)

  5,000

  36,100

  105,000

  181,000

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission Inquiry, Essex
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the results of the Essex parliamentary boundary commission inquiry to be published.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Boundary Commission for England will be making a decision on the inquiry report towards the end of June, after which the outcome will be published.

  Aintree Spring Race Meeting
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the costs passed on to Aintree Racecourse Ltd. by Merseyside police for policing the 1994 Aintree spring race meeting.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Merseyside police estimate that the total charge to be passed on for this year's event will be about £100,000.

  Cancer-inducing Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which drugs used to treat human patients are known to cause cancer in animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Many products used to treat human cancer and other life-threatening conditions are capable of causing cancer in animals; they are used because the benefits they offer to sufferers are judged to outweigh any risks there may be. The detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Criminal Trials (Televising)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the televising of criminal trials in England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no such plans.

  Radio Communications
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the estimated cost of replacing the radio communications equipment for the whole of the Metropolitan police district;

  (2) if he will estimate the length of time that will be required by the Metropolitan police to plan, install and implement a trunked radio system.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the Metropolitan police are evaluating tenders for the replacement of personal radio systems for divisional, specialist and public order use. The timescale for implementation will be a matter of negotiation prior to contract but the indications are that the work will take between four and five years to complete.

  So long as the Metropolitan police are in negotiation with potential suppliers, details of cost estimates are commercially sensitive.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the dates for the implementation of the public safety radio communications project.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We plan that the public safety radio communications project, if approved, would be implemented from 1998. To that end, the Home Office is currently undertaking a detailed assessment of the feasibility and costs of various options. Implementation will depend on a number of factors including the availability of frequencies and technology.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Distance Selling Directive
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the European Union distance selling directive in relation to tourism.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have made it clear that it will not agree to this directive while it contains provisions which would prevent payment in advance for goods and services. We are also pressing for the complete exclusion of services with reservation from the scope of the directive. The Greek presidency has responded to these concerns by tabling compromise proposals which go some way to addressing them, and these are under discussion in Brussels. It is too early to say whether these proposals might form a basis for agreement.

  GATT
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to publish a report on the expected benefits of the general agreement on tariffs and trade for British industry and commerce within each sector of the economy in the format of that produced in New Zealand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government intend to publish a White Paper setting out the results of the GATT round. My Department is analysing the results of the round in order to identify more fully the potential opportunities for different industrial and commercial sectors.

  Competitive Manufacturing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place the prospectus, guidance notes and application forms for his programme for competitive manufacturing in the Library.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The recently published DTI annual report gives information on the many schemes operated by the department to help improve the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what requests were received by the British Government from Iraqi companies or Government agencies for biological agents between 1979 and 1991; and if he will list the companies or Government agencies.

  Mr. Needham
  Records are not kept in a form which would enable me to answer this question. Export controls on certain specific biological agents were not introduced until 31 December 1992.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of(a) Ustilago nuda Rostrup, (b) Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum, (c) Bacillus Anthracis, (d) Bacillus Subtilis Cohn, (e) Clostridium tetani, (f) Clostridium botulinum Type E, (g) Clostridium perfringens, (h) bacillus megaterium, (i) Clostridium botulinum Type A, (j) Brucella abortus Biotype 3, (k) Brucella abortus Biotype 9, (1) Brucella melitensis Biotype 1, (m) Brucella-melitensis Biotype 3, (n) Clostridium botulinum Type F, (o) Saccharomyces cerevesia, (p) Escherichia coli, (q) Bacillus cereus, (r) Staphylococcus epidermis, (s) Bacillus pumilus, (t) Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus, (u) Plasmid in Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, (v) Bacillus ceres, (w) Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev, (x) Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serptype typhi, (y) Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae, (z) Hulambda 4x-8, clone (HPRT) chromosome, (aa) Hulambda 14-8, clone (HPRT) chromosome, (bb) Hulumbda 15, clone (HPRT) chromosome, (cc) PHPT31, clone (HPRT) chromosome and (dd) plambda 500, clone pseudogene (HPRT) chromosome were exported from Britain to Iraq between 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  Records are not kept in a form which would enable me to answer this question. Export controls on certain specific biological agents were not introduced until 31 December 1992.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, columns 428–9, if he will list the firms of consultants employed by his Department and the number of contracts they have undertaken in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information technology consultants his Department has employed; for what purpose; and at what total cost for each of the last five years.
  360
  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has employed a wide range of information technology consultants and contractors from many sources over the last five years, for the purposes of assisting the development of IT strategies, and all aspects of their implementation, including support for project management, project support, systems analysis, computer programming, system testing, and IT security. Expenditure on such resources for the last five years, for which information is held centrally, and excludes agencies, is as follows:

  Year

  £K

  1989–90

  2,015

  1990–91

  3,492

  1991–92

  5,072

  1992–93

  6,909

  1993–94

  5,247

  British Coal Superannuation Scheme
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the present arrangement in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme of allowing staff to retire at 50 years of age will continue for present employees; whether the Government will continue to meet the cost from 50 years to 60 years; and on which vote the cost will be borne.

  Mr. Eggar
  The arrangements under which members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme can qualify for pensions at 50 is a matter for the corporation and the scheme trustees. The related obligation on British Coal to make "additional contributions" in respect of early and enhanced pensions will continue to be honoured and to attract Government financial support. The cost to Government is borne on vote 5 within the Department's expenditure.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what computer systems his Department have brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has made increasing use of computer systems, enhanced existing systems, and introduced many new systems over the last five years to assist most aspects of my Department's work. This includes: financial and management information systems; database systems recording incidents of insolvency, patents, designs, trademarks, DTI sponsorship of United Kingdom companies, export licences, home accidents; econometric and statistical systems recording information on production sector companies, overseas trade, the insurance industry, energy sources and resources; modelling systems for pay forecasting and energy demands; and office automation and communications systems.

  Micro-computer systems have a life expectancy of three years or more, and larger systems five years or more. Very few of the computer systems introduced over the last five years are no longer in use. Central capital expenditure on new and enhanced computer systems for the last five years is as follows:
  361

  Year

  £k

  1989–90

  7,744

  1990–91

  8,496

  1991–92

  6,693

  1992–93

  9,308

  1993–94

  11,858

  These figures exclude expenditure on behalf of agencies, except the Insolvency Service in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Immovable Property
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 100, what information he has concerning the date on which the European Commission intends to publish the report on information and protection of transactions concerning immovable property purchased by consumers; and what information he has as to why the Commission has not as yet published that report.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Commission has no plans to publish the report now or in the future. It commissions many reports, not all of which are published. The Commission has not made public its reasons for not publishing this report.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 100, what response was given by the Office of Fair Trading to the approach made in connection with the report to the European Commission on information and protection of transactions concerning immovable property purchased by consumers.

  Mr. Heseltine
  This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I have informed the director general of the question and I understand that he will be writing to the hon. Member.

  Matrix Churchill Trial
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers in his Department were approached to sign public interest immunity certificates in connection with the Matrix Churchill trial and declined to do so.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On 29 September 1992, shortly before the Matrix Churchill trial, further DTI documents were discovered which fell within a class for which PII is usually claimed. In the absence of both myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, Baroness Denton, was approached to sign a third DTI PII certificate in this case, following the two that I had signed earlier. She felt that the issue should await the Minister for Trade's return to the office the next day. On 30 September the Minister for Trade was approached to sign the certificate but was unable, in the time available to him, to give the matter the due attention that it demanded. The documents were subsequently mentioned to the court by prosecuting counsel and released to the defence in the light of the decision of the court to order the disclosure of other DTI documents.

  Mobile Phones (GPs)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with representatives of the telecommunications industry to establish a subsidised phone rate for calls made to general practitioners' mobile phones when on call; and if he will make a statement on plans for such a rate.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: The use of mobile phones by general practitioners when on call can provide a valuable benefit to patients, by improving response times and quality of service. The price of phone services is a matter for the individual telecommunications companies who provide them. I have received no requests to discuss with these companies the subsidisation of their services.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all payments by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in relation to the Pergau project, giving the dates on which they were made and the amounts of the payments in each case; and if he will give similar information for the planned schedule of future disbursements.

  Mr. Needham
  Payments made by ECGD in relation to the Pergau project have been entirely related to the cost of providing interest rate support. Up to 20 December 1993 such costs amounted to £29·202 million of which the ODA ATP budget contributed £24·367 million.

  Contributions are received from ODA in June and December in each year and, for ease of comparison, ECGD's costs, whether paid or accrued, have been reported to 20 December in the relevant financial year.

  Future interest support costs will be affected by the rate at which the balance of the loan is drawn down and, to a limited extent, by the future course of interest rates. The table shows the estimated cost by financial year, including the contribution made from ODA ATP funds.

  £ millions

  Amounts paid or to be paid

  Financial year

  By ECGD

  of which contributed by ODA

  Amounts Paid

  1991–92

  2·235

  1·882

  1992–93

  9·294

  7·835

  1993–94

  17·673

  14·650

  Estimated Payments

  1994–95

  27·080

  25·310

  1995–96

  31·284

  26·940

  1996–97

  31·384

  26·950

  1997–98

  30·406

  26·980

  1998–99

  26·729

  22·926

  1999–2000

  23·042

  19·749

  2000–01

  19·411

  16·538

  2001–02

  15·668

  13·396

  2002–03

  9·833

  10·218

  2003–04

  6·871

  7·039

  2004–05

  3·726

  3·880

  2005–06

  0·674

  0·740

  Total

  255·310

  225·033

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 650, what was the level of United Kingdom overseas investment in (a) the far east, (b) Europe and (c) north America in 1979 and 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.
  The available information for the nearest adjacent years for which estimates of overseas district investment have been made is as follows:

  Direct investment assets abroad1 (at book values)

  19782

  £ million 1992

  Far East (Asia, other than Middle East)

  1,773

  11,530

  Western Europe

  6,145

  42,967

  North America

  6,496

  61,130

  Source: Central Statistical Office, Business Monitor MO4 and First Release.

  1 Investment in overseas branches, subsidiaries and associates of United Kingdom enterprises.

  2 Excludes insurance companies.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tidal Movement, Torbay
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the level of tidal movements in Torbay; and if he will now categorise the bay as less sensitive under the urban waste water directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretary of State asked the National Rivers Authority to make recommendations as to those areas which might be identified as high natural dispersion areas—less sensitive areas under the urban waste water treatment directive—in England and Wales. The authority has made its recommendations on the basis of agreed criteria and, in so doing, it has been for it to make whatever assessments of tidal movements may be relevant.

  The Secretary of State will announce the areas to be identified as high natural dispersion areas shortly.

  Cambridgeshire County Council
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was notified of the findings of the local government ombudsman in respect of Cambridgeshire county council concerning the case brought by Mr. E. B. C. Osmotherly; and what action he will take to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our attention has been drawn to this case on several occasions by the complainant's former and present Members of Parliament. I understand that the county council has declined to act upon the recommendations of the local government ombudsman, who is now in correspondence with the council about the terms of a statement which he will require to be published locally. My right hon. Friend has no powers to ensure that recommendations made by a local government ombudsman should be implemented.

  Ofwat Regional Committees
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the previous water authority or company experience of each of the 1994 appointees to the regional customer services committees of Ofwat.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Water Industry Act 1991 requires the Director General of Water Services, in appointing persons to be members of customer service committees, to have regard to the desirability of the persons appointed being persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, some matter relevant to—(i) the function of a water or sewerage undertaker; or (ii) the carrying out of those functions in relation to any area by a company which the director has allocated, or is proposing to allocate, to that committee; and the desirability of—(i) the committee including one or more persons with experience of work among, and the special needs of, disabled persons; and (ii) persons appointed including disabled persons.

  Copies of the Ofwat news releases announcing the new appointments made in 1994, including a short biography of the appointees, are in the Library.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current membership of each of the regional customer services committees of Ofwat, indicating which of those members were newly appointed in 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  The chairmen and members of Ofwat's 10 customer service committees—CSCs—are listed in the director general's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library; the next report is expected to be published in June. I have today placed in the Library, a list of CSC members, excluding the chairmen, as at 31 March 1994. In 1994, so far, there has been one new appointment, that of Mr. Subhash Thakrar to Ofwat's Thames CSC. In addition, two new chairmen have been appointed in 1994, Mr. Eric Wilson to the Yorkshire CSC, and Dr. Roger Corbett to the Eastern CSC. Copies of the relevant Ofwat news releases relating to these appointments are also in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what interim relief of council tax is available to households transferring to higher rated districts due to the implementation of local boundary commission recommendations.

  Mr. Baldry
  We shall be considering, together with the local authority associations, whether we should provide transitional help to protect countil tax payers where a new authority inherits commitments that otherwise could not be met without increasing council taxes.

  Waste (Definition)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to delay the implementation of waste management licensing of the metal recycling industry pending the agreement of a common European definition of waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the European Commission to issue a common European definition of waste.
  365
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: A common European definition of waste has been agreed and is contained in article 1 of directive 91/156/EEC which was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 18 March 1991. I announced on 13 April, Official Report, column 176, that the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 had been laid before Parliament and will come into force on 1 May 1994. Implementation of the waste management licensing provisions of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will also commence on 1 May 1994. However, the application of these provisions to activities involving scrap metal will not commence until 1 October 1994. This will allow the scrap metal industry further time to consider the implications of the new system and to make any representations. The scrap metal industry will remain subject to the licensing provisions of part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 until 1 October 1994.

  The 1994 regulations transpose into national legislation the definition of waste in article 1 of directive 91/156/EEC. The new definition will come into force on 1 May 1994 for the purposes of both part II of the 1990 Act and the extant provisions of part I of the 1974 Act.

  Secure Training Places
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it will be possible for appeals to be made against planning decisions for the five new secure training centres being created by the Home Office if they are placed on the existing site of a disused Home Office detention centre.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: Development by the Crown does not at present require planning permission. But Government Departments follow the procedures contained in part IV of Department of the Environment circular 18/84 which provides for them to consult local planning authorities before proceeding with development, including material changes of use, which would otherwise require planning permission. Where the local planning authority objects to the development proposal or where there is any unresolved disagreement, the developing Department, if it wishes to proceed with the development, will notify the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will determine whether the development should go ahead. In all such cases the local planning authority, the developing Department, and other interested parties are given an opportunity to express their views. As with decisions on all planning applications, there is no third party right of appeal.

  There may be cases where consultation would not be required, for example, because the development proposed does not entail a material change of use. In such cases, Departments have agreed to notify the local planning authority of development proposals which are likely to be of special concern to the authority or to the public. This gives the local planning authority an opportunity to decide whether to advertise it so as to give the public a chance to comment and to discuss with the developing Department ways in which the proposal might be amended to overcome any objections.

TREASURY

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when fines will be imposed on the United Kingdom under article 104c of the Maastricht treaty for being excessively in debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The possible imposition of fines on member states for failing consistently to comply with Council recommendations to tackle excessive deficits does not apply until the beginning of stage 3 of economic and monetary union. The protocol to the treaty relating to the United Kingdom makes it clear that this possibility can apply to the United Kingdom only if and when it enters stage 3. Under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the United Kingdom cannot move to stage 3 without approval by an Act of Parliament.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extent to which the new reporting and collection system of the trade returns underestimates the balance of payments deficit; what are the reasons for this; and if he will issue a statement on the necessary provisions to the figures published since the new systems began.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have little to add to the replies I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 21 March at column 21, and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 8 February at column 121.

  The investigations into the Intrastat system are proceeding well. Customs and Excise and the Central Statistical Office aim to publish a full report in the summer at around the same time as data from the 1994 edition of the Pink Book on the United Kingdom balance of payments is released. As announced in its first release on the estimates of the balance of United Kingdom visible trade for January 1994, published on 14 April 1994, the Central Statistical Office aims to include any preliminary adjustments shown to be necessary with the estimates for trade in February 1994 that are scheduled for publication on 12 May 1994.

  Savings (Income)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the bank rate in April 1988; what annual income was received from savings of £250; and what are the equivalent figures for April 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  In April 1988, the base rate was 8 per cent. It now stands at 5¼ per cent. The annual income from savings depends on the financial product in which the savings are invested.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Psoriasis
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much is spent by the Medical Research Council on research into the treatment of psoriasis; what was the cost five years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the financial year 1992–93, the Medical Research Council's expenditure on research in the
  367
  field of psoriasis was £409,000 and in the financial year 1988–89 total expenditure in this field amounted to £538,000.

  The council also supports a substantial portfolio of research on skin, data from which may be of direct relevance to our understanding of diseases such as psoriasis. In the financial year 1992–93 the council's expenditure on skin research was £4,874,000.

  The council is always willing to consider new applications for research in the area of psoriasis and other skin disorders; such proposals would be peer-reviewed in competition with all other applications for MRC support.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will ensure that copies of Government press releases are always made available to hon. Members at the same time as they are placed in the Parliamentary press Gallery.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Most Government news releases which are placed in the press Gallery are transmitted electronically at the time of release to POLIS—the Hose information system —where they may be accessed by any Member.

  Access to Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the definition to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government of "vexatious" as used in paragraph 9 of the code of practice on access to Government information; what criteria will be used to judge whether or not a request for information is vexatious; and if he will give an explanation for the change in wording of paragraph 15(b) on statutory and other restrictions on information disclosure in regard to Parliament compared to paragraph xv of the draft code.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  "Vexatious" as used in the code of practice bears its natural and ordinary meaning. Whether or not a particular request is "vexatious" is a matter which needs to be established on a case-by-case basis. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration would be able to investigate complaints that Departments had applied this or any other exemption unreasonably. On the final part of his question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 12 April at column 26.

PRIME MINISTER

  Allivane
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what papers or communications are retained at 10 Downing street in regard to the role of Allivane in providing shells and other military equipment to Iraq and Iran.

  The Prime Minister
  Copies of correspondence received by my office since November 1990, and to which I or my office have replied, have been retained, as is customary. No records exist prior to April 1989.

  Advisers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask if he will list the name and Department of each special adviser employed in the service of himself, members of the Cabinet,368
  Ministers of State, and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State; if he will give their educational and vocational qualification, salaries and duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report,columns 30-31, if he will identify those political advisers who are not employed on civil service grades of pay, the Departments in which they work and the salaries that they receive.

  The Prime Minister
  There are currently 38 special advisers attached to Ministers. Details of their names and Departments are as follows:

  Name

  Department

  K. Adams

  Environment

  A. Allen

  Trade and Industry

  P. Barnes

  Social Security

  C. Blunt

  Defence

  T. Burke

  Environment

  J. Caine

  Northern Ireland Office

  D. Cameron

  Home Office

  Dr. E. Cottrell

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Dr. W. Eltis

  Trade and Industry

  M. Fraser

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  J. Gray

  Environment

  C. Grantham

  Education

  D. Green

  Prime Minister's Office

  Mrs. S. Hogg

  Prime Minister's Office

  Ms S. Hole

  Chief Whip's Office

  A. Kemp

  Trade and Industry

  Mrs. T. Keswick

  Treasury

  Mrs. E. Laing

  Transport

  D. Loehnis

  National Heritage

  G. MacKay

  Scottish Office

  M. MacLay

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  R. Marsh

  Health

  Ms S. McEwen

  House of Lords

  M. McManus

  Employment

  P. Moman

  Privy Council Office

  Dr. J. Nicholson

  Office of Public Service and Science

  L. O'Connor

  Environment

  Sir I. Pearce

  Transport

  Lord Poole

  Prime Minister's Office

  Ms K. Ramsay

  Prime Minister's Office

  P. Rock

  Home Office

  D. Ruffley

  Treasury

  D. Rutley

  Office of public Service and Science

  Lady Strathnaver

  Trade and Industry

  N. True

  Prime Minister's Office

  Miss A. Warburton

  Prime Minister's Office

  H. Williams

  Welsh Office

  A. Young

  Scottish Office

  The duties of special advisers are a matter for the appointing Minister. Details of their qualifications are not held centrally.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 30 points, ranging from £19,121 to £59,957. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this. Of the 38 advisers currently employed, six are paid outside the normal salary spine—three political and three experts. One other, expert adviser, is paid on a civil service scale.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 31, if he will specify the salaries paid to political advisers in each Department since 1988, expressed in 1993–94 prices.
  369
  The Prime Minister
  The salaries of individual advisers are confidential. Information available on the number of advisers in each department in each year since 1988 and the number of advisers on each point of the pay

  Table 1

  Department

  Number of Advisers

  1 September 1988

  6 April 1989

  30 July 1990

  16 September 1991

  1 April 1992

  20 October 1993

  1 April 1994

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cabinet Office (including Prime Ministers Office, Chief Whips Office, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Office)

  9

  10

  10

  7

  9

  8

  9

  Ministry of Defence

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Department of Education

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Department of Employment

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Department of the Environment

  2

  2

  3

  7

  6

  2

  4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Department of Health1

  3

  3

  1

  3

  3

  1

  1

  Home Office

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  House of Lords

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Department of National Heritage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Scottish Office

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Department of Social security1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  4

  Department of Transport

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  2

  2

  Department of Energy

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Privy Council Office

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  The Lord Privy's Seals Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Welsh Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1Formerly DHSS

  Table 2

  Number paid this amount

  Scale point

  Current salary £ per annum

  1 September19881

  6 April 19892

  30 July 19903

  16 September 19914

  1 April 19924

  20 October 19934

  1 April 19943

  30 (pp)

  59,957

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  29 (pp)

  57,650

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  28

  55,433

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  4

  5

  27

  54,136

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  26

  52,845

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  25

  51,193

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  24

  49,541

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  4

  23

  47,284

  —

  1

  3

  2

  4

  1

  1

  22

  45,527

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  21

  43,778

  3

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  4

  20

  41,947

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  19

  40,100

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  18

  38,254

  1

  4

  2

  1

  3

  1

  —

  17

  36,415

  1

  l

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  34,222

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  32,827

  3

  2

  —

  3

  2

  1

  1

  14

  31,718

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  13

  30,613

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  12

  29,453

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  11

  28,394

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  10

  27,523

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  9

  26,303

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  8

  25,374

  —

  l

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  7

  24,548

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  6

  23,734

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  5

  22,902

  2

  1

  2

  3

  5

  2

  3

  4

  21,683

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  20,941

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  370
  spine in each year since 1988 is in the tables. The salary figures shown against each point in the spine are those current since August 1992.
  371

  Number paid this amount

  Scale point

  Current salary £ per annum

  1 September 19881

  6 April 19892

  30 July 19903

  16 September 19914

  1 April 19924

  20 October 19934

  1 April 19943

  2

  20,308

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  19,121

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1 Three special advisers were not paid on the normal salary spine points.

  2 Two special advisers were not paid on the normal salary spine points and five others were either on secondment or unpaid.

  3 Two special advisers were not paid on the normal salary spine point and five others were either on secondment, unpaid or on a part-time daily rate.

  4 Two special advisers were not paid on the normal salary spine points and four others were either on secondment, unpaid or on a part-time daily rate.

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask The Prime Minister what response he has made to representations from the Government of Belize following the decision of the Greek presidency to eject Belize from observer status at the recent EC meeting in Athens with the San José Ten; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have protested to the presidency and made clear to others our dissatisfaction at the mishandling of arrangements regarding Belizean attendance at the San José meeting. We shall continue to make clear, both to partners and in the region, that Belize as a stable, responsible democracy deserves inclusion in the San José process.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask The Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  The Prime Minister
  I have answered more than 2,000 questions, of which under 2 per cent. from a number of different hon. Members have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally. As computer and operational systems continue to improve, doutbless there will be increased potential for this percentage to decline.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask The Prime Minister if he will place in the Library all correspondence between the Cabinet Secretary and Lord Justice Scott further to his letter of 17 March 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Secretary has not had further correspondence with Lord Justice Scott concerning the issues raised in the former's letter of 17 March 1993.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask The Prime Minister whether all papers promised by Ministers or departmental officials to the Scott inquiry, pursuant to oral evidence by Ministers or officials have now been delivered to Lord Justice Scott.

  The Prime Minister
  Following recent hearings certain material remains to be provided to Lord Justice Scott, but will be sent as soon as possible. Further hearings will take place in May and the provision of material to Lord Justice Scott will continue for some time.

  European Union (Qualified Majority Voting)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant his oral statement of 29 March,Official Report, columns 797-99 if he will state the treaty or other basis on which the Court of Justice of the European Community would be able to rule that, assuming accession to the Community of all applicant states—any decision reached by at least 68 votes —the Commission would be required to take any necessary initiatives stating the date and place when the document giving the basis for such a ruling was agreed.

  The Prime Minister
  The obligation, in the Council decision on qualified majority voting, on the Commission and the presidency to take any initiative necessary to reach a solution adopted by at least 68 votes is justifiable in the European Court of Justice. The text of the Council decision has already been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 29 March,Official Report, columns 797-98, concerning extension of a proposal blocking minority of 27 votes in an enlarged European Community Council of Ministers, if he will state, precisely, the nature of the qualifications now agreed, where they are available in written form, and published, and by whom they are authenticated.

  The Prime Minister
  The text of the Council decision on qualified majority voting has already been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Labour-controlled Local Authorities
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask The Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) of 12 April,Official Report, column 17, if he will list the Labour-controlled local authorities he referred to where there is corruption.

  The Prime Minister
  District auditors' reports and the outcome of criminal proceedings have revealed instances of malpractice and corruption in a number of Labour councils.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask The Prime Minister how many permanent secretaries, deputy secretaries and under secretaries left the civil service and subsequently took up appointments in the private sector since 1979; what was the average interval between leaving the service and taking up appointment in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: Precise numbers could be obtained only at disproportionate

  373
  cost. However, examination of a substantial sample of applications for approval to take appointments by civil servants in grades 1, 1A, 2 and 3 since 1984 shows an average interval of 3·4 months between leaving the service and proposed date of taking up a first private sector appointment. Not all appointments are necessarily taken up. Applications to take up second and subsequent appointments after leaving are not included in the average.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask The Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the need for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 April 1994]: On a number of occasions, I have not only made clear my support for the principle of seeking to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities, but also my reservations on the detailed practicalities of the present approach to comprehensive legislation. None the less, I shall of course want to see and consider the results of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the scrutiny of the activities and legislation of the European Community.

  Mr. Newton
  The scrutiny arrangements generally work well and need no fundamental change. They are, however, under constant review, and will continue to be developed as necessary.

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to ensure that Prime Minister's Question Time is used only for scrutiny of the actions of the Government.

  Mr. Newton
  Subject to Madam Speaker's views as to what is or is not in order, it is up to the hon. Members who ask questions to determine what questions they ask.

  New Reichstag Building
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will obtain(a) for his office and (b) for the Library, a copy of the plans for the new Reichstag; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Sanctions Policy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will move to set up a Select Committee to consider the effect of sanctions policy against countries such as Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so. The hon. Member may wish to suggest the topic to the relevant Select Committee.

  Parliamentary Estate (Costs)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what was the cost in 1993–94 of space in the parliamentary estate other than for the offices of hon. Members, their staff and staff of the House and those used for meetings and debates.

  Mr. Beith
  All but some 1 per cent. of the total area of the parliamentary estate is used for facilities for Members and staff. On a very rough apportionment, the annual cost to this House of the remaining space would be some £220,000, together with any costs of rent and rates for the outbuildings.

  Strangers' Gallery
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what financial provision has been made for increasing the seating capacity of the Strangers' Gallery.

  Mr. Beith
  None.

  Accommodation (Commercial Organisations)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 505, when the last review took place of financial arrangements for commercial organisations with accommodation in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Channon
  A review of the agreement with Thomas Cook was completed by the Administration Committee in March.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Official Duties
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his duties as Lord President of the Council.

  Mr. Newton
  As Lord President, I am responsible for the work of the Privy Council Office, and for overseeing the functions of the Privy Council itself. In this connection, I present the Council business to Her Majesty.

  I also act for the Queen as Visitor of a number of universities and colleges.

  Appointments
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what public consultations he undertakes before appointments are made by the Privy Council.

  Mr. Newton
  As indicated in my written answer to the hon. Member on 3 March,Official Report, column 868, consultation in respect of Privy Council appointments is conducted with the organisations concerned and with relevant Government Departments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Office Space (Ipswich)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many square feet of office space his Department leases, rents or owns inside the boundary of the borough of Ipswich; and what was the equivalent area in June 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The full range of information is not available from 1979. However, from the information which is available, it is estimated that during the last 10 years the Department's occupancy covered a total of 32,722 sq. ft. spread over three sites:

  —Eastgate House, Carr street—8,608 sq. ft.

  —Warnford House, Coleman street—21,538 sq. ft.

  —Princess House, Princess street—2,586 sq. ft.

  At present the Department occupies 42,892 sq. ft. in one building within the borough—St. Felix house, Silent street. The property is leasehold and the Department is the sole tenant.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made for a review of the security of civil servants working in the Child Support Agency; if he will sanction extra resources for managers to implement measures which will help to allay staff fears over their safety, with particular reference to stringent procedures for dealing with incoming mail and the provision of escorts for field visits; and what he proposes in respect of the compulsory wearing of name badges and staff identifying themselves over the telephone or in correspondence as required by the citizens charter.

  Mr. Burt
  Measures to ensure the safety of Child Support Agency staff are the responsibility of Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive, who has ensured that comprehensive and professional security is provided for all the staff. There are strict procedures for the safe handling of incoming mail including the use of X-ray machines. Procedures are also in place to minimise the risk to visiting officers which include accompanied visiting where there is concern for personal safety.

  The agency has a policy of giving names and wearing name badges as a matter of course. This is in the interest of providing good customer service to clients. It is recognised, however, that some staff may feel concerned about giving their names and those fears are treated sympathetically.

  These areas are very sensitive and the chief executive and I are keeping them under close review.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail all the contracts on which his calculation of £136 million savings in the civil service market-testing programme is based; what was the value of each contract; what was the saving in each case; and what were the main items by which the savings were secured in each major case.

  Mr. Hague
  The £136 million detailed in the question is the value of savings achieved by the Government's market testing programme. As at 31 March 1994 this 376
  Department had awarded 55 contracts with a total value of £62·5 million which have achieved efficiency savings averaging some 32 per cent. Details of individual contract values and savings are commercial in confidence information and cannot be provided.

  Occupational Deafness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), 30 March,Official Report, column 787, if he will list the occupational activities for which occupational deafness can be prescribed as a disease, in relation to which disablement benefit is payable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Occupational deafness is prescribed for disablement benefit purposes in relation to the following occupational activities:

  1. The use of powered, but not hand powered, grinding tools on cast metal other than weld metal or on billets or blooms in the metal producing industry, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of those tools whilst they are being so used;

  2. The use of pneumatic percussive tools on metal, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of those tools whilst they are being so used;

  3. The use of pneumatic percussive tools for drilling rock in quarries or underground or in mining coal, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of those tools whilst they are being so used;

  4. Work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of plant (excluding power press plant) engaged in the forging (including drop stamping) of metal by means of closed or open dies or drop hammers;

  5. Work in textile manufacturing where the work is undertaken wholly or mainly in rooms or sheds in which there are machines engaged in weaving man-made or natural (including mineral) fibres or in the high speed false twisting of fibres;

  6. The use of, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of, machines engaged in cutting, shaping or cleaning metal nails;

  7. The use of, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of, plasma spray guns engaged in the deposition of metal;

  8. The use of, or work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of, any of the following machines engaged in the working of wood or material composed partly of wood, that is to say; multi cutter moulding machines, planing machines, automatic or semi-automatic lathes, multiple cross-cut machines, automatic shaping machines, double-end tenoning machines, vertical spindle moulding machines (including high speed routing machines), edge banding machines, bandsawing machines with a blade width of not less than 75 millimetres and circular sawing machines in the operation of which the blade is moved towards the material being cut;

  9. The use of chain saws in forestry.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 24 February at column 368, which sets out the further occupational activities to be added from October 1994.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to the control of nuclear proliferation he plans to raise at the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 to 19 April.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Nuclear non-proliferation does not feature on the agenda of this meeting.

  Sweden
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the provisions in the accession document submitted by Sweden to the Council of the European Union on publication by civil servants of Government documents.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sweden made a declaration in the Final Act attached to the treaty of accession welcoming the development now taking place in the European Union towards greater openness and transparency. The declaration noted that open government is a fundamental part of Sweden's constitutional, political and cultural heritage. The Union made a declaration in response noting the Swedish declaration and adding that the member states of the European Union take it for granted that as a member Sweden will fully comply with Community law in this respect. The United Kingdom fully supports this declaration by the Union.

  Belize
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the treatment of the representative of Belize at the recent conference between the European Union and central American countries.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have protested to the presidency and made clear to others our dissatisfaction at the mishandling of arrangements regarding Belizean attendance at the San José meeting. We shall continue to make clear both to member states and to countries in the region, that Belize as a stable, responsible democracy deserves inclusion in the San Jose process.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding territorial claims by Guatemala over Belize.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Guatemala recognised Belize as a sovereign and independent state in 1991. We will continue to encourage both countries to work for a full settlement of their territorial dispute.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of the EC on the territorial integrity of Belize.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The European Community welcomed Guatemalan recognition of Belize in 1991 and its reaffirmation by the new Guatemalan Government in 1993. The European Community also urged Belize and Guatemala to continue to work for a full settlement of their territorial dispute.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he or his officials at the United Nations have had with(a) the United States of America, (b) Russian and (c) Chinese ministers or officials in regard to the present situation in North Korea's nuclear programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  North Korea's nuclear programme is frequently a subject of discussion between us and the 378
  Governments of those states most directly concerned. The United Nations Security Council last considered the matter of North Korea's compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement during the final week of March. Following discussions on this issue between all members of the Security Council, the President of the Security Council issued a statement on 31 March calling on North Korea to comply fully with its safeguards agreement.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what extra resources the OPS unit of UNDP in Somaliland has recently received to help it in its work of disarming and rehabilitating militia in Somaliland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The national demobilisation committee project proposal, prepared with the assistance of the UNDP/OPS contracted team of Zimbabweans, is due to be presented to donors on 22 April 94. Decisions on funding are expected to be taken in the light of that presentation.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have put forward with a view to introducing monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in the forthcoming updating of the United Nations 1980 inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The United Kingdom is still considering the issues involved in the review conference.

  Tigers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources are currently being made available by his Department for tiger conservation schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are most concerned about the plight of the tiger and are working through CITES to encourage consumer countries to stamp out the illegal trade in tiger parts. For this reason, we contributed towards the cost of the CITES high level delegation to the region. We welcome the development of the global tiger forum last month in India and will continue to participate actively in international efforts to save the tiger.

  Macdeonia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the European Court of Justice to offer an opinion on the referral submitted by the European Commission concerning the decision of the Government of Greece to impose an embargo against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is as yet no indication when the European Court of Justice might offer a ruling. We have made clear our support for the Commission's decision to refer Greece's action to the European Court of Justice. We hope that this will lead to an early lifting of Greece's measures.

  Immovable Property
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 101, on the report on information and protection of transactions concerning immovable property purchased by consumers, if he will now make it his policy to bring forward proposals to ensure that member Governments of the European Community are entitled (a) to see and (b) to publish for consultation all reports commissioned by the European Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The publication of reports commissioned by the European Commission is a matter for the Commission itself. However, the majority of these reports are likely to be available under the agreement on public access to documents held by the Council and Commission.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 99, on information and protection of transactions concerning immovable property purchased by consumers, if he will make it his policy to bring forward proposals to ensure that in future the European Commission informs the United Kingdom Government of all the reports which it commissions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The European Commission commissions large numbers of reports annually to assist it in its work. These reports are the property of the Commission, which itself decides whether or not they should be published. However, under the code of conduct on access to Council and Commission documents, we would expect the public to have access to the majority of such reports.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 100, on the report on information and protection of transactions concerning immovable property purchased by consumers, if he will now make it his policy to require the European Commission to make known to the United Kingdom Government the cost of this and of all future such reports which it commissions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The cost of reports commissioned by the European Commission is a matter for the Commission itself. However the Commission must ensure that all its expenditure is consistent with the treaties and Community legislation, including requirements for sound financial management. It is also subject to examination by the Court of Auditors as to the legality and regularity of transactions.

EDUCATION

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what the difference is between devolvement and delegation of local education authorities' moneys.

  Mr. Forth
  In the context of local management of schools, funds are customarily said to be delegated where 380
  they form part of the unhypothecated budget shares allocated to schools by formula, and devolved where they are made available to schools subject to conditions, specified by the local education authority, as to the purposes for which they may or may not be used.

  History
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the future of the core status of the United Nations following the pending review of the history programme of study within the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering advice from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on slimming down the national curriculum. At this stage I cannot comment on the possible place of the United Nations within a revised history curriculum. The Secretary of State's proposals will be published in May and will be followed by a public consultation exercise.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which grant-maintained schools previously required to provide rooms for election meetings are now able to refuse.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There has been no change in the statutory requirements governing the provision of rooms at schools for election meetings.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children were(a) suspended and (b) expelled from school in (i) Humberside and (ii) England in each year since 1984.

  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, 2,910 permanent exclusions were reported in year one and 3,833 in year two. It is not possible to provide an area breakdown of the figures because of assurances given as to confidentiality.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the number of children under five years of age in(a) nursery schools and (b) nursery classes in primary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1993, 53,000 children aged under five attended maintained nursery schools in England, either full or part time, and a further 287,000 children attended nursery classes in maintained primary schools.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken and what methods he has used in calculating his published figures concerning children under school age attending reception classes, nursery classes in primary schools, nursery schools and registered playgroups to avoid double counting of those
  381
  children who, within the chosen period of any returns of single time census are attending, or have attended, more than one category of provision.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils in schools is collected each January from schools. A pupil should be on the register of only one school at any one point in time. Information on children attending playgroups is not held centrally. Figures quoted about playgroup attendance are those supplied by the Pre-school Playgroups Association, to which about 80 per cent. of playgroups are affiliated. It is of course possible that a child attends both a play group and some form of schooling in the same year.

  Preparation for Parenthood
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to include preparation for parenthood in the revised national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires the provision of a curriculum which prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. In fulfilment of that, schools often include preparation for parenthood within their programmes of personal, social and health education in the wider curriculum.

  School Age
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is Government policy as to the age at which a child must commence school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the Education Acts the statutory duties relating to compulsory education apply from the start of the school term following a pupil's fifth birthday. Local education authorities and schools may make provision for children before that age, but are not obliged to do so.

  Law Students
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to undertake a fundamental review of the availability of public assistance for the payment of the fees of law students taking either the legal practice course or Bar finals.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to further broaden the funding base of higher education from industry.

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: British universities received some £1·25 billion from private sources in 1991–92—just over a quarter of their total income. Private income, which includes income from industry for a range of services, has grown by some 70 per cent in real terms since 1985. In addition to income, institutions had outstanding borrowings of some £830 million from the private sector in 1992 for capital developments.
  382
  We welcome this broadening of the funding base, which is a key means by which universities can strengthen their independence. We are seeking to increase private finance for higher education in line with the private finance initiative.

EMPLOYMENT

  Campaigns
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 643-44, how many requests were received for entry packs for the 1993 national training awards; how many inquiries were received about career development loans; how many publications relating to "Just the Job" new measures were taken up; and what proportion of the total number produced this represented.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The national training awards office received 9,795 requests for entry packs for the 1993 competition; 36,390 inquiries were received about career development loans during their 1993–94 advertising campaign; 70,000 copies of the "Just the Job" were issued during the 1993–94 press advertisting campaign, representing 4-25 per cent. of the total produced.

  Fishermen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what help is being given by fishing vessel owners in each port to assist this Department in identifying fishermen employed in the industry for redundancy; what access is being given by them to records on each; and what charges are being made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information has been obtained from a number of sources including the fishing vessel owners' records held in various ports. Vessel owners' associations have made their records available for inspection by departmental officials. No charge is being made for this service.

WALES

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the unit cost per pupil for each Welsh local education authority for 1992–93 for(a) nursery primary pupils and (b) secondary pupils.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Provisional data on the net expenditure per pupil in maintained schools in each local education authority area in Wales for 1992–93 are given in the table.

  1Nursery/Primary £ per pupil

  1secondary £ per pupil

  Clwyd

  1,486

  2,243

  Dyfed

  1,807

  2,164

  Gwent

  1,479

  2,226

  Gwynedd

  1,664

  2,423

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,476

  2,300

  Powys

  1,911

  2,088

  South Glamorgan

  1,494

  2,144

  West Glamorgan

  1,794

  2,403

  1 Local education authority and grant-maintained schools. Includes recharged expenditure on school catering and certain central services.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all the non-departmental bodies in Wales that can be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following bodies in Wales are within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration:

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Development Board for Rural Wales (except housing functions)

  Housing for Wales

  Office of HM Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  Sports Council for Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Welsh Language Board

  Welsh Office

  The commissioner may investigate actions taken on behalf of a Government Department or other authority within his jurisdiction.

  Braille Ballot Papers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to provide Braille ballot papers at polling stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Forestry Commission Land Sales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all Forestry Commission land sold in Mid Glamorgan since 1 January 1991, giving the hectarage and the price paid per hectare; and what information he has on the current use of that land.

  Mr. Redwood
  The areas of forest land which have been sold by the Forestry Commission in Mid Glamorgan since 1 January 1991 are shown in the table. The price paid per hectare is given where the purchaser has agreed that such information can be made public. The Forestry Commission does not maintain records of the subsequent use of the woodlands it sells; however, woodland cannot normally be converted to another use without planning permission.

  Name of Property

  Area (hectares)

  Price (£)Per hectare

  Aberbargoed tip

  21·00

  22,400

  Blaengarw (old tip)

  67·80

  600

  Coed Cefn Rhychdir

  23·00

  1—

  Cors y Sarnau

  15·70

  1—

  Fochriw to Deri (main sewer improvement)

  0·30

  1,700

  Llanbradach (colliery road)

  0·01

  50,000

  Parc Cefn Machen (part)

  0·10

  1—

  Treherbert (land at)

  4·00

  1—

  Twyn Ifan Madoc

  18·50

  1—

  1 Not public information.

  384
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the closure of the Design Council in Wales; and what plans he has to ensure that industry in Wales continues to receive a design service.

  Mr. Redwood
  Various views have been expressed on the value of the Design Council in Wales. In recognition of the important role of good design, I am currently considering possible support measures.

  Further Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Development Agency for Further Education as he expects it to affect further education in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no knowledge of a development agency for further education. However, a new body is to be established in place of the further education unit and further education staff college which between them carried out much important work in developing the FE sector in England and Wales.

  I expect the new, as yet unnamed, body to complement the work of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and provide the advice, support and other services that colleges and interested organisations will need.

  Deeside Industrial Park
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the measures he is taking to improve access to and from the Deeside industrial park, Deeside, Clwyd, with the objective of increasing productivity, ending lorry queues and improving road safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The capacity of the Deeside industrial park junction is to be increased as part of proposals to improve the A550 trunk road between the River Dee and Woodbank junction.

  School Buses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he proposes to give additional moneys to local education authorities in Wales to enable them to fit seat belts in school minibuses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultation he has had with local education authorities in Wales concerning the need to fit seat belts in minibuses used to transport school children.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government are anxious to do all that we can to limit minibus and coach accidents and to mitigate their effect. We are currently reviewing the whole technical and cost implications of seat belts in these vehicles, including the "three for two" concession in home-to-school transport.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement the Countryside Council for Wales has had in operating the measures introduced to prevent overgrazing under the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  385
  Mr. Redwood
  The Countryside Council for Wales and other environmental and farming interests were consulted about the introduction of these measures. The operational responsibility rests with my officials assisted by Agricultural Development Advisory Service specialists.

  Lambs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to introduce weather aid to compensate farmers in parts of Wales affected by exceptional losses of lambs resulting from extreme weather during the 1994 lambing season; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I sympathise with sheep farmers who have suffered higher than usual losses of lambs this season, but it is not the Government's policy to provide compensation for the day-to-day business risks usually associated with livestock production.

  Arable Farmers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on arable farmers in Wales of the division of Wales into less-favoured area/non-less-favoured area sectors for the purposes of grant payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No producer will receive less this year than last, subject to any changes in the green rate in force on 1 July 1994 and provided that the total area on which payments are made remains constant. Specialist cereal growers, most of whom are in the non-less-favoured area sector, will benefit from higher payments.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the measures he has planned to eliminate traffic jams from Sealand, through Garden city, Queensferry, Shotton and Connahs quay to Kelsterton on the A550 and A494; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The communities referred to are along roads which are the responsibility of Clwyd county council, which is planning to build the third Dee crossing. This is expected to alleviate traffic along those routes. My right hon. Friend plans to upgrade the Deeside industrial park junction on the A550 which will complement the county council's proposals.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the membership of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have appointed Professor Eric Sunderland as chairman of the commission from 1 April. Professor Sunderland replaces Lady Crawshay, who has chaired the commission since 1979.

  I have also re-appointed Mr. Richard Hall Williams as deputy chairman and appointed Mr. Lloyd FitzHugh in succession to Mr. Ray Lacey.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the total expected cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer of support for the Pergau dam project;

  (2) what the total cost of the Pergau dam project to the United Kingdom Exchequer has been to date;

  (3) if he will set out the planned schedule of all future disbursements for the Pergau dam project from the Overseas Development Administration, with the planned dates and amounts in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade at column 360. In addition to the total estimate of interest rate support costs to the Exchequer for the Pergau project of £255·310 million, a further £1·035 million in total is expected to be spent on technical, financial and environmental monitoring of the implementation of the project. The total estimated cost to the Exchequer of the project is therefore £256·345 million.

  The total cost of the project to the Exchequer to date is £29·621 million. This covers actual expenditure between the financial years 1991–92—1993–94 on ECGD and ODA interest rate support costs of £29·202 million and ODA expenditure on technical, financial and environmental monitoring of £0·419 million.

  The current planned schedule for estimated future disbursements from ODA for (A) interest rate support costs contributed by ODA and (B) technical, financial and environmental monitoring costs of the implementation of the project is as set out in the table. The payments under (A) are made in June and December in each financial year; the payments under (B) for monitoring implementation of the project are made as work proceeds, without any pre-planned disbursement dates.

  £ million

  (A)

  (B)

  1994–95

  25·310

  0·240

  1995–96

  26·940

  0·240

  1996–97

  26·950

  0·136

  1997–98

  26·980

  —

  1998–99

  22·926

  —

  1999–2000

  19·749

  —

  2000–01

  16·538

  —

  2001–02

  13·396

  —

  2002–03

  10·218

  —

  2003–04

  7·039

  —

  2004–05

  3·880

  —

  2005–06

  0·740

  —

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current calculations about the food needs of Bosnia; and what is the current rate of supply.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  UNHCR currently estimates a requirement of 45,000 metric tons per month of food for Bosnia Herzegovina. Prior to the airlift being temporarily suspended on 11 April the delivery rate—for March—was 82 per cent.
  387
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his current assessment of the need for medical supplies in Bosnia and the adequacy of that supply.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Until a permanent cessation of hostilities is agreed, it will not be possible to provide medical supplies sufficient to meet all the needs throughout Bosnia. The United Nations agencies have appealed for US$1·76 million in emergency aid and health supplies for April which we understand is fully covered by donor pledges.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the cost to be incurred for each exercise in market testing in progress or planned within the Overseas Development Administration; and what is his projection for the saving to be made.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the "Competing for Quality" initiative, quality improvements are as important as financial savings. We do not make presumptions about levels of savings in advance of the test.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what market tests have been completed; what market tests are in progress; and what market tests are planned for the Overseas Development Administration;

  (2) what was the cost of each exercise in market testing completed to date within the Overseas Development Administration; and how much money was saved as a result of the exercise.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The requested information is recorded in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report 1994" published in March, Cm. 2540.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Independent Television
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on independent television; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  We aim to increase diversity and choice for viewers and to promote competition in the provision of services.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he now expects to issue his conclusions on the review into media ownership and cross-ownership.

  Mr. Brooke
  I would like this review to be completed as rapidly as possible. Officials will make recommendations to Ministers this summer, but the timing of an announcement about the outcome will depend on a number of factors, including the nature of those recommendations and any legislative implications.

  BBC Charter
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to redistribute existing BBC local radio wavebands to the commercial sector.

  Mr. Brooke
  Our policy is to encourage the broadcasters to reduce the broadcasting of the same programmes on AM and FM frequencies. AM frequencies used by the BBC for local radio will be released to the Radio Authority, if they are needed for the development of independent local radio.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to meet the chairman of the BBC governors to discuss the renewal of the BBC charter.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall be meeting the BBC chairman next month.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library a copy of all submissions made on the renewal of the BBC charter.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. We received more than 6,000 responses to the consultation document. I encouraged organisations to publish their responses, and many did so, but some organisations asked for their replies to be kept private. Last July, I placed in the Library a report analysing the replies from the public and a list of the organisations which responded.

  Brass Bands
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance his Department can give to coalfield brass bands.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) earlier today.

  Film Industry
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many feature films were produced in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Industry sources indicate that in 1993, 39 feature films were produced in the United Kingdom and a further 28 films were shot abroad with the participation of United Kingdom production companies. The total of 67 films represents a significant increase over the previous year, during which 47 films were produced with United Kingdom involvement.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made as to the factors which attract foreigners to Great Britain.

  Mr. Sproat
  The statutory tourist boards produce regular surveys which show that Britain has a wide range of attractions for foreign visitors. Among the most important of these are a number of areas supported by my Department: the built heritage, museums and galleries, and the arts.

  Art Galleries
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent consultations he has had about the availability of works of art in galleries for public display.

  Mr. Sproat
  In general, the display of works of art to the public in museums and galleries is a matter for individual institutions.

  Tourist Sector Jobs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his appraisal of the opportunities for job creation in the tourist sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  Employment in the tourism sector has shown steady expansion since the early 1980s and by June 1993 was just under 1·5 million, representing 7 per cent. of all employees in employment in Great Britain. The prospects for future growth in tourism employment opportunities remain good. The British Tourist Authority BTA—forecasts growth in overseas visits and expenditure over the next five years, and this is expected to be accompanied by growth in domestic tourism. The impact of such expenditure is spread widely throughout the economy as it includes spending on accommodation, eating out, shopping, travel within the United Kingdom and on services and entertainment. Many nominally non-tourism businesses derive a substantial part of their trade from tourists. Indeed, BTA estimates that, for every one direct job in the tourist industry, half an indirect job is created elsewhere in the economy.

  Mirror Group Newspapers
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he had with the President of the Board of Trade over the acquisition of Newspaper Publishing by Mirror Group Newspapers.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department's views on this matter were sought by the Department of Trade and Industry, and given to it in terms approved by me.

  Bronze Age Hill Sites
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy in providing the services of custodians at bronze age hill sites.

  Mr. Brooke
  Sites which are my responsibility are entrusted to the care of English Heritage. Decisions on the deployment of custodians are for that body.

  System-(Hardware)

  Function

  Still in use

  Integrated Purchasing System-(AST)

  Computerised Purchasing

  Yes

  Human Resource Management System-(MDL)

  Integrated Personnel, Superannuation and Payroll System

  Yes

  Two Mainframes-(ICL)

  To Provide a contingency service for Computer Bureau

  Yes

  VALCOM-(ICL)

  Computer System for the Valuation and Lands Office

  Yes

  Network and System Management Project-(DEC)

  To manage the Department of Finance and Personnel's computer system

  Yes

  Museums and Galleries (Attendance)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will now publish the actual, as distinct from the forecast, attendance figures for the financial year ended 31 March reported by the national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with the definitive, as distinct from the provisional, figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 14 February at column 578.

  European Football Championship
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Football Association with a view to giving Government assistance to that body to provide for a European football championship competition in Great Britain in 1996.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department is actively assisting the Football Association—FA—in the arrangements for the 1996 European championship through its representation on the FA's central organising committee for the event. I have been involved in promoting the event and I was delighted to attend the qualifying draw for the championship in Manchester on 22 January when I had the opportunity to discuss matters with the chairman of the FA.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what computer systems his Department have brought in for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of all computer systems brought in by the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments during the last five years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, network computer systems, in excess of the EC threshold, have been brought in as follows:
  391

  System-(Hardware)

  Function

  Still in use

  Accounting System-(ICL)

  Computerised Accounting for Department of Environment's (DOE) Road Service

  Yes

  Laboratory Information Management System (HMS)-(Siemens Nixdorf)

  To manage laboratory information for DOE—Water Service

  Yes

  Management Accounting and Information System-(ICL)

  Management Accounting and Information System for DOE-Works Service

  Yes

  Animal Health System-(UNISYS)

  To provide up to date and accurate information for use in eradication of Tuberculosis and Brucellosis in cattle

  Yes

  Biometrics VAX 6320-(DEC)

  To Provide statistical and graphical facilities for scientists

  Yes

  Back-up System for VAX 6320-(DEC)

  To allow back-up of user data overnight in unattended mode, allowing the VAX to remain operational during working hours

  Yes

  Plant and Vehicle Fleet Management-(ICL)

  Computerised records for Plant and Vehicle Management

  Yes

  Strategic Communications Network-(Linked LANS and Routers)

  Communication Network for Roads Service

  Yes

  Monitoring of Road Traffic Accidents-(UNIX)

  To monitor Road Traffic Accidents

  Not yet in use

  Capital Works Programme Management System-(DEC)

  To manage the Capital Works Programme

  Yes

  Design and Drafting System-(Sun)

  Computer Aided Design and Drafting System for DOE's Water Service

  Yes

  Design and Drafting System Network

  To manage the Computer Aided Design and Drafting System for DOE Works Service

  Yes

  Grants and Subsidies-(Sequent servers and various peripherals)

  The administration of the EC Capital Grant and Livestock Subsidy Scheme that existed in April 1992 including applications, claims and payments processing

  Yes

  Office Systems — (MIPs and IBM servers with various PCs and peripherals)

  To provide office system (electronic mail, word-processing, spreadsheet etc.) facilities to senior staff in DANI

  Yes

  Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)-(Sequent servers and various peripherals)

  Administration of exisiting EC Capital Grants and Livestock Subsidy Scheme as amended by CAP reforms introduced in 1992–93. Additional functions to support the Integrated Administration and Control System

  Yes

  Animal Health System Contingency-(UNISYS)

  To provide a suitable coputerised back-up system for the Animal Health System

  Yes

  DFO Systems-(Networked PCs)

  To provide PCs for an integrated management information of Agriculture (DANI) Forest Service

  Yes

  DANI Accounting System-(FM solution)

  To develop a computerised cash accounting system using the Oracle Financials Package

  Yes

  392 393

  System-(Hardware)

  Function

  Still in use

  Income Support-(FM solution)

  The administration of claims for and payments of relevant social security benefits to Northern Ireland claimants

  Yes

  Pensions-(FM solution)

  Yes

  Unemployment Benefit-(FM solution)

  Yes

  Disability Living Allowance-(FM solution)

  Yes

  Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance-(FM solution)

  Yes

  Social Fund-(FM solution)

  Yes

  Incapacity Benefits-(FM solution)

  Yes

  Child Support-(FM solution)

  The administration of the assessment and collection of child maintenance in Northern Ireland and parts of Great Britain

  Yes

  Office Automation (various servers)

  To provide office automation facilities for staff in the Department of Economic Development

  Yes

  Network infrastructure (various servers and routers)

  To provide a network for departmental office system in DED

  Yes

  Electoral Register System1

  To replace existing mainframe based electoral register system and provide improved management information

  Yes

  Payroll/Personnel System1

  Processing of pay and personnel function for prison officers

  Yes

  1 The hardware cannot be named for security reasons.

  Total cost (£)

  1989–90

  12,472,501

  1990–91

  3,069,217

  1991–92

  3,447,691

  1992–93

  9,301,305

  1993–94

  5,153,074

  Electricity Share Offer
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 1034, how many applications were received in response to the Northern Ireland Electricity share offer.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Four hundred and ninety thousand applications were received in the public offer for sale of shares in Northern Ireland Electricity plc. The offer was 3·9 times oversubscribed.

  Social Fund
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will adopt to ensure that applications in respect of the social fund will be expedited.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. A. Wylie to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 18 April 1994:
  394
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what steps will be taken to ensure that applications in respect of the Social Fund will be expedited.
  During the 1993/94 year a new Social Fund computer system was introduced to all social security offices throughout Northern Ireland. The introduction of this system will help to ensure that Social Fund applications are processed promptly and accurately and therefore provide an efficient service to customers.
  Work is also continuing to improve the design of Social Fund application forms. It is aimed at helping customers to supply all the information needed to allow informed decisions to be made on applications. This should reduce the number of instances where Social Fund officers have to contact customers for further information and will expedite the process leading to decisions.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Roads
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to address rising volumes and traffic delays in terms of major and minor roads infrastructure provision in each roads division in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The capital works programmes of Department of the Environment Roads Service have been developed to address the ever-increasing demands on the road network. During the 1994–95 financial year it is planned to spend some £29 million on major and minor road works in Northern Ireland. Individual schemes are prioritised within the funds available.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital expenditure on minor roads provision in each of the roads divisions from 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1984.
  395
  Mr. Tim Smith
  Expenditure on minor roads schemes —that is, mainly those costing less than £200,000—in each division of DOE Roads Service for the period in question has been as follows:

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial year

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  Total

  1981–82

  1,058

  1,731

  1,706

  935

  1,158

  1,823

  8,411

  1982–83

  826

  1,582

  1,009

  878

  635

  625

  5,555

  1983–84

  1,182

  1,827

  1,336

  1,047

  917

  928

  7,237

  1984–85

  1,257

  1,293

  1,232

  1,211

  1,072

  1,182

  7,247

  1985–86

  1,108

  1,045

  1,237

  1,351

  1,367

  1,164

  7,272

  1986–87

  1,090

  1,706

  1,689

  1,358

  1,537

  1,061

  8,441

  1987–88

  1,341

  1,480

  1,271

  1,174

  1,401

  1,382

  8,049

  1988–89

  1,078

  1,399

  1,147

  1,057

  1,307

  1,306

  7,294

  1989–90

  1,372

  1,656

  1,450

  1,422

  1,338

  1,555

  8,793

  1990–91

  1,441

  1,878

  1,449

  1,791

  1,552

  1,653

  9,764

  1991–92

  1,292

  1,510

  1,285

  1,430

  1,282

  1,284

  8,083

  1992–93

  1,273

  2,022

  1,629

  1,636

  1,630

  1,638

  9,828

  1993–941

  2,252

  2,633

  2,662

  2,677

  2,379

  2,598

  15,201

  1 Provisional figure.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital expenditure on major roads provision in each of the roads divisions from 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1994.

  Expenditure in £000s

  Financial year

  1HQ

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  Total

  1981–82

  6,683

  1,348

  8,763

  1,835

  1,959

  2,495

  796

  23,879

  1982–83

  8,872

  834

  8,814

  991

  817

  1,084

  953

  22,365

  1983–84

  6,152

  1,118

  4,634

  1,687

  1,845

  1,097

  491

  17,024

  1984–85

  2,836

  783

  3,901

  1,446

  1,426

  535

  1,145

  12,072

  1985–86

  612

  906

  3,154

  757

  1,434

  985

  1,568

  9,416

  1986–87

  418

  1,014

  3,268

  1,505

  1,804

  1,092

  879

  9,980

  1987–88

  690

  1,071

  3,169

  1,821

  1,784

  890

  793

  10,218

  1988–89

  1,755

  3,063

  1,999

  986

  1,844

  1,827

  694

  12,168

  1989–90

  100

  1,895

  6,510

  1,298

  1,233

  2,217

  3,144

  16,397

  1990–91

  35

  1,518

  4,991

  1,091

  1,313

  2,782

  3,379

  15,109

  1991–92

  —

  2,308

  8,430

  1,813

  2,807

  2,982

  1,600

  19,940

  1992–93

  —

  706

  7,759

  1,634

  377

  1,744

  1,646

  13,866

  21993–94

  —

  1,859

  12,713

  1,619

  1,369

  1,026

  320

  18,906

  1 Relates to schemes handled centrally.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what statistical or empirical research his Department is undertaking or has commissioned into the impact of the abolition of the right to silence under the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988; the date on which the work commenced; and when he expects the findings will be(a) completed and (b) made public;

  (2) if he will identify the statistical or empirical research on the impact of the abolition of the right to silence under the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, published or unpublished; and if he will place a copy of the relevant documents in the Library;

  (3) if he will list any statistical or empirical research on the workings of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, published or unpublished; and if he will place a copy of the relevent documents in the Library;

  (4) what evidence he has as to the effect of the abolition of the right to silence in Northern Ireland under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
  396
  Mr. Tim Smith
  Expenditure on major roads schemes —that is, mainly those costing over £200,000—in each division of Department of the Environment Roads Service for the period in question has been as follows:

  Sir John Wheeler
  In 19990, the Northern Ireland Office carried out a statistical analysis of data gathered on a small sample of supsects interviewed by police. The research is, however, of limited value because of the absence of any pre-1988 data with which to compare it. A summary of the research findings has been made available to members of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill; and a copy will now be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Further research is being commissioned by the Northern Ireland Office. This research should provide a fuller legal analysis of the operation and effect of articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It is hoped to complete this by March 1995.

  Northern Ireland International Airport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when consultations took place between the Northern Ireland Office and operators of the Northern Ireland international airport, and the representative organisation of the employees in respect of the future pension arrangements; and whether it was conducted by means of(a) a meeting, (b) correspondence or (c) both.
  397
  Mr. Tim Smith
  In response to concerns expressed about the future pension arrangements for employees at Belfast international airport, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland wrote to the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union on 11 August 1993.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he, or a Minister from his Department, will meet the Northern Ireland Airports Police Association to discuss the future policing of the airport following the passing of the recent order relating to the airport's future management.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  My predecessor met representatives of the Belfast Airport Police Association on 7 September 1993. At that meeting and in subsequent correspondence, he discussed in detail the arrangements for the future policing of Belfast international airport. If the association has any queries additional to those already discussed, I will be happy to provide an explanation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implications of privatisation for the powers of constables in the Northern Ireland airports police.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  On privatisation of Belfast international airport there will be no change to the existing powers of airport constables.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has studied the circumstances surrounding the need for Parliament to pass the British Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994 following the management and commercial reorganisation of British Rail, with a view to ascertaining if there will be a need for any comparable legislation in relation to the Northern Ireland Airports Police following the management and commercial reorganisation at the Belfast international airport.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The proposed privatisation of Belfast international airport will not involve any changes to the jurisdiction of the airport constabulary. The Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act 1994 has no implications for the statutory provision for airport policing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the existing pension conditions arrangements for employees at Northern Ireland international airport will be maintained following the coming into force of the order that set up a separate company to operate the airport in anticipation of its privatization.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  When the assets of Northern Ireland Airports Limited are transferred to the successor company, the pension rights of airport employees will be preserved by way of a deed.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if pension arrangements for employees of the Northern Ireland international airport will be protected following privatisation.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  It would be inappropriate and contrary to established policy to give assurance concerning the continued assumption after the sale of the successor company of pension fund obligations by any new owner
  of Belfast international airport.

  Criminal Injury Compensation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary Police Federation about proposals to alter arrangements for criminal injury compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November 1992 about this matter. A reply was issued on 18 December 1992.

  Unlogged Fish Catches
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to stop the landing of unlogged fish around the coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The activities of the fishing industry are monitored both at sea and on shore by the fisheries inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Information or reports suggesting the occurrence of unlogged landings are immediately investigated, and prosecutions taken as appropriate. Such landings undermine the efforts being made to conserve stocks and jeopardise livelihoods of fishermen and those dependent on the industry.

HEALTH

  Health Information
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual budget, including staffing costs, of(a) the health information service and (b) the health literature line.

  Mr. Sackville
  For available information on the costs of the health information service I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 8 March at columns 166-67.

  The cost of the health literature line for 1993–94 was £263,365.

  Policy
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her plans for the work of the Department in 1994–95 and beyond.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have agreed a statement of the aims, goals and priorities for my Department for 1994–95 and subsequent years.

  The statement covers the whole range of the Department's work relating to health and social services, European Community and other international issues, and internal management.

  The statement includes our specific priorities for the national health service executive, which are taken forward in more detail in the NHS executive's business plan for 1994–95 approved by the NHS policy board.

  Copies of both statements have been placed in the Library.

  London Ambulance Service
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the revenue and capital expenditure of the London ambulance service on mobile communication equipment and command and control systems in each financial year since 1991–92; and what plans exist for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures provided by the London ambulance service are:

  Year

  Capital (note1)

  Revenue (note2)

  £000

  £000

  1991–92

  982

  667

  1992–93

  569

  653

  31993–94

  90

  652

  1 Capital expenditure on computer aided despatch system (including mobile communications equipment).

  2 Revenue expenditure on maintenance of new and existing radio and communications equipment.

  The plans for 1994–95 include upgrading the radio system; issuing hand portable radios and other computer and communications projects relating to ambulance control.

  3 Provisional.

  NHS Reforms (London)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of "NHS Changes in London: Answers to the Questions You've Been Asking", have been printed; how many have been distributed; what was the total cost; and from which budget the cost has been drawn.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of copies printed was 3·5 million. A total of 3·28 million copies have been distributed to households within in the M25 area, and the rest have been made available to national health service trusts, health authorities, general practitioners, purchasers, family health services authorities, main libraries and citizens advice bureaux within the distribution area. The estimated total cost is £150,000, paid for from the Department's information division publicity budget.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 68, (1) in which reviews pernicious anaemia has been considered for inclusion on the list of medical conditions which confer prescription charge exemption; and what were the reasons for not including it on that list;

  (2) when the list of medical conditions which confer prescription charge exemption has been reviewed; and what representations and discussions take place in the course of such a review.

  Mr. Sackville
  We regularly receive representations about extending the list of medical conditions which confer exemption from prescription charges to include other illnesses, including pernicious anaemia. The arrangements for exemption on medical grounds were last reviewed as part of the fundamental review of health expenditure in 1993. No options for change within what can be afforded were identified. Charge remission available under the national health service low income scheme and prescription prepayment certificates ensure that no one 400
  who is not exempt from prescription charges need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication for financial reasons.

  Accident and Emergency Provision
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what accident and emergency provision will be made for residents and workers in the capital at the minor injuries units when they have sustained major injuries and conditions.

  Mr. Sackville
  Where a major injury or condition has been sustained and an ambulance is called, the casualty would be conveyed to a full accident and emergency department. Should an attender at a minor injuries unit be assessed as having sustained injuries or a condition requiring attention beyond the scope of the service, they would be transferred without delay by ambulance to an accident and emergency department.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what accident and emergency provision will be made for residents and night shift workers in the capital after the minor injuries units have closed for the weekend.

  Mr. Sackville
  Some minor injuries units will remain open at weekends. Precise hours of opening are, and will be, arranged to reflect known previous attendance pattens at nearby accident and emergency departments. They will be kept under review. Accident and emergency departments will remain open on a seven-days-a-week basis for those with more severe injuries or conditions.

  Breast Prostheses
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what specific arrangements are made for a woman who has suffered a double mastectomy to receive prostheses on the NHS;

  (2) which breast prostheses are available on national health service prescription;

  (3) for which breast prostheses her Department will pay for a woman, on income support, who has suffered a double mastectomy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The arrangements for the supply of breast prostheses to women who have suffered a double mastectomy are no different from those which apply to women who have had a single mastectomy. Breast prostheses are available through the hospital service. They are not available on a general practitioner's prescription. Where they are prescribed by a hospital consultant they are supplied and fitted free of charge to the patient, regardless of income. Individual consultants are able to prescribe whatever types of prostheses best meet the needs of their patients, taking into account other priorities and the availability of resources. If a woman has a personal preference for a more expensive type of prosthesis than that supplied by the hospital, she is free to make her own arrangements and meet the whole cost.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had with Mastectomy Advice Self-Help concerning the availability of prostheses.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what amount the budget of the United Teaching Hospitals Trust has been increased for 1994–95 to reflect an acquired responsibility for the management of Wharfedale hospital;

  (2) by what amount the budget of St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust has been increased for 1994–95 to reflect its acquired responsibility for the management of Seacroft hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave him on 9 March at columns 304-05.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff working at Wharfedale hospital joined the payroll of United Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust on 1 April;

  (2) how many staff working at Seacroft hospital joined the payroll of St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust on 1 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Staff at Seacroft and Wharfedale hospitals are employed by Leeds health authority.

  Health Survey
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health what instructions she gave when commissioning the 1992 health survey for England from the social surveys division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; on the inclusion or exclusion of income and class in its analysis.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the report of the 1992 "Health Survey for England," copies of which are available in the Library, social class as well as other socio-economic indicators such as economic activity or employment status, housing tenure, marital status, ethnic group and household type is discussed in the text where significant findings have emerged. Data on income are not collected in the health survey. The information collected has to be limited because of the need to keep interviews to a reasonable length, concentrating on the main purpose for which the survey was set up.

  A full data set for the 1992 survey for general access will be lodged with the Economic and Social Research Centre archive in due course.

  Hip Replacement
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip replacement operations and (b) revision hip replacement operations have taken place in the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes, NHS hospitals, England

  Hip replacement operations1

  1989–90

  21990–91

  Total

  50,790

  50,725

  Revisions

  3,562

  3,459

  1 Total Prosthetic Replacement of Hip Joint and Prosthetic Replacement of Head of Femur.

  2 Provisional.

  Complaints
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 392, if she will now publish a table of written complaints by patients about (a) hospital and (b) community health services in each region in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is due to be published soon in a booklet entitled "Written complaints by or on behalf of patients, England—financial year 1992–93" copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Hospitals, London
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people there are to each doctor-nurse team in the capital; and how this will alter after the closure of accident and emergency facilities in London hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  In inner London in 1992, there were 480 people per hospital and general practice doctor, and 97 people per hospital and general practice nurse.

  No accident and emergency facilities will close until alternative services are available. Therefore we would not expect any significant overall change in the ratio of medical and nursing staff per head of population as a result of changes in the pattern of casualty services.

  NHS Reorganisation, London
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the effects of reorganisation of the NHS in London on mid-Essex health services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The changes we are making in London's health services will enable health authorities to contract for more cost-effective services. The specialty reviews provided advice to health authorities on the disposition of specialist services following changes in London. Health authorities in Essex are currently taking the specialty reviews into account, before forming purchasing plans for contracts with hospitals in mid-Essex.

  Abortion
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals and private units offer a medical abortion service with mifepristone; and what are the addresses of those that do offer this treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about national health service hospitals performing medical termination of pregnancy using Mifegyne—mifepristone—is only available from the abortion notification forms submitted to the chief medical officer under regulation 4 of the Abortion Regulations 1991. This information is subject to the restrictions set out in regulation 5 and cannot therefore be published.

  A list of places in the private sector that have been approved under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, to provide medical termination of pregnancy will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received in respect of the recent survey of abortion patients at the Pregnancy Advisory Service clinic carried out by the Pro-choice Alliance.
  403
  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she will take to reduce waiting times and improve access to national health service abortion services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Arrangements for purchasing abortion services under the national health service are the responsibility of individual district health authorities in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Managers (Relocation Costs)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid by(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, and (c) trusts for the relocation costs of newly employed managers; and what is the average amount paid to each manager, for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to ensure that health authorities and trusts do not exceed their powers in the payment of relocation expenses for newly appointed managers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Relocation expenses for all staff, including managers, who work for health authorities and those working for national health service trusts on national terms and conditions of service are governed by section 26 of the General Whitley Council handbook, copies of which are available in the Library. The agreement, which took effect last year, allows employers to reimburse any reasonable costs incurred by an employee on relocating to a new area and does not lay down specific limits.

  Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, trusts have the freedom to make their own terms and conditions of service. Trusts, however, have every incentive to keep costs to a minimum in this area thereby increasing the amount of resources available for patient care.

  Rampton Hospital
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy in respect of Rampton hospital, Nottinghamshire, becoming a trust hospital in the near future; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No decision has been taken to extend trust status to Rampton hospital or the other special hospitals.

  After-school and Holiday Places
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide the latest estimates of(a) the number of after-school places for children aged over five years in Great Britain and (b) the number of holiday places for children aged over five years in Great Britain.

  Mr. Bowls
  Information collected centrally in England relates to out-of-school clubs and holiday schemes for those aged five to seven years provided by, registered with or known to local authorities. Latest available estimates for England are 11,900 places in the former and 47,500 in the latter at 31 March 1992.

  Information about the number of out-of-school places and holiday places in Scotland and Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

  Nurse/Patient Ratio
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 514, if she will provide comparable information on the qualified nurse/patient ratio on a regional basis.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The information will be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Computers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what computer systems his Department has brought in for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case, whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Lang
  Because of the wide range of the Scottish Office's activities, this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he collects about specific skill shortages in the economy; if he will list them; and what action he is taking to counteract such shortages.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend does not collect information about skill shortages in the economy. It is an objective of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to improve the performance of new and existing businesses by increasing their commitment to plan and invest in training and development to meet business needs. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are also responsible for funding and co-ordinating the provision of training for young people and unemployed adults through local enterprise companies to meet the needs of the local labour markets.

  IACS
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a short supplementary booklet explaining integrated administration and control systems; and if he will send such a booklet out with the official form.

  Sir Hector Monro
  An explanatory booklet on IACS has been produced and sent to Scottish producers with the blank IACS forms for 1994.

  Strathkelvin District Council
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what condiderations underlay the reduction in the general services capital allocation for Strathkelvin district between 1994–95 and 1996–97; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Local authority capital financial plans are considered afresh each year in light of the outcome of the Government's public expenditure survey generally. Capital allocations are determined having regard to the aggregate public expenditure resources available, the relative needs of individual authorities as expressed in their
  405
  financial plans, the ability of authorities to finance capital expenditure at their own hand, and past and projected spending levels and patterns.

  In the case of Strathkelvin district council, it benefited from a general decision that no authority should take a reduction in its allocation for 1994–95 on its general services programme. The provisional allocations for 1995–96 and 1996–97 were, however, set at a level which reflects both the fact that aggregate resources being provisionally allocated from this programme are reduced and our view of the council's need for capital allocations to undertake capital expenditure given the level of resources available to it overall.

  By their very nature the provisional allocations will fall to be reviewed. This will happen later in the year in response to the council's 1994 capital financial plan.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount spent by his Department in the last five years for which figures are available on consultancy contracts; if he will list each consultancy firm, the subject of assignment and, if appropriate, the executive agency for whom the consultancy was carried out; which executive agencies and quangos responsible to or appointed by him are excluded from the information provided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 21 February at columns 51-52 and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 16 March at columns 659–60.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what register his Department maintains of meetings between hon. Members and Ministers where the hon. Member concerned has a declared financial interest in the company or organisation which he is lobbying for, discussing or representing at any such meeting; if such register of meetings is available for public inspection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No register of this nature is maintained by my Department.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is available on the names, addresses, salaries, honoraria or allowances, occupations, former occupations and known political affiliations of people appointed by him to outside bodies and quangos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Most of this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on political affiliation is neither sought nor recorded. The levels of any salary or fee paid to a member of a nationalised industry, non-departmental public body or NHS body sponsored by my Department is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each appointment for which he is 406
  responsible which falls for renewal between 30 April and 31 December, giving the name of the quango, executive agency or outside body, the title of the appointment, the name of the current postholder, the salary, honoraria or allowance, and the date of renewal.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the cost of reorganising the British Railways Board for rail privatisation; and if this includes the cost of new liveries for British Rail staff and trains;

  (2) what was the cost of setting up Railtrack plc; and whether this includes the cost of new signs and logos.

  Mr. Freeman
  Reorganisation costs incurred by British Rail, including costs of setting up Railtrack, total £66 million up to 31 March 1994. The allocation of spending within British Rail and Railtrack is a matter for the businesses concerned. The Government are confident that these initial costs will be more than offset by the benefits resulting from privatisation.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the minimum service specification for each of the six shadow rail franchises will require the shadow franchisee to run as a minimum as many trains on each existing route as in the current British Rail timetable;

  (2) whether the performance standards specified in the shadow franchise agreements for each of the six shadow rail franchises will be at least as demanding as those operated hitherto by British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  Paragraph 18 of the objectives, instructions and guidance issued to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising on 22 March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State requires that for the initial letting of franchises, the specification of minimum service levels for railway passenger services is to be based on that being provided by British Rail immediately prior to franchising, taking into account the existence of, and justification for, seasonal variations in service schedules.

  Paragraph 21 of the objectives, instructions and guidance states that when the Franchising Director specifies the quality of service to be provided by a franchisee, the performance standards he sets should have the effect of maintaining or improving standards.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of setting up the new Highways Agency.

  Mr. Key
  Approximately £173,000, including the cost of the project team; the costs of producing the framework document, business plan and explanatory brochure about the work of the agency, and the cost of functions to mark the launch of the agency.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there are regular meetings between the Government Departments of Transport, Education, Health
  407
  and the Home Office specifically to review and co-ordinate activities to enhance road safety; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  There are frequent meetings between the Department of Transport and other Government Departments with an interest in road safety issues, including those mentioned in the question. Moreover, all the Departments mentioned are represented on the "Health of the Nation" accident prevention task force. I am satisfied that the current arrangements allow for adequate co-ordination within Government of activities to enhance road safety.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will inquire into the sale of marks market testing process at the DVLA; and to what extent the process was carried out in accordance with the Government's guidelines.

  Mr. Key
  I am satisfied that the process of letting the most recent contract for the sale of registration numbers work fully complied with civil service tendering procedures.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations Capita made to him regarding the way the original market test for the sale of marks functions at the DVLA was carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Concerns were expressed by Capita and others following the original tendering process in 1992 for the sale of vehicle registration numbers telesales contract. These centred on the basis upon which the in-house team was allowed to put forward proposals. The tendering exercise has been re-run using criteria based on the maximisation of revenue and the development of a cohesive marketing strategy. Tenderers were judged on their ability to maximise revenue from the sale of numbers, expertise in telesales and innovation and experience within the marketing field, as well as cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the sale of marks market test contract at the DVLA was awarded on the basis of the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Key
  No. It is the Department's view that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 do not apply in this case.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Teledata contract bid for the sale of marks function at the DVLA;

  (2) what were the reasons for not awarding the original contract for the sale of marks to the in-house team; what was the difference in money terms between the lowest bid and the successful bid; and by whom the lowest bid was submitted.

  Mr. Key
  Following a competitive tender exercise in 1992 in which the contract to operate the agency's telesales facility was offered to the market, it became apparent that the process adopted did not fully reflect tendering 408
  procedures as set out in "Competing for Quality", Cm 1730. The tender competition was accordingly re-run. Details of individual bids are commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list contracts awarded by his Department to Teledata Ltd. since 1987;

  (2) whether Teledata Ltd. bid for the original sale of marks contract at the DVLA prior to the re-run of the recent market test.

  Mr. Key
  Teledata Ltd. won the contract to operate a telephone information service and a sale of vehicle registration numbers telesales facility in December 1989. The company did not tender in the exercise held in 1992. Under changed ownership it won the contract in the latest sale of registration numbers market test. No other contract has been let to this company by my Department.

  Safety Levy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider introducing a £1 levy on all car insurance premiums to be directed to transport safety and transport education measures.

  Mr. Key
  We have no plans to introduce such a levy.

  Cars
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars he estimates were on the roads in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The numbers of cars licensed in Great Britain at the end of 1992 and 1993 respectively is as follows:

  Great Britain cars

  Year

  (1,000s)

  1992

  20,681

  1993

  120,988

  1 Provisional.

  Beer
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he last met the executive of the Brewers Society to discuss drink and driving;

  (2) when he will next meet the Brewers Society to discuss the sale of beers with high alcohol content and their impact on driving ability.

  Mr. Key
  I met the director of the Brewers Society on 28 June 1993. I have no arrangements at present to meet the society again, but would be happy to do so if it wished.

  Bicester Hunt (Trespass)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether British Rail is to take any action to prosecute a trespass on railway lines by the Bicester hunt on 13 January.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are not aware of the incident referred to by the hon. Member. If he will write to the Department with details we shall see that the matter is investigated further.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total income to the Treasury from the vehicle tax disc in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  Net vehicle excise duty, excluding refunds, for the 1992–93 financial year was £3,225 million.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the action the owners of tankers carrying dangerous substances must take in the event of an emergency to ensure that dealing with any spillage, or fire can be carried out with the utmost protection to personnel who have to attend to such an emergency.

  Mr. Key
  Under the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1992 the operator of a road tanker or of a vehicle with a tank container carrying a dangerous substance must ensure that its driver has received adequate information in writing about the identity of the substance, the quantity to be carried, the nature of the hazards created by the substance and the action to be taken in an emergency. The driver must keep that written information in the vehicle cab, so that it is readily available if needed by the emergency services.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will press, through the European Fire Service Organisation, for the retention of some form of emergency action code, including hazchem, to be used throughout the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  It is for the fire service inspectorate to press the case for an international emergency action code in the International Technical Committee for the Prevention and Extinguishing of Fires (CITE). I understand it will continue to do so.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will take steps to ensure that all road tankers carrying dangerous substances will continue to carry the necessary hazard warnings which identify the substance carried; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that the United Kingdom system of tanker marking, as distinct from the continental system, will be used at all times when dangerous substances are being carried on roads in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  A draft EEC directive on the carriage of dangerous goods by road currently contains a provision which will allow British road tankers carrying dangerous substances in the United Kingdom to continue to display the existing United Kingdom hazard warning labels. Vehicles registered in other countries will however be allowed on our roads, as they always have been hitherto, if they display the hazard warning plates required by the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road. The United Kingdom has so far been unable to persuade a majority of the countries party to the agreement to amend it so as to adopt the United Kingdom system.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Consultants
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information technology consultants her Department has employed in each of the last five years; for what purpose; and at what total cost.

  Mr. Jack
  There follows a list giving details of information technology consultants employed by the Department in the three years 1991–94 and the tasks on which they were engaged. The associated costs are as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  4·0

  1992–93

  5·2

  1993–94

  8·3

  Information for the earlier two years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food List of information technology consultants employed in the period 1991–94

  Consultant

  Task

  ACT Logsys

  Support to market testing programme for IT services

  ACT Business Systems

  Software support for IT users

  Admiral

  Development of computer systems for CAP reform schemes

  Admiral

  Development of Work Recording project for Veterinary Field and Investigation Service

  AIMS Systems

  Technical advice on Structured Design Methodolgy

  Aimtech Europe

  Development of IT system for licence identifications and management

  Ampersand

  Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes

  Ampersand

  Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate Project

  Ampersand

  Development of computer systems for Food Science Group

  AMP Systems

  Minister's Dairy System

  AMTEC

  Advice on quality management

  AMTEC

  Support to market testing programme for IT Services

  Applied Information Systems

  Advice on corporate data management

  ASK Group

  Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes

  ASK Group

  Development of Farm Survey System

  Aslib Consultancy

  Text Retrieval Study

  Asterisk Systems

  Development of computer systems for Food Science Group

  Asterisk Systems

  Development of computer systems for CAP reform schemes

  BIS

  Technical advice on Structured Design Methodology at the Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Brandt Computers

  Development of Resource Management Strategy

  Bristol University

  Development of computer system for National Food Survey

  Brook Systems

  Project Management of Sample Management System

  Keith Butterfield Associates

  Review of Staff Performance Appraisal system

  Cambridge Ergonomics

  Assistance with development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  CAPITA

  Support to market testing programme of IT Services

  411

  Consultant

  Task

  CCTA

  Development of IT Strategy for National Institute of Agricultural Botany and National Meat Hygiene Service

  CCTA

  IT Security Reviews

  CCTA

  Assistance with development of IT Sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  CCTA

  Support for Business Analysis in Flood Defence Division

  CCTA

  Support to IT procurements

  Chris Cole Association

  Advice on strategy for structured cabling

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Support to market testing programme for IT services

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Support for development of small IT Systems

  Corporate Computers

  Advice on computer systems for National Food Survey

  CSS Trident

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  CSS Trident

  Advice to Guildford Computer Bureau

  Digital Equipment Corporation

  Advice on configuration management

  D. M. Shaw Associates

  Advice on management of change

  D. M. Shaw Associates

  Development of standards for post implementation review of computer Projects

  D. M. Shaw Associates

  Advice on quality management standards

  DPP International

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Duhig Berry

  Advice on project management techniques

  Electronic Facilities Design

  Audit of Sample Management System project

  Electronic Facilities Design

  Development of IT training strategy

  Electronic Facilities Design

  Study of office working practices including time recording

  Ernst & Young

  Development of Resource Management Strategy

  Ernst & Young

  Support to market testing programme for IT services

  Exclusive Software

  Conversion of programs to Ingres

  Exclusive Software

  Development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  Exeter University

  Development of computer systems for ADAS

  F I Group

  Quality assurance of development of computer system for National Food Survey

  F I Group

  Data conversion for Agricultural Census

  F I Group

  Facilities management of Agricultural Census computer system

  F I Group

  Development of computer system for Overseas Trade Data

  Forvus Ltd

  Development of National Food Survey system

  Foxware

  Database pilot exercise

  Gateway System

  Advice on data communications cabling

  R T Grundy Associates

  Issue and evaluation of Tenders for Consultancy

  Harwell Computers

  Advice on IT system for licence identifications and management

  Hayes- Davies

  Advice on quality management, customer satisfaction surveys

  Haynes Associates

  Re-location of HQ to York project

  Hoskyns

  Development of computer system for Farm Woodlands scheme

  Hoskyns

  Assistance with Ingres database conversion project

  Hoskyns

  Advice on project management tools

  Hunterskill

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  412

  Consultant

  Task

  Independent Training

  Assistance with development of

  Solution

  sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  Inference Ltd

  Implementation of computer system for re-location expenses

  Infologistix

  Development of integrated library system

  Ingres

  Development of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes

  insight Consultancy

  IT security reviews

  ISM Consultants

  Assistance with data communications strategy

  Intersect

  Development of IT maintenance strategy

  International Software

  Assistance with development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  John Guest Ltd

  Advice on data management in the Fisheries Group

  Kermon Associates

  Technical assurance on implementation of office systems

  Kermon Associates

  IT security reviews

  LBMS

  Development of computer system for CAP Reform schemes

  LBMS

  Business analysis/feasibility studies/ system design

  LBMS

  Advice on standards

  Logica

  Development of computer systems for Food Science Group

  Logica

  Development of knowledge-based system in the Animal Health Group

  Mansell Associates

  Support for MAFF IT users

  Megaware Consultants

  Development of computer systems for Food Science Group

  MSB International

  Support for MAFF IT users

  Metron

  Advice to Guildford Computer Bureau

  Midsummer Computing

  Advice on geographical information systems

  MMT Ltd

  Development of computer system for Licensed Veterinary Inspections, Horticultural Inspection Recording

  MMT Ltd

  Advice on relational database management systems

  MMT Ltd

  Project management for National Food Survey system

  MMT Ltd

  Assistance with computer systems for Emergencies and Food Protection

  Mouncey and Parteners

  Development of computer systems for emergencies planning, meant plant monitoring

  Mouncey and Partners

  Development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  Mouncey and Partners

  Assistance with market testing programme of IT Services

  Mouncey and Partners

  Technical assurance on accommodation planning IT project

  Mouncey and Partners

  Assistance with computer systems for Emergencies and Food Protection

  Mouncey and partners

  Assistance with Horticulture Price Reporting project

  Mouncey and Partners

  Publicity Branch Feasibility study

  Mouncey and Partners

  Feasibility study on milk quotas system

  Mouncey and Partners

  Development of Grants & Subsidies Management System

  MSB International

  Technical Support for Guildford Computer Bureau

  MSG Business Systems

  Assistance with development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  Neville Clark

  Assistance with development of IT sub-strategy for Fisheries Group

  OFICE

  Assistance with building cabling project

  Opal Ltd

  Conversion of office systems

  Oracle

  Development and implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Oracle

  Support for IT systems at National Institute for Agricultural Botany

  PA Consulting

  IT sub-strategy studies

  413

  Consultant

  Task

  PA Consulting

  Advice on project costing and management for ADAS

  PA Consulting

  Audit of computer systems for CAP Reform schemes

  PA Consulting

  Development of Animal Tracking Project for the Animal Health Group

  PA Consulting

  Advice on IT implications for Regional reorganisation

  PA Consulting

  ADAS Accounting Project

  PA Consulting

  Emergencies Sample Handling Study

  PA Consulting

  Development of Food Related Database Shells Project

  PA Consulting

  Development of IT Strategy for National Meat Hygiene Service

  PACTUM Ltd

  Ingres program development for the Horticulture Inspection Recording System

  Perspective

  Advice on quality audit

  Premier Computing

  Implementation of Office Systems

  Price Waterhouse

  Development of Resource Management Strategy

  Price Waterhouse

  Development of IT strategy for Central Science Laboratories

  Prime Computer Systems

  Advice on capacity planning

  Projects Group

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Quana Learning Systems

  Development of IT training guides

  Quana Learning Systems

  Development of computer system for CAP Reform schemes

  Reading University

  Advice on relation of statistical software

  Reed Personnel

  End user support

  Ricardo Ltd

  Advice on end user support documentation

  SAC Ltd

  Advice on end user support methods

  Sapphire Ltd

  Support for IT systems in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  SEMA Group

  Development of Farm Survey System

  SEMA Group

  Development of IT strategy for National Meat Hygiene Service

  Sequent Computer Systems

  Capacity planning

  Sequent Computer Systems

  Implementation of Resource Management System

  Sequelogic

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Sherwoods Ltd

  Development of computer system for CAP Reform schemes

  Sherwoods Ltd

  Development of a computer system for TB in Cattle

  Shreeveport Ltd

  Development of IT strategy for National Meat Hygiene Strategy

  Siemens Nixdorf

  Assistance with data communications strategy

  Siemens Nixdorf

  Development of computer system for CAP Reform schemes

  Siemens Nixdorf

  Implementation of office systems (Project MAIDEN)

  Software Innovations

  Advice to Guildford Computer Bureau

  Software Support

  Support for Case Management System in Legal Branch

  South-West Health Authority

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Softbridge Support Service

  Development of computer system for Import Licence Identification and Management

  Span Group

  Advice to Guildford Computer Bureau

  Span Group

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Surrey Training and

  Advice on Investors In People project

  Enterprise Council

  Touche Ross

  IT security reviews

  Touche Ross

  Project management for the development of IT accounting system in National Institute for Agricultural Botany

  Touche Ross

  Development of IT strategy for personnel management

  414

  Consultant

  Task

  Touche Ross

  Development of an IT strategy for National Meat Hygiene Service

  TMS Computer Authors

  Software support for MAFF users

  Triad Ltd

  Development of a computer system for TB in Cattle

  Triad Ltd

  Development of a computer system for CAP Reform schemes

  Triad Ltd

  Development of computer system for Import Licence Identification and Management

  Triad Ltd

  Development of an IT Strategy for National Meat Hygiene Service

  Triad Ltd

  Development of a computer system for administration of pesticides approval applications

  Triad Ltd

  Implementation of Resource Management Strategy

  Zergo Ltd

  Security review of data communications network

  City Farms
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was her Department's expenditure on city farms in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) at the latest available date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. Government funding is provided primarily by the Home Office.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what computer systems her Department have brought in, for what function and at what cost for each of the last five years; and in each case whether the computer system is still in use.

  Mr. Jack
  Expenditure on computer capital projects over the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  7·6

  1990–91

  9·9

  1991–92

  9·2

  1992–93

  16·9

  1993–94

  15·6

  The Department employs computer facilities for a wide variety of functions in support of its many business needs and I cannot provide full details without disproportionate cost. However, the most significant computer projects, in terms of cost and value to the Department have been the systems to support the implementation of common agricultural policy reform measures, a resource management strategy, the introduction of office systems to head quarters offices and the provison of central bureau facilities in support of a range of applications across the Department.

  City Farms
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many city farms there were in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) at the latest available date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In 1991 and 1992, there were 63 city farms. A further six farms are expected to be established soon.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Armstrong
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on her Department's actions with respect to the arrival of cull milking ewes at Poole, Dorset, on 22 March.

  Mr. Soames
  This consignment of ewes originating in Spain was intercepted by the Ministry at Poole on 22 March and accompanied to a lairage at Southampton where the sheep were unloaded and detained for resting, feeding and watering and for veterinary examination. At unloading, the veterinary officer found one sheep dead and euthanased three more found recumbent. Another ewe was found to have lambed. The consignment was held overnight pending veterinary examination on the following day, by which time a second sheep had lambed. The veterinary examination carried out on 23 March disclosed a further 26 sheep unfit to continue their journey and these, together with the ewes which had lambed and the new-born lambs, were humanely destroyed. The remaining sheep, passed fit for transport, were consigned to their final destination in Birmingham.

  Ministry veterinary officers have made statements to the local authority, which will be considering prosecution for possible contraventions of the Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1992.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place in the European Union on limiting the journey time for transport of animals for slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 24 March 1994 at col.370.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has on the numbers of animals which will be imported for slaughter during the next 12 months.

  Mr. Soames
  Such information is not available.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to reinstate veterinary checks of animals at ports of arrival within the United Kingdom until all member states reach a common high standard.

  Mr. Soames
  EC rules prohibit the re-introduction of regular, systematic veterinary checks at internal borders, including at ports of entry, on animals traded between member states. In Great Britain, the State Veterinary Service (SVS) continues to conduct random and suspicion-based health and welfare checks on such animals at ports of arrival and regularly undertakes blanket surveillance, for 24-hour periods, at all south and east coast ports, covering both imports and exports of animals. In addition, the SVS continues to conduct a significant level of veterinary checks at premises of destination on animals imported from other member states.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers to discuss the export of live animals for slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has met the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers on a number of 416
  occasions but she has not discussed the export of live animals with the federation. Ministry officials also meet representatives of the federation regularly and discussions about the welfare of exported animals took place on 28 February 1994.

  Animal Welfare at Markets
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how she is monitoring the enforcement of the Welfare of Animals in Markets Order 1990; and what information she has on prosecutions brought under this legislation by each relevant local authority.

  Mr. Soames
  Veterinary officers and other Ministry staff visit markets regularly in the course of their duties which include providing advice and assistance to local authorities with responsibility for enforcement of the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990.

  Details of prosecutions are included in the "Return of Expenditure Incurred and Proceedings Taken under the Animal Health Act 1981, and Incidence of Disease in Imported Animals for the year 1993" which was laid before Parliament last month. The return shows that 28 prosecutions were taken for offences under the order in question.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals in regard to environmental protection she put to the European Fisheries Council on 12 April; and if she will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the Council meeting.

  Mr. Jack
  I reported the outcome of the 12 April Fisheries Council in my reply of 13 April to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 13 April at col.183-84. In a discussion on drift netting in the Council I stressed both the need to take environmental and ecological implications fully into account and my determination to oppose reintroduction of any derogation for drift nets longer than 2·5 km.

  Gambia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exist between the Government of Gambia and the European Union relating to access to the continental shelf and the coastal waters of the Gambia for fishing vessels from European Union member states.

  Mr. Jack
  A new protocol to the EU-Gambia fishing agreement, setting out the technical and financial terms governing fishing by European Union vessels in all Gambian waters for the period of 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1996, was adopted by the Council on 10 March 1994.

  The protocol provides for licensing of 23 tuna freezer seiners and seven pole and line tuna vessels. Additionally, there are opportunities for fresh fish trawlers up to a capacity of 410 gross registered tonnes, freezer trawlers fishing for shrimps up to a capacity of 2000 gross registered tonnes and other freezer trawlers up to a capacity of 750 gross registered tonnes.

  Warble Fly
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will initiate research into health risks associated with dressings used for warble fly; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Any potential human health risks from the use of veterinary medicines are fully assessed with applications for product licences are considered against the scientific criteria of safety, quality and efficacy laid down in EC and United Kingdom legislation. Provided that the label instructions are properly followed, the use of licensed warble fly treatments should pose no risk to human health.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to make available to farmers application forms for certificates of competence for the use of organo-phosphorous sheep dips; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Sheep farmers were sent a letter and application form last month inviting them to enrol with an agent of the National Proficiency Tests Council, for taking a test for a certificate of competence in the safe use of sheep dips. NPTC agents are sending certificates of enrolment, which are now necessary to support any purchases of organo-phosphorous sheep dips, to those who apply. During the coming months, NPTC agents will be arranging tests for the certificate of competence itself. The latter certificate is not necessary to support purchases of organo-phosphorus sheep dip until 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will initiate research into the possibility of a connection between the use of organo-phosphorous sheep dips and depressive illness; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Whether or not such research will be initiated will depend on recommendations from the medical panel, which was set up last month as a sub-committee of the Veterinary Products Committee to look into claims of long-term health effects, and to advise on research.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make a statement on the future of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary service;

  (2) what plans she has to privatise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Veterinary Service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend expects to consult interested parties on possible changes to the State Veterinary Service within the next few weeks.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is taken to restore the land concerned where overgrazing is found to occur in connection with the amended hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.
  418
  Mr. Jack
  The provisions of the current hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme are aimed at preventing further environmental damage rather than restoration of the vegetation.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment her Ministry has made of the measures introduced to prevent overgrazing in connection with the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  It is too early to assess the impact of the measures aimed at preventing overgrazing introduced under the current hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what involvement English Nature has had in operating the measures introduced to prevent overgrazing under the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  English Nature and other environmental and farming interests were consulted about the introduction of these measures.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which quotas have been transferred from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation to the Fife Fish Producers Organisation since Christmas 1993; and under which qualifying rules transfers have been made.

  Mr. Jack
  None. The allocations of fish quotas to producer organisations for a particular year are based on the track records of vessels over 10m in overall length in their membership at 1 January, in accordance with the rules for the management of fish quotas drawn up in consultation with the industry each year. The rules for vessels joining or leaving a particular producer organisation are a matter for the group concerned.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many warheads constitute a strategic strike compared with a sub-strategic strike.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 23 March,Official Report, column 290.

  Mines
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what tests Her Majesty's Government have carried out on the safety and reliability of self-destructing and self-neutralising mines; if he will publish the results; and what plans there are for further tests;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the failure rate of self-neutralising and self-destructing mines.

  Mr. Aitken
  No self-destructing or self-neutralising mines are in service with the armed forces and no specific
  419
  tests have been carried out by my Department into the safety and reliability of such mines. Consequently no data are available regarding failure rates. We do have plans to introduce mines with these capabilities and acceptable levels of safety and reliability will have to be demonstrated as part of the procurement process. Any such weapon would, of course, fully comply with the international laws of armed conflict.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received that symptoms of Gulf war syndrome have affected the spouses and children of those who served in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received representations relating to seven cases where it is alleged that there may be some linkage between service in the Gulf and subsequent medical problems among spouses or children of service personnel.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the amount of money earmarked on the service children boarding school allowance scheme in Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the location of schools attended by the children of service parents claiming boarding school allowance is not compiled annually. The most recent available information is for 1992, when the average boarding school allowance paid per service child was £7,117. From this it is estimated that some £2,850,000 was paid to claimants whose children attended schools in Wales. Information for previous years is not available.

  Fraud
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what how many(a) Ministry of Defence civilian personnel, and (b) service personnel have (i) been charged and (ii) been found guilty of fraud in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been lost to his Department through fraud in the financial years(a) 1990–91,(b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 11 January,Official Report, column 172. My
  420
  Department expects the highest standards of personal honesty and integrity from its employees, and is taking steps to increase awareness and to counter the incidence of fraud in the workplace.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who are the members currently appointed to the nuclear powered warships safety committee;

  (2) who are the members currently appointed to the nuclear weapons safety committee;

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Membership of the nuclear weapons safety committee and nuclear powered warships safety committee is made up of serving officers of the armed forces, senior civil servants and a number of independent specialists drawn from industry and the academic world. For security reasons it is not our practice to reveal names of individual members serving on these committees.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the board of the National Army museum.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge

  General Sir George Cooper

  Mrs. Sara Jones

  Rt. Revd. Michael Mann

  Richard Marriott

  Hon. David McAlpine

  The Duke of Westminster

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Royal Military college of science advisory council.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  The Lord Gregson AMCT CBIM DL (Chairman)

  Professor Sir Roger Elliott DSc MA DPhil FRS

  Professor Sir John Cadogan CBE FRS

  Professor J. H. Westcott DSc FRS FEng

  Dr. A. A. Wells OBE FRS FEng.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who are the members currently appointed to the Royal College of Defence Studies advisory board.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Lord Bridges GCMG

  Professor Sir John Cadogan CBE FRS

  Professor Lawrence Freedman

  Sir John Graham Bt GCMG

  Sir James Hamilton KCB MBE

  Sir Richard Lloyd Bt

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Age Concern: Mobility Report
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered Age Concern's report on transport and mobility for older people On the Move; and whether they support the initiatives in the report.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government are committed to working to increase the opportunities for independent mobility among older people. We received Age Concern's report and welcome its campaign on transport, both to raise the profile of this important issue and to stimulate further progress.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his reply, though he might have been rather more specific in welcoming the excellent report covering a broad range of problems affecting older people in regard to mobility. Will the Government support the proposals of Age Concern for a national scheme of uniform concessionary fares? Also, what do the Government intend to do to encourage local authorities to include transport as a necessary part of their community care schemes to ensure that community care services reach the people and that people can reach community care services?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government believe that the decision on whether or not to provide concessionary fares should be made by local authorities as they know local needs and the costs involved. We recognise the specific problems that exist in rural areas and that is why local authorities possess powers to
2
subsidise socially necessary services where operators are not prepared to run them commercially after competitive tender. We issued extensive guidance to local authorities to ensure that the needs of users and carers are central to the provision of community care services.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I know that the Minister studied the report and I am sure that he will agree with my noble friend Lord Stallard that it is an excellent and comprehensive report. However, will the Government accept that there should be more encouragement for those involved in Age Concern? Will he consider persuading his department, in co-operation with the Department of Health and perhaps the Department of the Environment, to prepare a reasoned reply to the report? He may then he able to explain, more fully than he can in this short Question time, the Government's total attitude towards the growing problem of mobility for the aged?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree that it is a wide and important subject. I shall take the noble Lord's remarks and suggestions back to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people living in rural areas suffer more than anybody else? We are all grateful for the London bus pass and it helps many elderly people, but where I live the allowance is £17 for 12 months and it costs £2 to go into the nearest main town. The allowance therefore does not give elderly people much help. Quite apart from that, they often have to walk for over a mile to reach a bus stop.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said, we recognise the specific problems of rural areas and that is why local authorities possess powers to subsidise socially necessary services. In calculating standard spending assessment and revenue support grant, account is taken of the need for such services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Viscount take into consideration something that we all witness at least once a day if we use buses? I refer to the difficulty that old and infirm people experience in boarding and alighting from buses, and sometimes in getting down to the Underground. I hope the noble Viscount agrees that those points are worthy of consideration.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Department of Transport and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee produced a specification in 1988 for buses to make them easier to use by ambulant, disabled and older people. Significant progress has already been made and it is estimated that 90 per cent. of new buses have at least some of the features recommended in the specification.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that one of the major disabilities is that of visual impairment? There is still little evidence of tactile signs being provided at bus stops. Perhaps the noble Viscount will direct his attention to that problem.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, highlights an important issue. In the specification recommended features include lower step heights, better lighting, step-edge markings, textured and colour contrasted handrails and stanchions, bell pushers that are reachable to seated passengers and bus stopping signs.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the report relates not only to transport but also to the problems on the road. Older people need to walk on the roads as well but they are not built for elderly people; they are built for cars. There are insufficient crossing facilities. In most districts pavements are bad and traffic is increasing all the time without extra provisions being made for older people.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Department of Transport has developed the new so-called puffin crossings in response to requests from users for improved crossing facilities. This new crossing detects the presence of pedestrians on a crossing and varies the time the red signal is shown according to the needs of the pedestrian.

Hyde Park: Traffic Flows
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change traffic flows through Hyde Park, and if so, what traffic flow studies and other consultations will be carried out before any changes are considered.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Royal Parks Agency, which is responsible for the management of the Royal Parks, has no plans at present to change the traffic flows in Hyde Park. If there is occasion to do so for any reason in the future, the agency will carry out traffic
4
flow studies and consult with the neighbouring traffic authority on the effect of any proposed changes on surrounding roads before implementing any plans.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she assure me, though, that she is aware of the difficulty experienced by residents, both north and south of the park, of even the Sunday closures of the south carriage drive? Can she further assure me that there will be consultations with the residents, as those are the people who have all the local traffic completely distorted by any change inside the park?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we do not consult with individual residents' associations on developments that are planned in the park as there are so many different organisations with interests in the Royal Parks. We canvas the view of interested parties by consulting the local authorities and friends of the individual parks involved and other authorities, such as the Traffic Director for London, as appropriate.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the carriageway in front of the Albert Memorial has been free of traffic now for some years? Will she confirm that that will remain so?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have said, no changes are anticipated at present.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's Answer mean that the Government appreciate the fact that arbitrary interference with traffic flows almost always turns bad into worse?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I quote Dame Jennifer Jenkins, who stated:
"The parks are essentially for people on foot and the needs of the pedestrian should be given the highest priority within the parks. The impact of vehicles parked as well as moving should be reduced".
But I repeat that no decisions have been taken on the proposals in the report.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, what types of public transport are permitted in Hyde Park; and, if none, why none?
Baroness Trumpington: Well, my Lords, I have millions and millions of supplementary answers but not that one.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that is normally the reply we hear from her noble friend Lord Ferrers when he cannot think of an answer to the question. I realise that that was a rather difficult question to answer on one's feet, but I would like to know the answer. If the noble Baroness could write to me, I would be obliged.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has reminded me that taxis are allowed.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness advise the House that, if a study is made on the

5
question of traffic in Hyde Park, due consideration will be given to the interests of cyclists, to whom Hyde Park is very, very important?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am happy that I have the answer to that supplementary question. Yes, proposals are to be circulated for consultation during the year. At the moment they are excluded from certain paths because of the conflict of use between cyclists and pedestrians.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend keep in mind the conflict between views such as those which she quoted from Dame Jennifer Jenkins, who seems to view the park as something entirely divorced from the local surroundings, and the views of local people? Will she remain confident that local consultation will always take place?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hate repeating myself but I said that there would be consultation in every kind of direction. I remind my noble friend that the Royal Parks are owned by the Sovereign on right of the Crown. The roads are Crown roads. They are maintained by the Royal Parks Agency, not the local highway authority or the Department of Transport, and they are policed by the Royal Parks Constabulary.

The Design Council: Review
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the possible effect on general employment of the cuts envisaged in the current Design Council review.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government recognise that the changes to the Design Council's activities announced last month will involve reductions in the number of staff employed by the council. However, by improving the availability of design services through Business Links, the competitiveness of British companies should be improved. Overall, I would expect the impact on employment arising from these changes to be positive.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he not aware that the Design Council has a very worthy tradition of advice to industry on product design and development process, which largely determines its ability to become competitive? If it is not competitive and cannot perform in the market place, there will obviously be more unemployment. Hence my Question referred to "general employment". I also note the noble Lord's reference to unemployment among the design staff. I gather that about 200 people may be considered redundant. If that is so, does the Minister agree that it is a pity to dispense with the services of people who have some expertise in these areas?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely share the noble Baroness's concern about our competitiveness.
6
That is why we have accepted the report of the chairman of the Design Council, Mr. John Sorrell. Its aim is to improve our overall competitiveness and to make sure that the design services provided to local industry, either by the Design Council or by the new network of Business Links, are of exactly the right quality. On the possibility of redundancies, we believe that, with a new national network of Business Links providing design services, a great deal of those redundancies may well be mopped up.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer is unsatisfactory largely because he has not really said whether the Government believe that the functions of the Design Council should continue to be carried out? If they should be, then the Minister must admit that what the Government are putting in place of the Design Council is cheaper, smaller, not yet in place and will not carry out those functions ?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has not read the report issued by the chairman of the Design Council. I believe that there is a copy in the Library. If the noble Lord reads it, he will find that what is envisaged is a new and slimmer version of the Design Council which will be far more active in dealing with some of the problems of design and particularly in bridging the gap between design organisations and British industry.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the staff who work for the Design Council, many of whom are members of my own union, do not share the view which he expresses about the future of the service? I believe that he has undertaken to meet a delegation from that union. Will he undertake to let me know what happens as a result of that meeting?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. I have agreed to meet a delegation from the union and I shall be delighted to do so. I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness when I have had that meeting.

Housing Insulation
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent a method of assessing the merits of house insulation is likely to be agreed by the European Community and, failing such agreement, whether the Government will produce their own criteria for all new houses.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the European Community last year issued Directive No. 93/76/EEC (the SAVE directive) which, among other things. requires member states to draw up and implement programmes for effective thermal insulation of new buildings. Building regulations in the UK already fulfil this requirement.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which is encouraging. One must ask why we did not improve our standards of insulation long ago.

7
Obviously, if one is improving insulation, which we would all like to see, it costs money. Does he agree that, unless the consumer has some knowledge of the advantages and so forth, that will not happen? The Minister has simply not answered my Question at all.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the SAVE directive was adopted by member states in September last year. The purpose of the directive is for member states to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency. The SAVE directive also requires that measures are cost-effective, and of course the new regulations will contain specifications to conform with the directive. When new buildings are built or old buildings are substantially altered, they will be in the building regulations that will be applied.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that this is a classic case for subsidiarity? With the vast variations among different member states, does my noble friend agree that it should be a matter for them to decide what is the appropriate means of house insulation?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased to learn that subsidiarity has been applied to the directive and that it is for individual states to take their own action within a very wide framework.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the Question specifically relates to new houses, the biggest problem of loss of energy through lack of insulation is in the older houses; millions of which have no insulation whatever? Will he make overtures to his Government to reconsider reinstituting the grants? They were unfortunately done away with in the late 1980s when people were starting to take them up and thereby save energy.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that new regulations apply to any building where there is substantial renovation. For example, if floors or roofs are altered the new regulations will apply. However, I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the noble Lord's comments about grants.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can we hear what progress has been made with the establishment of a national system of home energy audits? As the noble Viscount is probably aware, that has been successfully applied in countries like Denmark and leads to considerable energy saving. Have we made any progress in that connection within the UK?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Lord, but I shall pursue the matter and write to him in due course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick is very important? Is he further aware that, if older houses were insulated to a very good standard, it would not be
8
necessary for the Government to impose the extra 9.5 per cent. VAT on domestic heating? Would not that be worthy of consideration?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, that question requires a mixture of answers. The VAT on fuel not only raises revenue but also encourages more efficient use of energy. It should lead to a reduction of 1.5 million tonnes of carbon. A package of measures costing £2.5 billion to ameliorate the effects of VAT on the less well off was introduced. The noble Lord will be aware of the home energy efficiency scheme which provides grants for basic energy efficiency measures such as loft insulation, tank and pipe lagging and so forth for vulnerable members of society.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the information which the Minister has just given. Can he say to what extent there has been a take up of these grants? Are central figures available on how many houses remain to be brought up to standard?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that on 1st April the provision of HEES grants was almost doubled. The extra £35 million per year for the United Kingdom will provide grants for more than 200,000 extra households per year, bringing the number of households receiving grants to almost half a million a year. It will reduce the fuel bills of recipients, save energy and help to fight the threat of global warming. It will also create about 1,500 extra jobs.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case, as my noble friends have argued, that it is older houses which are responsible for the main leakages of energy? Is it not further the case that older houses tend to be inhabited by the more vulnerable members of society ? Will the noble Viscount take that factor on board? Further, is it not the case that the job of renovation is very difficult to define? When my noble friend Lady Nicol asks what the take-up rate is, does the Minister agree that he should be giving the percentage of those who are entitled to take up the benefit and in fact are doing so rather than global figures in millions of pounds?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot give an answer as regards the rate of take up. But I can tell the noble Lord that since the scheme began in 1991 more than half a million homes have been treated. In the current financial year about 440,000 dwellings expect to be treated with the £70 million which has been made available for grants.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, furthermore, is it not the case that the gas regulator, Ofgas, has ruled that companies cannot charge higher prices to take account of the cost of the Government's insulation programme for vulnerable people? Is that the case and, if so, why has the gas regulator so ruled?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is referring to a recent decision concerning the Energy Savings Trust, which is an independent organisation. The Government support its aims and see it as an important contributor to meeting the targets of

9
the UK's climate change programme. The Director General of Gas Supply has recently queried the use of a levy on gas customers as one source of funds. Officials are currently reviewing the position and looking at alternative approaches.

Business
3 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Bosnia.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 49, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

L. Airedale,

E. Alexander of Tunis,

L. Browne-Wilkinson,

V. Dilhorne,

L. Gisborough,

V. Hanworth,

L. Haskel,

L. Lloyd of Berwick,

B. Mallalieu,

L. Meston,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Wigoder.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out; and
That a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday 20th April at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 4B. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sunday Trading Bill
3.2 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 4 [Rights of shop workers as respects Sunday working]:
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Rights of shop workers as respects Sunday working]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29A:
Page 12, line 50, after ("etc.)") insert ("or under regulations made under paragraph 20 of that Schedule (reinstatement or re-engagement of dismissed employee)").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which I have tabled to close an unintentional small gap in the employment provisions in Schedule 4.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the rights which are provided in this schedule are watertight. That is why we have made provision that an employee, in order to be a "protected shopworker", shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement that he was employed on the day before commencement of the Act as a shopworker if his contract of employment had, on that day, ceased, but that that day counts as a period of employment with the employer under' paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
This would include circumstances such as where the employee's contract had ceased because of sickness, injury, temporary cessation of work, pregnancy or childbirth, or in any other circumstances which, by arrangement or custom, the employee is regarded as continuing in employment with the employer.
Therefore, when the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers brought to the Government's attention another group of shopworkers who may also inadvertently not have "protected status", we immediately confirmed that we would consider the matter carefully and would table an appropriate amendment if necessary. This is what we have done. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("three months') and insert ("one month").
The noble Baroness said: As we know, it is accepted on all sides that Sunday working must be a voluntary matter. It is further accepted by everyone—or almost everyone, I believe—that there is something special about Sunday—whether the reasons are religious or traditional. Sunday is the day when, generally speaking, people want to rest and to participate in leisure activities and now, as a result of the Bill, they will increasingly be able to shop—not just for items from the corner shop which they forgot to purchase earlier, but for large items such as clothing and furniture. The move has been presented by many of your Lordships as an increase in leisure opportunities for many people, since shopping can be, and often is, regarded as a leisure activity by families.
However, in order to enjoy the new leisure faciliity, we should take care that we do not do so at the expense of others, notably the employees without whom there

11
could be no Sunday opening at all. The Bill makes it explicit that workers may opt out of working on a Sunday and are entitled to do so without detriment. To quote the Minister in the other place, the Bill removes any room for doubt that workers who opt into Sunday working retain the right to opt out subsequently if they wish to do so. The only limitation to that right would be the requirement to give employers three months' notice.
My amendment seeks to reduce the three months to one month. It is our view, and that of the unions representing shopworkers, that three months is far too long a period. Most employers surely are able to make alternative arrangements in one month. On the other hand, the worker may decide—it is more than likely that the worker will be a she—or feel that she has to opt out because of some domestic crisis which could not have been foreseen three months earlier. I really cannot believe that in the present labour market, when so much part-time labour is available, employers could not make suitable alternative arrangements if they were given one month's notice.
Already, numbers of firms which recognise and negotiate with trade unions have accepted the point and will not insist on the three-month period set out in the Bill. I am advised that Tesco, for example, which has sent me a detailed package of information relating to its employment policy, will not insist on more than one month's notice. Other companies to my knowledge are Kingfisher, Sainsbury, Asda, Boots, Dixons and W. H. Smith. There may well be many others. If that is the case, cannot we persuade the Government and, if not the Minister this afternoon, then the Committee, that the three-month provision in the Bill is far too long in an industry where the vast majority are modestly paid and, in too many instances, poorly paid women, many of whom are part-time workers and most of whom will have domestic responsibilities? I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I should like to second the amendment, which stands in my name also. My noble friend has made it clear that a number of major employers already agree to the provision voluntarily. The problem with the Bill as it now stands is that the occasional rogue employer—not the ones which my noble friend has mentioned, but others—could enforce the regulations in such a way that a worker who wished to opt out could be made to work on every Sunday during the three-month period of notice. Obviously, that is a totally unsatisfactory provision and is presumably not intended.
The other point is that employers may find that a worker gives notice of his or her intention to leave that employment. Employees wishing to leave their employment have to give only one month's notice. It seems a little strange that the law should be drawn more tightly with regard to Sunday working than is the case when workers wish to resign entirely from a post, in which case only one month's notice would be required. I reconfirm what my noble friend has said: employers who are members of the Shopping Hours Reform
12
Council, which, as the Committee knows, I chair, have entered into voluntary agreements with their employees that they will not need to give three months' notice.
Lord Rochester: I am glad to support the amendment for the reasons that have been given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner of Camden and Lady Jay. In my view, the period of one month would give a much more reasonable balance between the interests of the employer and those of the employee. For the employer, one month should be more than long enough to enable him to rearrange his staffing rotas. As has been said, the employee may have all sorts of reasons (connected with family responsibilities perhaps) as to why even one month is too long a period. The Minister may say that it would be easy enough for large shops with many employees to manage on the basis of one month's notice but that it could be more difficult for smaller shopkeepers, who might have to recruit and train a new employee to work on a Sunday. I would not find that answer convincing.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has just said, employees have normally to give just one month's notice if they wish to terminate their employment. Employers seem to manage well enough when that happens, and I cannot see why they should have longer notice when an employee wishes to stop working on Sunday. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: There are two reasons that the amendment is persuasive. First, one has to imagine the situation which would apply if the three-month provision were to continue. People would give notice to their employer that in three months' time they wanted to opt out, and for three months they can be made to work Sundays—every Sunday for three months. What kind of right is that? What kind of pressure is that to put upon workers? The limited rights put in the Bill mean nothing if a worker can only put in an opting-out notice which lasts for three months. If the Committee thinks about that it will realise that that point is unanswerable.
Secondly, the suggestion that the Government made in the other place—Mr. Lloyd made the point—is that it is easy for large firms and difficult for small firms. That does not stand up. What is difficult, if people give notice that they do not want to work on Sundays, is the proportion of the labour force involved. It is not the size; it is the proportion of the labour force. The general argument put forward in this place and the other place is that the majority of workers will want to work Sundays; they are queueing up to work Sundays. If that is the case, it applies to large and small firms. Therefore it is no more difficult for small firms than for large firms. Most importantly, if one insists on three months' notice, then the right is not worth anything at all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to make just one brief point, because I noted what my noble friend said about Tesco, Kingfisher and other large firms. It is altogether good that they should have given the assurance that they will reach an agreement and will not hold employees to three months' notice. But, as my noble friend pointed out, there are employers, other than

13
those employers, who may not wish to reduce the period from three months to one month. The Committee has to consider all employees in the retail industry and not just employees in a few firms.
Furthermore, trading conditions change and it may well be that even Tesco and Kingfisher might feel that they would have to resile from an agreement they reached at any given time. People need protection. Three months, as has been pointed out, is the devil of a long time at work. It is a quarter of a year. Let us make no mistake about that. The only sure way of protecting employees throughout the retail industry is to agree to the modest amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have listened with attention to everything that has been said in support of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to the imponderable; that is, the number of people who do or do not wish to work on Sunday. We do not yet know that. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to changing conditions—another imponderable. It is a question of balance. We are looking forward to a situation in which there can be no finite certainty of demand or supply. I should have thought that the reasonable balance is about three months, perhaps two months, but certainly not one month.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Quite a lot has been said not just this afternoon but in another place about what period of notice is correct for those who wish to withdraw from a contractual obligation to work on Sundays to give in order to benefit from the rights provided in Schedule 4. The amendment, as the Committee has been told, reduces the period from three months to one month. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that he could not understand why the Government could not accept a simple amendment like that, and I shall try to explain to him.
The Committee might find it helpful if I were to start by setting out the circumstances in which the notice period will apply and if I were then to outline the reasons why the Government believe that three months represents the correct statutory requirement.
Schedule 4 distinguishes between a "protected shopworker" and an "opted-out shopworker". All shopworkers in England and Wales who are employed at the time when the Bill becomes law—regardless of their length of service or how many hours they are supposed to work per week—will be "protected shopworkers", and they will be protected against dismissal or against any other detrimental action if they refuse to work on Sundays. "Protected shopworkers" will acquire those rights on the day when the Bill comes into force, even if they have previously agreed to work on Sundays. They will not have to serve any notice period in order to benefit from those new rights. They can quite simply decide that they do not wish to work on Sundays and that will be the end of the matter. Provided that the individual continues in his or her employment as a shopworker with the same employer, he or she will continue to enjoy the protections indefinitely.
14
The position is different for those who take up employment in or about a shop after the Bill becomes law and who, in doing so, agree to a contractual requirement to work on Sundays. They, too, will have the right to opt out of Sunday working if they wish to at a later date but, unlike those who are employed when the Bill comes into force, they will be subject to a three-month notice period. The Committee will be well aware that the provision of a right to opt out represents a radical departure from the normal contractual position under which the terms of a contract, once agreed, are binding on both parties. This is a great change from that. Indeed the Committee will perhaps not be surprised that a number of employers have expressed serious reservations about the effect of allowing one party to an employment contract unilaterally to withdraw from its terms.
Nevertheless, the Government think that no shopworker should be required to work on Sundays against his or her will. In order to secure this, Schedule 4 offers shop workers a unique right to withdraw from a contractual obligation to work on Sunday. However, in adopting that approach it is essential that proper account should be taken of the operational needs of the employer and that any right to opt out should be subject to safeguards to prevent abuse. That is the purpose of the notice period. In setting a notice period for opting out of Sunday working, the Government are trying to reconcile two different interests: the legitimate interests of employees, on the one hand, and employers on the other hand. The Government think that a three-month notice period achieves the right balance.
The retail industry is diverse. It includes retailers who have multiple outlets and some whose turnover is in excess of £500 million per annum, as well as the individual who has just a single outlet with a turnover of less than £100,000 per annum. So there is a wide. spectrum. What is possible in one outlet may be quite unmanageable in another. For example, a large supermarket, which employs hundreds of workers, may be able to cope with some of its employees opting out of Sunday working simply by seeking extra volunteers from within its existing workforce. A small newsagent, on the other hand, with only one or two employees may have great difficulty in continuing to trade if his entire complement of staff were able to opt out of Sunday working at one month's notice.
Equally, a store may have a large number of employees overall, but only a handful in certain key posts. If one or two managerial or supervisory staff were to opt out of Sunday work at short notice, this could understandably create greater problems than would arise if, for example, a checkout operator or a shelf filler were to opt out of Sunday working. In these circumstances, there is likely to be a much smaller pool of workers from which a replacement can be found.
Similar considerations apply to those shops whose sales staff are required to have specialist knowledge. Staff at electrical goods shops, for example, may be expected to advise and to show some expertise about the products which they are selling. Such skills are not acquired overnight and employers will need adequate time to arrange suitable replacements.

15
I hope that the Committee will agree that it is the responsibility of the Government and Parliament to take into account the needs of all retailers; that is, large and small, generalist or specialist. One month is too short to meet the business needs of the retail industry as a whole. Three months is a period which the retail industry as a whole would find practicable.
By providing for a three months' notice period we shall be giving employers adequate time to make alternative arrangements while at the same time allowing employees, in this one exceptional case of Sunday shop work, to be released from a contractual obligation within a reasonable period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, called in aid those employers who supported a one-month notice period. The implication was that the Government were being unnecessarily intransigent. It is true that the Shopping Hours Reform Council has expressed support for a right to opt out subject to a notice period of only one month. The SHRC is not, and does not claim to be, representative of the retail sector as a whole. It represents some—although by no means all—large retailers, particularly those specialising in the sale of food and DIY goods. It does not represent those sectors such as clothing, horticulture, department stores or small stores.
It may be practicable for some retailers to offer their staff the opportunity to withdraw from Sunday shopwork after one month rather than three. That is a matter for them and they will be able to do so. There is nothing in Schedule 4 which will prevent that. As the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers have demonstrated, the schedule does not prevent employers and employees from negotiating shorter notice periods if in the circumstances they desire it.
However, we have received many representations from other retailers who expressed serious reservations about the right to opt out even subject to a three-month notice period and who believe that it will present serious operational difficulties. I do not think that it would be right to dismiss their anxieties and to impose a statutory requirement of only one month simply on the grounds that it would not present a problem for a certain group of retailers.
Schedule 4 provides a unique opportunity for an employee unilaterally to opt out of a contractual agreement—an agreement to work on Sundays. Let us be clear that it is a unique opportunity to break a contract. I fancy that we are all agreed that such a unique opportunity should not be abused. After all, a contractual agreement is a serious matter and it should not be entered into lightly.
In offering this unique right to shopworkers, the Government are concerned not to encourage the kind of situation where employees can take a job which involved Sunday working when they had no real intention of carrying out their side of the bargain. A three-month notice period would deter job applicants from taking a post under false pretences. An employee who agrees to work on Sundays would be required to honour the contract during the three-month notice
16
period and he or she could be lawfully dismissed if he or she failed to do so. I suggest that that is fair and reasonable. This should provide some disincentive to a person who said that he would work on Sunday in order to get the job but who had no intention of doing so and who could opt out of the obligation into which he had freely entered virtually the next day. A reduction of the notice period to one month would not achieve the same purpose.
For those reasons, I do not accept that a reduction in the notice period to one month, as proposed in this amendment, is either practical or desirable and I hope that the Committee will not agree to it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Before the Minister sits down, will he kind enough to answer the question that I put? Why is it more difficult for the specialist employers to whom he referred—the people who are not bound by any voluntary agreement, which may be represented by some of the employers on the Shopping Hours Reform Council such as the specialist employers in the music business—to be able to replace shopworkers who opt out of Sunday working than those who may resign, giving one month's notice, as is customary?
Earl Ferrers: The situation is simple; we are entering into a unique period. People will have the right to contract out or to break a contract into which they have freely entered. We suggest that, if they have freely entered into what will be a new period of time, there ought to be a three-month period in order to enable employers to make alternative arrangements.
The noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip laughs. I do not think that this is a funny matter. If employers suddenly discover that people upon whom they have relied will not be available for work because, having agreed to do something they suddenly decide to change their mind, I do not believe that that is right or fair. It is reasonable to give a reasonable period, otherwise there is no point in their entering into a contract in the first place.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Committee will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept what the Minister said in response to the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that it is a question of balance. However, if the legislation provides for three months, the balance is tilted very much in favour of the employer and away from the employee. That runs counter to the idea that Sunday working should be voluntary.
The Minister explained the difference between protected and opted-out shopworkers. I do not see that that is a reason for a difference. Of course this is a radical departure, but the whole Bill is a radical departure. The whole legislation is radical, not only the provisions made in regard to opting out, the protection of workers and so forth. Therefore, it is legitimate that in such circumstances the people who must perform the services in order successfully to make this radical departure from the normal situation should have appropriate protection. This right to opt out is an important part of this protection.

17
I do not know what the Minister was referring to when on several occasions he spoke of abuse. He said that it was necessary to prevent abuse. Can it be abuse if a woman says, "Look, I cannot work on Sunday any more because I have family problems—I have illness at home. I will give one month's notice but three months will he impossible"? She might have to resign her job or have time off rather than simply opt out. It is to the advantage not only of the employee but of the employer because they will wish to keep in employment people who are good at the job. The provision may inhibit people from remaining and doing a job of work.
Furthermore, we need to protect vulnerable people. The Minister referred to small firms as though they will have greater difficulty in finding people to undertake Sunday work within one month. I do not believe, in particular in the current labour situation, that that is a real reason for refusing to accept the amendment. It so happens that, generally speaking, in small firms the workers tend to be more vulnerable than in large firms where there is union organisation, personnel departments and so forth.
None of the reasons advanced by the Minister in opposing the amendment holds water. If we mean that whether people work on Sunday is voluntary we must pass this amendment. If we do not, we shall be unfair to many poorly paid and mostly female workers.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may intervene briefly before the noble Baroness finally decides whether to put her amendment to the test. In our discussions on the Bill we have heard a great deal about how bad it will be because many people who do not want to work on Sundays will have to do so.
When the Bill becomes law, people working on Sundays will do so in the full knowledge that they must do that work for three months. Therefore, they will concern themselves as to whether they wish to do so. An employer who wishes to open his business must take those considerations into account. Is it unreasonable to say that if a contractual obligation is taken on for three months, it should be adhered to? Does the noble Baroness not admit that a person who wants a job may agree to work on Sundays and then the next day say that he has changed his mind? If the amendment is accepted, that person will then not be obliged to work on Sundays, and that will place the employer in an impossible position.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am sorry. I still do not accept what the Minister said. It seems to me that written into the Bill is provision for contracts to be altered. We believe that is perfectly all right. It enables people to regard Sunday working as an entirely voluntary matter. I cannot see why the provision of one month rather than three months will act to the detriment of employers.
I believe that it is perfectly fair because people may not always know what their domestic responsibilities will be. To expect them to know three months in advance seems to me to be grossly unreasonable. I feel that unless we take this out of the Bill, the protection
18
which it seeks to afford workers will be faulty and will not be as effective as we should wish it to be. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
3.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brentford, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.[Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

[Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

St. Albans, Bp

Hanworth, V.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Jacques, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walpole, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Waverley, V.

Kennet, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilberforce, L.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Burnham, L.

Addison, V.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carnock, L.

Astor, V.

Chalfont, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Beloff, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Birdwood, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blatch, B.

Clinton, L.

Blyth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Boardman, L.

Cockfield, L.

Borthwick, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Courtown, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craigavon, V.

19

Cranborne, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Milverton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Morris, L.

Cross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

De Freyne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundonald, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Effingham, E.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Ely, M.

Quinton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gainford, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

[Teller.]

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Ironside, L.

Swinton, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Torrington, V.

Liverpool, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.[Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Chancellor.]

Walton of Detchant, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Manchester, D.

Whitelaw, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I understand that this may be a convenient moment at which to take the Statement. Therefore, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gorazde
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House on 12th April on the circumstances in which NATO aircraft, in order to
20
protect United Nations forces, had carried out close air support attacks on Bosnian Serb forces threatening UN personnel in Gorazde on the two preceding days. Following those attacks, efforts were made to achieve a cease-fire between the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Government forces, as the prelude to a general political settlement. But, by last Thursday, 14th April, the situation on the ground had deteriorated, and a number of serious incidents occurred in and around Sarajevo and in other parts of Northern Bosnia. On Friday afternoon, 15th April, the Bosnian Serbs resumed their shelling of Gorazde. A patrol of British soldiers serving as joint Commission Observers at a Bosnian Army location about three kilometres north of the town became involved in an exchange of fire. One of them, Corporal Fergus Rennie, sustained a gunshot wound as a result of Bosnian Serb fire. A second soldier was less seriously wounded by shrapnel. Corporal Rennie was retrieved by helicopter and brought to Sarajevo, where sadly he subsequently died.
"On Saturday 16th April three Bosnian Serb tanks began firing on the hospital in Gorazde. General Rose called for close air support which was approved by Mr. Akashi. Two Sea Harriers from HMS "Ark Royal" and two American A-10 aircraft were tasked with attacking the tanks. During a reconnaissance run, the Sea Harriers were attacked by a surface-to-air missile which they managed to evade. At 4.45 p.m. local time the Sea Harriers commenced a bombing run. A second surface-to-air missile was fired and hit the lead aircraft, which caught fire. The pilot, Lieutenant Nicholas Richardson, ejected and landed safely.
"In an unrelated incident, late on Saturday night, another British serviceman, Marine Timothy Coates, who was serving on attachment to the UNHCR in Sarajevo, was shot dead by personnel manning a Bosnian Government checkpoint in the city. He was off duty and wearing plain clothes at the time.
"The House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the families of Corporal Rennie and Marine Coates.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Cranborne:
"Both were brave men serving in Bosnia to try to bring peace to that country.
"As the House will know, yesterday Bosnian Serb forces advanced further on Gorazde, which is now virtually undefended. There are no British military personnel now in the town.
"My Lords, the events of the past few days represent a serious setback for the United Nations' peace-keeping efforts in Bosnia, and will have grim consequences for the people of Gorazde.
"There is a tendency in some quarters to criticise the efforts of the senior UN personnel in Bosnia, including Mr. Akashi and General Rose, for failing to deal with the situation. In my view, such criticism is unjustified. Mr. Akashi, General Rose, and their UN colleagues have achieved as much as was humanly

21
possible given the UN military forces available to them and the mandate under which they operate. They deserve our full support.
"The United Nations' troops in Bosnia are not, and never have been, intended to be a war-fighting force. They were sent to Bosnia for purposes of humanitarian relief and to give time for the peace process to bring results. Some have had quite unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved by the use of air power alone, or by ground forces that are not equipped or organised to operate in a combat role.
"There is a vicious civil war taking place in Bosnia with a total of almost 200,000 heavily armed Bosnian Serb, Croat, and Moslem forces. There are at present some 15,000 UN peace-keeping forces on the ground. The House is well aware that there has been no support from any quarter for deploying the large United Nations' or NATO combat army that would he needed for the UN to be sure of imposing its will on the warring factions. In the absence of such support, it is quite unreasonable to berate the United Nations in Bosnia for having been unable to stop the fighting.
"General Rose did, recently, call for 8,000 troops to assist in his peace-keeping role throughout Bosnia. The United Kingdom took the lead in co-ordinating an international response which pledged those additional troops. I have to inform the House that, of the 8,000 troops pledged, only the battalion group promised by the United Kingdom and 300 others, totalling 1,200, have so far arrived.
"The United Nations will now need to give careful thought to the implications of current events in Gorazde. Both the United Nations and others who call for action must avoid rhetoric and resolutions that cannot be enforced. There must be a proper assessment by the UN of its continuing ability to carry out the mandate, of what it can do to strengthen that ability and the peace process in general, and of the degree of co-operation it can expect from the various Bosnian factions. It must also assess the level of risk to the safety of UNPROFOR troops for whom we all have an abiding responsibility.
"Events in Gorazde represent a serious setback. It is important to remember that over large parts of Bosnia the United Nations has been successful in implementing an effective cease-fire, and the population are able to resume something like normal life. Sarajevo is no longer under artillery attack. Those achievements are indeed creditable. We continue to give our full support to our troops, to other UN troops in the field and to their commanders".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. By any standards, as I think the noble Viscount accepted, it is a sombre Statement. It raises the problem of the credibility of the United Nations as an effective
22
peace-keeping operation; it reports the death of two British soldiers to whose families, like the Government, we extend our condolences and sympathy; and it also conveys a message of some hope which, again, we support— namely, for the success of British and United Nations troops in Central Bosnia and Sarajevo. However, as I see it, the message at present is that the United Nations' credibility is now in doubt. The question that your Lordships will have to discuss, either today or on a future occasion, is: what happens now?
The Statement is absolutely right to state—I shall quote again from the Statement as this is such an important point—
"Both the United Nations and others who call for action must avoid rhetoric and resolutions that cannot be enforced".
If there is a lesson to be learnt from what has happened so far at Gorazde, it is contained in that sentence. The other day when the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, responded to a Private Notice Question—I believe it was from another place—I tried my best to ensure that she told the House in unequivocal terms that the job of the United Nations forces in Bosnia was to protect. UNPROFOR personnel—no more and no less. I hope very much that the noble Viscount will reassure us that that is still the case.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the operation in Sarajevo —where the threat of air strikes was used successfully to ensure a safe haven—has, I am afraid, spilt over elsewhere. That is the difficulty with which the United Nations is faced at the moment. The problem became quite clear when the French Etendard aircraft landed on its carrier with its tail plane practically shot away. We learn again from the Statement that two Sea Harriers were involved in attacking a Bosnian Serb tank which was shelling, or about to shell, the hospital in Gorazde. There may well have been UNPROFOR personnel in the hospital at Gorazde, in which case it was a perfectly respectable—if I may put it in those terms—mission for those Harriers. However, the Serbs obviously did not think so. They obviously thought—as they have thought since Sarajevo—that NATO forces and NATO air strikes were being used to stop the Bosnian Serbs from doing what they wanted to do in what the noble Viscount quite rightly described as a vicious civil war.
What happens now? It seems to me that we cannot give up the humanitarian role and I hope that the Government will press the United Nations to continue the humanitarian role that we have played to date. We need a new UN mandate for the forces in Bosnia to specify precisely, and without any doubt at all, what they are there to do. It is not just a matter of declaring safe havens because, as the noble Viscount quite properly pointed out, there is no point in declaring safe havens if one does not have the resources or the political will to defend them. As the noble Viscount quite properly pointed out, there is no political will in the United States of America, or indeed, I believe, in this country, or in any other member country of NATO, to provide the forces that would be required to defend those safe havens. Therefore there is no point in having any new UN mandate which declares safe havens and then for the UN just to huff and puff as in Gorazde.

23
I wish to refer to two further points in the form of questions. First, is it not the case that what we can, and indeed must, do is to help those who will undoubtedly suffer, and suffer grievously, from this civil war, in so far as we reasonably can? Secondly, must we not make sure that in the future—I talk to the longer term future rather than to the short-term future at Gorazde—the United Nations has the ability, or the philosophy, to act in a sensible way (whatever that may be) and to define what is a sensible way for it to act in situations of this nature? We cannot allow the United Nations to be humiliated in the way it is being humiliated at the moment at Gorazde. I hope that the noble Viscount will agree with my comments.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I also wish to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the condolences which have been sent to the families of Corporal Rennie and Marine Coates who so sadly and tragically died in pursuit of peace in Gorazde. As the noble Viscount has said, this is indeed a grave setback for the United Nations and for NATO and it is no use pretending otherwise. What has happened is that divided counsels have led to ambiguous policies which have been exploited skilfully and ruthlessly by Serbs and Bosnian Serbs alike.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that safe havens cannot be safe unless there are troops on the ground to make them safe and to protect the people inside them. To declare them without those troops being present is to be misleading, as also is to indulge in the kind of rhetoric which the Statement quite rightly condemned. Nor is it fair to blame General Rose—as some newspapers have—for what has happened. The fact is he was not given the tools to do the job which he was asked to do. As I remember it, he asked for 10,000 men. As I remember it, we managed to recruit a potential 8,000 men, of which he has received 1,200. It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that he was unable to do what was expected of him.
There is, however, in the Statement one extraordinary omission; namely, there is no reference in it whatsoever to Russian involvement. We have said from the beginning that it was a mistake not to consult the Russians about the air strikes in the first place. Although I recognise that formally it was unnecessary for us to do so, what is prudent is not what is always formally necessary. It is surely prudent, given the role they had played at Sarajevo, to involve them in every step of the process where we are dealing with the Serbs or Bosnian Serbs. I hope that we are doing our best to involve them because I do not believe we will achieve the peace we are aiming for unless we have their full co-operation and involvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke about the future and at the moment it looks rather dark. However, I wholly agree with him that we cannot abandon the humanitarian role which we have taken on. It would be
24
unwise to talk of withdrawing sanctions from the Serbs under present circumstances. I hope that that is not on the agenda of the Government.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Bonham-Carter, for the condolences which they added to my own to the families of the two servicemen who so tragically lost their lives. The whole House will wish to associate itself with those sentiments. I was also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the constructive and knowledgeable way in which he addressed himself to this difficult situation. I agree with him wholly that the question which he put at the centre of the events of the past few days is that of the credibility of the United Nations.
I was also grateful to the noble Lord in that he recognised that the United Nations has achieved a great deal in central Bosnia, and that so far Gorazde is—at any rate geographically—only a small part of the picture. However, we all recognise that a small part can loom rather large in the march of events and can influence those events rather more than any of us would hope.
To answer what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, implied and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said rather more explicitly, it is important to realise that anybody who goes to Bosnia—as I did recently—will see the difference between what General Rose spoke of this morning in terms of white vehicles and other vehicles. I think that I am quoting the General accurately when I say that he told the BBC that soldiers do not go to war in white vehicles.
Therefore, it is clear that the United Nations had a mandate not to fight a war but to act, as the noble Lord said, as deliverers of humanitarian aid and, by extension, as facilitators of peace between the two sides —the Moslems and the Bosnian Croats—who wanted peace. Those two sides certainly made it clear to me immediately before Easter that they wanted peace. At the same time, they feared that fighting between them would break out if the United Nations was not there. There is a clear difference between that position and the position of a number of Serbs in Bosnia who clearly have a different agenda, where the United Nations mandate is not appropriate. I hope that the House will bear that distinction in mind in relation to the difficult questions that we have to consider today.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for the questions that he asked at the end of his remarks. Of course the primary purpose of the United Nations' effort, not only of UNPROFOR but the many people working on behalf of the United Nations in delivering humanitarian aid, is to relieve the suffering. Perhaps I may say, not wishing entirely to spare her blushes, that the efforts of my noble friend Lady Chalker in that regard are generally recognised. She tells me that more than 900 convoys have already played their part and that her department is doing its best to make sure that aid is focused and delivered in the most effective way possible.
On the question of whether the United Nations has the ability to act, I have already said, particularly to

25
noble friends in this House, that efforts are being made to address the way in which the United Nations addresses the question of peacekeeping. Consideration is also being given to whether command structures and the way in which the United Nations looks at its peacekeeping operations could be improved. I believe that all of us in this House agree that there is room for improvement in that regard.
In relation to safe havens, the noble Lord knows that there has always been a degree of healthy scepticism on the part of Her Majesty's Government about how effective safe havens would be. That scepticism has, if anything, been increased by the events of the past two days. However, it is clear that there was a desire on the part of the UN that safe havens should be tried. We wanted to make sure that UN solidarity was maintained on that front.
I wholly welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He was kind enough to quote from the Statement about the importance of making sure that the United Nations was able to back up what it said rather than indulging merely in empty rhetoric. I was very grateful that the noble Lord was able to show that his party and all sides of this House support us in that contention. I am sure that it will have been noted well outside the confines of your Lordships' House.
I shall now turn to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I am grateful to him, too, for the tone of his remarks. I am also glad that he accepted that General Rose had done the very best that he could given the limitations of the mandate and the resources at his disposal. That, too, will have been noted more widely than in the confines of your Lordships' House.
I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord in relation to Russian involvement. I suggest to the noble Lord that Russia. as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, clearly agreed to the Security Council resolutions, just as this country and the United States agreed to those resolutions. Russia was well aware of the chain of command, which was clearly set out with the agreement of the Security Council of the United Nations. I should perhaps add a rider that Russian envoys have been working hard in Bosnia to try to make sure that they provided a degree of access to the Bosnian Serbs. I acknowledge that they have made a good contribution in that regard, which we welcome.
This is a moment of great difficulty. The constructive way in which the Front Benches opposite have responded to the Statement is very much appreciated by Her Majesty's Government. I am grateful for it. It will help us in the difficult days to follow.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication as to when the 6,800 men needed to make up the very sensible request by General Rose for 8,000 men are likely to arrive? Has he any indication of their possible date of arrival and of which countries will provide them?
Secondly, in relation to the tactics employed, would he care to comment on the fact that in the air strikes organised on behalf of the United Nations generally
26
only two aircraft have been involved? Therefore, those aircraft were obviously exposed to counter-attack in a way which was far more damaging than if larger numbers of aircraft had been involved. Why, when air strikes have to take place, are more aircraft not employed so as to have a real effect and to minimise the danger to individual aircraft and their pilots?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He asked first about the commitment of further troops. My answer must be the same as the answer I gave last time we discussed these matters in your Lordships' House following a Statement. We expect up to 4,000 more troops by the summer. I accept that that is a fairly elastic way of putting it. A number of other countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, have made commitments to send more troops. I do not want in any way to make invidious comparisons, but I hope that your Lordships will accept that a number of the logistic reforms which have taken place in the Ministry of Defence and the Army make it easier for British troops to be deployed rapidly, as they were in this case, than has proved possible for other countries.
So far as concerns the number of aircraft, the objective is very clear from the point of view of aircraft taking part in operations of this kind. That objective was to protect UNPROFOR troops on the ground. It was judged that this was the most effective way of doing so when JCOs were clearly in some degree of danger. The degree of danger was all too clear from the death which occurred as a result of Serb action. These are matters which are properly left to the judgment of commanders on the ground. The chain of command sets that out clearly and that is what commanders on the ground asked for.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many of us have expressed grave doubts about our continued involvement in Bosnia. He will have noted that some of us were extremely worried when his noble friend Lady Chalker made a Statement to this House about air attacks in the Gorazde area. I agree with him that we should be very careful about rhetoric in this civil war situation. However, I am afraid that the Government have themselves responded to rhetoric. The noble Viscount will understand that at one time the Government were contemplating withdrawing troops from Bosnia. Those who advocated air strikes were derided. But since then the Government have substantially increased the number of troops and agreed to air strikes, which have caused the present problem.
The Foreign Secretary has indicated that that action may be stepped up. I hope that the noble Viscount can give me the assurance that that will not happen. May I also have the assurance that no further British troops will be sent and that consideration will be given to withdrawing all those troops who are already there? Finally, will the Government please recognise that this is a civil war and that they are dealing with people on all sides in Bosnia? They are not Argentinians who invaded British territory; they are not Iraqis who invaded other people's territory. They are people, of whatever kind, who believe that they are defending their own soil. They are therefore committed to defeating any outside

27
intervention which suggests otherwise to them. I ask for a very firm assurance, which will not be watered down or withdrawn, that this country, either through the UN or on its own, will not become involved in any side in the civil war. The British people who are already suffering from the casualties that we have had are entitled to that assurance today.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as I tried to make clear in my earlier answers this afternoon, the mandate is clear. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made that point. If the mandate can no longer be sustained by the United Nations, then the future of the UN force must be put into question. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, of something that I have already said to the House this afternoon, that there are large stretches of Bosnia which are benefiting from the presence of UN peacekeeping forces. Those are the stretches which were previously the subject of vicious warfare between Croats and Bosnian Moslems. The United Nations is doing a fine job there and I am sure that the noble Lord himself would not wish it to cease that task in mid-stride.
Air strikes took place in support of UNPROFOR troops. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would be the last to want the safety of United Nations forces, particularly those provided by the British Government, in any way to be undermined. That must be our highest priority. Knowing the noble Lord as I do, I am the first to admit that I did not need to say that. I am also glad that he recognises the difficulties that we have. I am sure he will realise that if it came to withdrawal—and it certainly is not coming to that at the moment—further British troops would need to be committed if a withdrawal were to take place. So even if I were to accede to the noble Lord's proposition that we should withdraw from Bosnia, it would be unwise of me to suggest that no further British troops should be committed under any circumstances, particularly if the safety of our troops already there is at stake.
Lord Carver: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that we must not allow recent unfortunate events to blind us to the fact that the highest priority is to try, however hard it is, to reach a general political settlement? While I endorse the call of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for clarification of the United Nations mandate, does the noble Viscount agree that there is a lot of loose talk about peacekeeping? However, that was not the purpose for which the United Nations was sent there. There is a grave danger in attempting to give a mandate to a force as a peacekeeping force, if there is no agreement between the sides as a basis for that peacekeeping. The danger already exists of the United Nations force ceasing to be impartial and appearing to take sides in the dispute.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord whose knowledge of such matters is considerable. He is right about the nature of the mandate which concentrates on the delivery of humanitarian aid. He is equally right about the importance of a general political settlement which can
28
be policed by United Nations troops. That is a general political settlement which at the moment all too obviously does not obtain.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that perhaps even more attention should be paid to the distinction which he drew between the success of the United Nations in dealing with the quarrels and fighting between the Moslems and the Croats and their apparent failure in Gorazde and eastern Bosnia? Does that not spring from the fact that the former was a case of a genuine civil war, whereas the war in eastern Bosnia is not a civil war? It is a war promoted by an external power. The relation of Dr. Karadzic to Mr. Milosevic of Serbia is not very different, for those who remember 1938, from the relation between Herr Henlein and Herr Hitler. One is an agent of the other, as the Russians have recognised. I have at intervals been urging on your Lordships' House the participation of the Russians as all-important. Have they not recognised the relation by the fact that when the Russian Foreign Minister wishes to try to bring about peace, he goes to Belgrade, he does not go to Pale?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend recognises the important role that is being played by the Russians in the diplomatic initiatives in and around Bosnia. I should be the last to underplay the importance of that role and I am glad that my noble friend also recognises it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for what he said about the nature of the war in Bosnia. Indeed, part of it is not a civil war but a deliberate attempt to create a greater Serbia. There is more than one safe haven in Bosnia; there are still five safe havens remaining, even if Gorazde falls. I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Does the Minister agree that while the safe havens continue theoretically within the area of United Nations supervision, it would be wholly irresponsible for us to withdraw all troops since we have made the names of those safe havens clear?
Does not the collapse of the United Nations position on Gorazde raise the most serious questions on the issue of the continuation of the arms embargo with regard to the Bosnian Government, which is, after all, an internationally recognised government?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, on safe havens, I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that in each of the safe havens apart from Gorazde there are a number of UNPROFOR troops. Apart from those in Sarajevo, none of the troops is British. Nevertheless, as I made clear to your Lordships earlier this afternoon, the first duty of UNPROFOR and of the governments must be to protect those troops and, if necessary, protect them by means of closer air support, if that seems to the commanders on the ground to be militarily the most sensible way of going about it.
As regards the arms embargo, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware of Her Majesty's Government's consistent position on it. Of course, circumstances change, and I do not feel that the position is always

29
immutable. I merely remind the noble Baroness from my own experience of what happened in Afghanistan as a result of the uncontrolled irruption of massive quantities of modern weaponry into one society. Even with the withdrawal of the Soviet army they are still fighting. One of the main drivers of that fighting is that the place is flooded with weapons. The effect, as the noble Baroness will readily appreciate, is one that we must bear in mind in Bosnia as well as in other countries.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend for some clarification. Last Monday, 11th April, my noble friend Lady Chalker replied to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The noble Lord asked whether air-to-ground action by NATO was sufficient to deter the Serbs. My noble friend replied:
"My Lords, I sincerely hope that the Serb authorities will see that NATO and the UN mean business … That advance has to be stopped". —[Official Report, 11/4/94; col. 1288.]
Later, I asked:
"What happens if the Serbs are not deterred?"
My noble friend replied:
"I must say to my noble friend that the Serbs have been deterred".—[Official Report, 11/4/94; col. 1290.]
My question still applies. What happens if the Serbs continue? As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, this is an outside attack by Serbia on an internationally recognised state. The United Nations seems to change sides in a quite extraordinary way. It stops the Moslems, the legitimate government, arming themselves. I understand what my noble friend said about Afghanistan; nevertheless, it has prevented that happening. Then, pitiably, the United Nations intervenes. Then my noble friend says that the Serbs have been deterred. And they have not been deterred. This is one of the great mistakes of the 20th century, to put it no higher than that. When Chamberlain said that Hitler had missed the bus, that was a piece of statesmanship compared to what the western world and the United Nations have got into over Bosnia at the moment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I too have had the advantage of reading the exchanges that were so selectively quoted by my noble friend at the expense of my noble friend Lady Chalker. I say quite simply to my noble friend Lord Onslow that the mandate is clear. The distinctions that have been drawn both by myself and by other noble Lords in this House this afternoon as to the differences between peacekeeping and other operations —between white vehicles and vehicles that are painted other colours for going to war—are distinctions which, together with the mandate, I urge my noble friend to study with care. Otherwise, like everybody else, it would be easy to be confused about the job that we expect our own troops to do. If we make that confusion, we shall raise expectations and certainly indulge in the rhetoric which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised as being extremely dangerous.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister agree that there are certain clear principles which should govern the use of armed force in international relations?
30
Among those, I suggest are these two: first, that military forces should have a clear and achievable military aim; and, secondly, that they should be able to achieve that aim only if both the political will and the resources are available. Will he agree that in what now appears to be the disastrous entanglement in Yugoslavia, those principles have been largely ignored? Will he give us an assurance that in any review that there might be of the United Nations mandate the clear military principles governing the use of armed force in international relations are observed? Will he also accept that if they are not observed, the appeals and calls for the withdrawal of our armed forces are bound to increase?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I recognise the justice of both the points that the noble Lord makes. It is important to recognise—as he does by implication —the gap that the Statement identified between rhetoric and the ability to perform. I am delighted that speaking as he does from the Cross-Benches the noble Lord recognises the dangers of that just as Her Majesty's Government do.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, considerable humanitarian aid has been achieved by UNPROFOR. Everybody in this House has admiration for Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, and his leadership. However, in view of the continued advance of Serbian troops throughout Bosnia Herzegovina, what measures are the Government taking to try to impress on other members of NATO and the UN Security Council the need for sending troops immediately in order to support those troops who are already there? At the moment, it does not seem that those who vote for the resolutions in the UN Security Council are observing their obligations in the UN Charter to supply troops when those resolutions are adopted.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must say to my noble friend that the case seems, if anything, more urgent now than when your Lordships and I last discussed the matter in this House. The timetable has not changed. The rather vague assertion that 4,000 more troops would be available by the summer still obtains. Nobody would be more delighted than I if that timetable could be speeded up. We will do whatever we can to encourage that. All too often, practicalities get in the way of wishes. If my noble friend can help us in this respect, I should be extremely grateful.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that we should move on. Twenty minutes have elapsed.

Sunday Trading Bill
4.26 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 4.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 14, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) Where an Industrial Tribunal rules that a dismissal is unfair within the meaning of this Schedule and an order for reinstatement or re-engagement is made, should the employer fail

31
to comply, the Industrial Tribunal may make a special award to the dismissed employee within the terms of section 158 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.").
The noble Baroness said: I am attempting in this amendment to deal with a number of misgivings that were expressed at Second Reading, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that the employment rights already written into the Bill would be of little practical value because they would be very difficult to enforce. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. Unfortunately, it applies to all legislation purporting to provide rights to workers. There is no legal aid for individuals at industrial tribunals, for example. It often takes a long time for cases to be heard. If the employer contests and appeals, matters can simply drag on. I have had some experience of such cases.
My amendment seeks to deal with what may happen if an industrial tribunal decides in favour of an employee who has been sacked for refusing to work on a Sunday, having done so in the manner that is prescribed in the legislation. It is not all that usual for a tribunal to award re-engagement or reinstatement as the appropriate remedy—although it seems to me that in conditions of high unemployment that is the best remedy so far as concerns the employee. However, time may have passed and a job may have been filled, so re-engagement is another possibility.
I have known cases where the tribunal finding has been for the worker, but the employer has appealed. I am thinking of a case which, after about three years, eventually went back to the tribunal. The employer had refused either to reinstate or re-engage. The amount of compensation was exceedingly small considering the amount of time that the case had taken and since at all levels the relevant courts had agreed that the employer was at fault.
The employer has the option to refuse to enforce reinstatement or re-engagement simply by paying extra compensation up to £5,330. I emphasise the word "maximum". But there is provision in our legislation for awards of higher compensation in cases that involve anti-union discrimination or if there is discrimination by the employer against non-members of unions. If after a finding of unfair dismissal in such cases the employer refuses to reinstate or re-engage, the tribunal may make a special compensation award with a minimum of £13,400 and a maximum of £26,800. The aim of this amendment is to strengthen the special protection which it is claimed was intended in this Bill. I quite accept that could apply in only a small minority of cases. But I believe that the clause about special compensation which appears in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 has proved to be a deterrent. There have not been many cases of dismissals coming within the categories concerned—or at least, they have not reached tribunals.
If the penalties for dismissing workers who ought not to work on Sundays are made heavier, and if an employer realises that he could be ordered to reinstate or re-engage and that the penalties for not doing so could be considerable, the provisions in the Bill for the
32
protection of employees really would have some teeth. I hope that will reassure those who were a little reluctant to support the preferred, six-hour option (if one may call it that) because they could not see how real protection could be afforded. I hope the Committee will agree that the amendment will substantially add to the protection available to vulnerable employees. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I put my name to the amendment; my only doubt is whether it goes far enough. Section 158 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act prescribes that where the award of compensation is made under Section 71(2) (a) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978,
"unless the employer satisfies the tribunal that it was not practicable to comply with the order for reinstatement or re-engagement, the amount of the special award shall be increased to one week's pay multiplied by 156, or £20,100 whichever is the greater".
As I see it, it is accordingly not permissive but mandatory for a special award of a specific amount to be made in those circumstances. I trust therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will confirm when he replies that such an award should be made in all cases where a shopworker is dismissed unfairly for refusing to work on Sunday and the employer fails to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement. At the least a cross-reference to Section 158 needs to be made on the face of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise for not being in my place earlier. This is an amendment on which I wish to seek clarification. The special award is surely an extension of the current law relating to special awards. As I understand the current law—subject to correction—at the moment special awards are only available on grounds of dismissal for trade union membership and trade union activities.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. Special awards are also available if an employer dismisses an individual for refusing to join a trade union. That was one of the main reasons why special damages were introduced.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her comments. The situation is roughly as I understood it. The special award is given in a special case where in effect the dismissal strikes at the fundamental concepts of individual freedom. The amendment seeks to extend that concept. But, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the two situations are simply not analogous. The usual maximum for an award is around £22,000; the special award is considerably more, something of the order of £35,000. The amendment will produce a situation which alters the structure of the unfair dismissal procedure. Why should we do that? That is the question I find difficulty in answering.
Lord Skelmersdale: While being in no sense a practitioner in this matter, I recall from my days when I spoke in your Lordships' Chamber for the Department of Employment when this and other matters came up from time to time, that special discretionary awards

33
were extremely rare birds. Of course, they were originally invented—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will agree—because it was felt that specific freedoms should be enshrined in trade union law, and particularly in trade union dismissal law.
Rather like my noble friend Lord Campbell, I find it difficult to see what specific freedom is being disabused in the cases mentioned by both the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. One must remember also in connection with this Bill that all noble Lords have been advised about, and some have been particularly concerned with, the plight of the small shopkeeper. As I understand it, the amendment will apply to all shopkeepers operating on a Sunday, whatever the size of the shop. The maximum difference we are discussing is some £15,000, if my figures are correct and I amalgamate what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said with what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. That could occasionally knock a tremendous hole in the earnings of the small shopkeepers whom many of us are anxious to protect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): Amendment No. 31 seeks to provide special awards for unfair dismissals arising from a refusal to work on Sundays where the employer has refused to comply with an order for re-instatement or for re-engagement. I appreciate that the sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure that shopworkers may not be denied their employment if they exercise their right not to work on Sundays. I hope I am able to persuade the Committee that the provision of a special award in such cases would not be appropriate, and would be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
First, unfair dismissal legislation already recognises the serious nature of this kind of action on the part of the employer. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made clear, it applies to any shopkeeper however large or small. It provides that where an employer refuses to comply with a tribunal order for re-engagement or re-instatement and it was practicable for him to do so, then the employee shall be awarded an "additional" award of up to £5,330. It is called "additional" because it supplements the basic award and the compensatory award and brings the total an employee may receive to £22,480.
As the noble Baroness highlighted in the amendment, in some cases a "special award", set at a higher level, may be granted in place of the additional award. However, the provision of special awards should be the exception rather than the rule, and I should like to explain why the Government believe it would be inappropriate to provide for it in this case.
Special awards are available in only a few cases where the Government regard dismissal as particularly serious; for example, where the reason is the employee's union membership or activities or non-membership of a union. I should stress also—and this may strengthen the views of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—that the amendment goes slightly further and covers another class of people not mentioned by the noble Baroness. It covers the activities
34
of employees acting as representatives protecting the health and safety of others. It is an important point where the employee has a representative function for his colleagues at work in the serious position of health and safety. We believe that those two situations are special and should be distinguished from the case put forward by the noble Baroness, and special awards should be available only in those exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, their availability must continue to be restricted to those exceptional cases.
The issue is where we draw the line. We are all agreed that a dismissal relating to a refusal to do shop work on a Sunday is wrong and should be discouraged. However, we do not believe that such dismissals are sufficiently different in kind from unfair dismissals generally to warrant the special treatment the amendment proposes. But we say that in the examples I quoted the representative function is particularly in question.
Schedule 4 provides shopworkers with a very generous package of new rights to ensure that Sunday shop work continues to be voluntary. The rights are not restricted to those who have conscientious or religious objections to Sunday working. The schedule does not seek to distinguish between any employee who decides to opt out of Sunday shop work so that he can, for example, play football, or an employee who wants to spend the rest of the day with his or her family. In no way are such dismissals comparable with dismissals for trade union activities, or for health and safety reasons, which raise questions of individual freedom and the discharging of very important representative functions on matters affecting the health and safety of others.
Following that explanation of our position, I trust therefore that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment and I hope that the Committee will generally agree that the remedies that are available should continue to reflect the fundamental distinction that I highlighted.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has just mentioned that Schedule 4 gives shopworkers very generous protection. I shall not comment on that. However, can he give us an assurance —a very firm assurance—that those provisions will not in future be undermined by orders brought forward under the deregulation Bill, which is likely to become an Act, as could be done without any proper discussion through primary legislation? Can he give that assurance?
Lord Henley: The noble Lord will have to wait for the deregulation Bill to come before the House. Schedule 4 represents a fundamental new package of rights for those who work in shops on Sunday. It goes quite beyond the rights of other workers on Sunday. There are a great many people who work on Sunday. It has taken considerable time to reach the level of compromise that in all parts of this House and another place was thought right in order to establish the right level and right extent of rights. I should have thought it very unlikely that any future government—obviously I cannot speak for any future government—would wish to undermine the rights that we have laboured by means of

35
compromise so long and so hard to establish—the noble Lord will accept that everyone on all sides has compromised to a considerable degree—unless it so turned out that the Bill and its workings—or the Act as it would become—were not working as they should.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I regret to learn that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. If it were agreed, I feel that it would be further protection for the rights of employees who are covered by the Bill. The Bill specifically breaks new ground because this is a radical departure. The freedom given by the Bill needs to have some teeth in order to make sure that employees really do benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Where an employer interferes with the rights that are given in this legislation and sacks someone for not agreeing to work on Sunday and then an industrial tribunal finds for the employee but the employer still refuses to reinstate or re-engage, if that is what the tribunal recommends, there is an obligation on the employer to pay for the choice that he has made in not honouring the award of the tribunal. There is little difference when it comes to freedom between the freedom to exercise a right that is clearly given in legislation and a right to belong or not to belong to a union or a right not to be dismissed for refusing to belong to a trade union. For those reasons I very much regret that the Government have seen fit not to support the amendment.
As to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the original Section 158 refers to the requirement that the industrial tribunal "shall" make a special award, I deliberately put "may" make a special award because it seemed to me that if the tribunal were to be given some discretion, the amendment might be more commendable to the Government. Clearly, however, they are not prepared to accept the amendment. It is not my intention today to press it to a vote. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I may come back with something rather similar on Report, having looked in Hansard tomorrow at what the noble Lord had to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 15, line 10, at end insert:
("8A.—(1) For the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, a dismissal shall include a 'relevant rejection' within the meaning of this paragraph.
(2) There is a relevant rejection within the meaning of this paragraph when, after the commencement of this Act—

(a) an employer does not accept the application of a person to become his employee; and

(b) the reason or principal reason for the rejection by the employer of the applicant for employment is the refusal or proposed refusal of the applicant to work on Sundays, or the belief of the employer that he may so refuse.

(3) In this paragraph, a rejection includes any case in which the employer—

(a) fails or refuses to accept a person's application,

(b) discriminates to the disadvantage of an applicant in the manner in which he deals with it (whether by reference to work on Sundays or otherwise), or

(c) withdraws an offer made to such a person, or persuades or otherwise causes him not to accept it (whether by way of changes in the terms of the offer or otherwise).

36
(4) The burden of proof of the reason for a rejection shall under this paragraph rest on the employer.").
The noble Lord said: I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is in his place because I wrote down what he said —the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong —in answer, at some point, to Amendment No. 30. He said that the object of the schedule is that no shopworker should be compelled against his or her will to perform Sunday work. The object of this amendment is to ensure that that is the case. My argument is that without the amendment we cannot ensure that that is the case.
The amendment provides for compensation—that is what industrial tribunals give in 98 per cent. of the cases—for an applicant for a job where a tribunal decides—the tribunal must decide—that there is real doubt about the reason that the worker was not engaged and that the principal reason is that the employer believed that the worker would not work on Sundays, either because the employee was asked and said that he would not work on Sunday, or because for some reason the employer had suspicions that that would not be the case. Where the tribunal is sure that that is so, there is an award of compensation.
The distinction between what I am suggesting and what exists at the moment has already been discussed. After the passage of the Bill, workers, especially if they have a conscientious objection to working on a Sunday, will be put into an impossible position when they are taken on or when they are considering being taken on. Should they say that they will not work on Sunday because they do not believe in it; that it is against their convictions—against their religious convictions perhaps? Should they lie or dissemble? Should they in some way imply that they will think about it when it comes? If they give the employer a clear indication that they will not work on Sunday, the employer would be perfectly lawfully entitled under the Bill as it stands not to engage them. I am trying to protect them in those circumstances. Should they give some doubtful answer and then say, when they are on the job, "Now I am here, I shall not work on a Sunday. For the next three months I refuse to work on Sunday and I am putting in an opt-out notice"? In those circumstances I should have thought that it would be perfectly legitimate and possible for the employer to dismiss them—not because they refused to work on Sunday but because they lied or dissembled at the point of engagement. Therefore, there is no protection for workers in those circumstances. The only protection for new workers which makes any sense out of the whole of Schedule 4 is to pass the amendment.
The amendment, or something like it, was suggested by many people before me. The Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the people who now support the present option wanted to have in Schedule 4 a provision of this kind. In the White Paper the Government said that they did not believe that this was the right approach and that it was unworkable. In another place on 9th February Mr. Lloyd was facing an amendment on this basis. He said (at col. 320 of the Official Report) that he could not possibly accept it because it was unworkable and because employers would be unable to advertise jobs requiring Sunday work if an amendment of this kind was in the Bill. He went on to say that employers would

37
be laid open to claims of discrimination if anyone failed to get a job and was subsequently able to say that he or she did not want Sunday work. He continued—I should like to quote what he said because this is really the best argument that the Government have so far advanced:
"The opt-outs exist for honest workers who have been employed by a shopkeeper expecting not to work on Sunday—if there is no reason why they should he obliged to do so—and for those making a career in shop work whose circumstances at one point in their life make Sunday working perfectly acceptable to them but who subsequently need to change their working pattern because of home circumstances, circumstances of conscience"
—which apparently come and go—
"circumstances of obligation to other relations or the arrival of children. That is what the protections are intended to achieve". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/94; col. 320.]
In other words, as the Government see them, they are essentially temporary. You cannot have a permanent desire not to work on Sunday; it is an oscillating, intermittent desire which is related to some special set of circumstances where perhaps the employer would permit the opt out.
I suggest to the Committee that all these objections can be answered. We know that the Government do not think that it is the right approach because originally when the White Paper was published they did not want anything at all in the Bill about new workers; they wanted to do something only about existing workers. If they had not been prepared to change that approach, they would not have got a majority and therefore they changed the approach.
We know that the Government do not like what they are being forced to do. They say that the provision is unworkable. We have sought to argue that it is not this provision which is unworkable because it works in relation to sex and race in exactly the same way. We are suggesting protection at the point of entry and that operates in the case of sex and race. What is not worth having is the present provision which forces people to work for three months before they can operate the opt out.
The defence is that the employers could not advertise, but of course they could. They could still advertise that it is Sunday only jobs, and there is nothing wrong with that. In the advertisement they could also say, "Workers may be expected to volunteer at the usual premium rates for Sunday working". Everything we have been told from the other side of the Committee suggests that hundreds and hundreds of workers will fall over themselves to do Sunday work for the overtime premium.
As regards discrimination, that would have to be proved. There would not be hundreds of thousands of people applying to tribunals on the basis that they have been discriminated against. As I said, we have had exactly the same provisions for sex and race and we have not had many cases. The Government are suggesting that there should be an oscillating, intermittent right, but I suggest that that is not much use to anybody.
The last point I wish to raise is this, and I ask the Government to think very carefully about it. I suggest that it is very likely that what is being proposed and put into the Bill is indirect sex discrimination. We have had examples already of indirect sex discrimination when in
38
the education service there have been compulsory employment obligations which the tribunals and the European Court have said involve unfair discrimination against women. It was indirect discrimination because it was difficult for them to carry out these obligations, and women make up the bulk of teachers. Women also make up the bulk of Sunday workers. A set of provisions which is difficult for them to comply with is a form of indirect sex discrimination. Therefore, there is no reason why the Government should object to this amendment and every reason why they should support it. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He is quite right. A great deal of discrimination may take place when employees are being appointed. The employer may pretend that the reason for not appointing a person who might otherwise have been appointed to the job is something other than a refusal to work on Sunday. But if the applicant has a strong reason for feeling that that is the real reason then he should have some redress. We have laws on discrimination on other grounds. My noble friend has given some details of what those are. It is an admirably drafted amendment which makes it quite clear—and again this is something which is rather important—that the onus of proof will he on the employer rather than the other way round. Unless workers can be given protection at the very beginning, the provisions of the Bill about employee protection will ultimately mean very little indeed. I hope the Committee will support this amendment.
Viscount Brentford: I am not very happy with the Bill as drafted on the basis that it is a great encouragement, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, to an applicant at a job interview to tell a lie. That does not make me feel very happy. The Government have consistently said that they will offer protection to both present and future employees, but because this House has voted that so many shops should be open on Sunday, it is obviously going to be important for shop owners and managers to employ staff who agree to work on Sunday.
Equally, Sunday is only one day in seven when the shops will be open. So there should be a great number of employees which a shop should take on who will not work on Sunday, and therefore the shop owner is happy that those employees do not work on a Sunday. There have been references to shop owners who are prepared to say that some employees can work on Sunday and some may not, as opposed to those I have read about who are saying in blanket form that all employees must agree to work on Sunday. I am unhappy on both scores. When the Minister winds up I wonder whether he can help me on that point.
Lord Renton: Like all other Members of the Committee, I have one basic fear about Sunday trading in that people might be compelled, for one reason or another, to work on Sunday when they do not wish to do so. They may wish to be with their families or even to sing in the choir in church. There are all kinds of

39
reasons. I was relieved when I saw what the Government had included in the fourth schedule because it gives a great deal of protection.
But as I understand the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in his amendment, he is saying that the provisions of the schedule apply to those already employed or who are about to be employed, but that we need to go one stage further and deal with the possibility of refusal of employment. Over fairly recent years we have had various kinds of law to prevent refusal such as unfair discrimination against women, an obligation to have a quota of disabled people where it is feasible to do so and also the race discrimination legislation. That is the kind of provision which we should be very wary of extending.
One of the reasons has been obliquely mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brentford. In such circumstances it is very difficult to know whether somebody is telling the truth—in other words, whether the employer is giving a genuine reason for refusal. If we can somehow avoid extending the compulsion to take on people and still achieve our objective, it would be better to do so.
The noble Lord has made a distinction and he is entitled to an answer to it. Meanwhile I hope that to some extent he will be consoled by what we find on page 16 of the Bill, in Schedule 4, paragraph 11(4). Admittedly that provision applies to people who have become employed, but, strangely enough, they have to be shown the notice before they become employed. To that extent, it overlaps with what the noble Lord has in mind. It is very clear and strong. It lets a potential shopworker know his rights in relation to Sunday work and makes provision, so long as he has had that warning, for him to refuse to work on Sundays without being penalised if that is what he wants to do. Naturally, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench says about it, but if we can achieve the main purpose without extending the law of compulsory employment, we would be wise to do so.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like briefly to support what my noble friend Lord Renton said about discrimination in employment, which I understand to be the evil with which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is concerned. As my noble friend said, the amendment raises real difficulties in extending this compartment of the law.
Apart from that, the amendment seems to impose over-restrictions on the employer—although that may not be the intention—because, as I read it, the amendment would limit the right of employers to recruit workers able to fulfil week-time work and Sunday work. It would impose unreasonable restrictions on an employer if he were to reject an application which indicated that the applicant was unable or unwilling to perform the work required.
Furthermore, I do not know, but I suppose that if we are to have Sunday working for shopworkers—and obviously we are —some employers will recruit for Sunday work only. If they are entitled to do that, how would that entitlement be affected by the amendment?
40
The amendment imposes an artificial fetter on the employer which, as I see it, serves no useful purpose and does not really strike down any particular evil.
Lord Rochester: As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said, the principle is already accepted that neither existing nor future employees should suffer detriment for refusing to work on Sundays. We are all agreed on that. I agree with the noble Lord that if the principle is right for those workers, it should also be right for job applicants.
It may be argued—indeed, it has been argued—that the amendment is unworkable, but that was not the opinion of the Shopping Hours Reform Council, on whose views the Bill is largely based. In the Government's White Paper which was published in July 1993, it was acknowledged that the council had suggested that people who were unwilling to work on Sunday should not be discriminated against when applying for jobs. I understand that to be the case. If I am wrong, I shall no doubt be told when the Minister replies.
Another point of some significance, I suggest, is that it was this Government who introduced the principle that people should not be denied employment because they were or were not trade union members. I see no reason why the same principle should not be applied in this instance.
As I understand the thinking underlying the Bill, it is that Sunday working should be voluntary and that people should have a free choice in the matter. However, I think that as more and more shops open on a Sunday, retailers will increasingly want to ensure that they can staff their shops on that day and a tendency to look for more recruits who are willing to work on a Sunday will grow. In practice, that will mean that Sunday working will become the norm for future job applicants. I ask whether that is what the Committee really wants.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I stress that, as I understand it, the amendment does not seek to oblige an employer to recruit someone who is unwilling to work on a Sunday but to prevent an employer from using an objection to Sunday working as a reason for not taking on someone. I support that principle and hope that the Committee will do so also.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: An exaggerated importance seems to be being given to the whole question of willingness to work on Sundays. The discussion so far has almost been on the basis that because shops are now to be allowed to open on a Sunday, a whole new question of Sunday working has arisen. But the Committee will know that many millions of people throughout the country regularly work on Sundays now and that we do not encounter in respect of them any of the difficulties which it has been sought to emphasise.
I speak with some direct knowledge of this. As some of your Lordships may remember, I was the chairman of a cement making company for a good many years and, as cement making is a continuous process industry, people work regularly on Sundays. As I have already told your Lordships, my only problem as chairman was when workers were aggrieved that the foreman did not

41
allocate them to work on a Sunday, for which there was a 50 per cent. premium on their wages. They argued to me that the foreman must have had a grouse or grievance against them because he refused to put them on to Sunday work. Indeed, the emphasis throughout was that Sunday working, being better paid, was an attractive proposition. I recall no example of people objecting to being allocated to it.
As I have said, many millions of people in the continuous process industries (not only in cement making but also in the steel industry) and many others who work in transport, the public services and for the airlines are regularly allocated to work on a Sunday, but one does not hear—I, for one, have certainly not heard —any complaints or difficulties arising on the basis that has been advanced today: that making people work on a Sunday is a terrible grievance and may be a ground for their refusing or being refused employment. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that the fairly drastic proposals contained in the amendment are wholly unnecessary. All experience of Sunday working shows that.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist my noble friend on that point. He may he interested to know that already something in the order of one in four of all workers —not shopworkers—usually or sometimes works on a Sunday. I think that that very much reinforces the point that my noble friend was making and is something of which the Committee should take note.
Perhaps I may also deal with another point that was made by my noble friend Lord Brentford when he said that he believed that the Bill could be described as an encouragement to tell a lie. I do not believe that to be the case. That is certainly why we argued for three months and not one month when we dealt in Committee with Amendment No. 30. I believe that that is one of the reasons why the Committee decided, as it did by a convincing majority, to reject that amendment.
Lord McCarthy: Can the Minister tell me why three months makes you not lie, but one month makes you lie? I should have thought that the longer the period, the more chances that one is lying.
Lord Henley: I am terribly sorry, but I should have thought that it was quite obvious that the shorter the period, the greater the temptation. It seems quite obvious that if there is only a month to get by, one is more likely, as it were, to try it on. That is the point that my noble friend was arguing and that is the point that the Committee, I believe, took into consideration in rejecting that particular amendment, which we rejected some time earlier this afternoon.
I go on to deal with the noble Lord's amendment. I understand that he is worried that for those who do not wish to work on Sundays the protections offered by the schedule will gradually be eroded. There is a belief that employers will simply ask all prospective employees whether they are prepared to work on Sundays and reject all applicants who decline to do so, whether or not that is relevant to the particular job on offer. The amendment seeks to provide that it should be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an applicant for
42
a job as a shopworker on the grounds that he or she objects to working on Sundays. I can assure my noble friend Lord Campbell that the amendment is drafted in such a way that if an employer seeks only people to work on a Sunday, they will still be covered by that provision. I think my noble friend Lord Campbell would agree that that somewhat unnecessary restriction would lead to some rather extraordinary claims of unfair discrimination.
I hope that I can illustrate to the Committee that the amendment is not defensible in principle. It would be largely unworkable in practice and fail to offer any meaningful degree of protection beyond that already provided by Schedule 4. The schedule already provides that those shopworkers who do not wish to work on Sundays need not do so. Even shopworkers who accept a commitment to Sunday working will have the opportunity to withdraw from that commitment, subject only to a three-month notice requirement. That opt out recognises that someone may enter into an obligation in good faith and his circumstances may change. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, mentioned that the person might be having a baby. One normally has at least three months' notice of that particular event—certainly in my experience! The opt-out is not an oscillating right. It can be exercised more than once at any time subject to notice. The provisions in Schedule 4 have been designed to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the interests of retail employees and those of their employers. I believe that the proposed amendment would place a wholly unreasonable requirement on employers whilst doing very little to advance the interests of shopworkers.
If an employer decides to open his shop on Sundays, I believe that the availability of his staff to work on those days is a legitimate business interest. A limitation on the ability of an employer to establish at the recruitment stage whether an individual is able to undertake the full range of lawful duties required cannot be acceptable. To deny the employer the freedom to select the workers who are willing to do the work that is to be done will create considerable scope for abuse. Any unsuccessful applicant would be able to claim that his or her failure to get a particular job was because he or she objected to working on a Sunday. As drafted, such a right would apply also to applicants for Sunday-only vacancies.
It is important not to forget that shops will not be obliged to open on Sundays. Those shops that choose to do so are unlikely to require all of their employees to work on Sundays. Flexible working patterns are already well established in the retail industry, with many employers relying on part-time and shift workers to cover peak periods of demand. It is therefore unnecessary to provide the proposed protection to ensure that retail jobs remain available to those who do not wish to work on a Sunday.
The noble Lord also drew a parallel between unfair discrimination at recruitment against those who chose to exercise their right to refuse to do shopwork on a Sunday and unfair discrimination on the grounds of either race or sex. My noble friend Lord Renton went on to mention the quota in disability grants, although I

43
believe that my noble friend made it quite clear that he did not believe it right to extend it to these particular cases. I also believe that the parallel drawn by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is a mistaken one. Discrimination on matters of principle, such as sex and race, is entirely separate. Protection against unfair discrimination in employment is provided on the basis that, with the very minor exceptions which exist in the two Acts that deal with those two particular matters, a person's sex or racial background is simply not relevant to the requirements of the job. They are therefore not considerations that should be taken into account by an employer when recruiting staff. We believe that discrimination on the grounds of sex or race is not only wholly morally wrong but, by potentially excluding the best person for the job, is also economically inefficient.
By contrast, these amendments attempt to force employers to ignore a consideration which is a legitimate one in deciding who is the best person for a job which includes Sunday working. The people who would be protected would be the very people who, by their own admission, would be unable to undertake the work required. There could be nothing more clearly designed to bring the law into disrepute than if it required employers to take on workers who had made it plain that they would not undertake the duties required; nor do I believe that there is any indirect discrimination in a three-month notice requirement or any of the other provisions of Schedule 4.
Finally, the amendment places the burden of proof on the employer to show that the reason for his rejection of the applicant was not the applicant's refusal to work on Sundays. That goes too far. It would mean that any shopworker whose application for a job was turned down for any reason whatever would be able to complain to a tribunal in the knowledge that the employer had to disprove the presumption that he or she was rejected for refusing Sunday work. Surely, that cannot be sensible. It would place an unnecessary and indefensible burden both on employers and the operation of the industrial tribunal system.
I believe that for those reasons the Committee should reject this amendment, but I hope that in the meantime the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I should just like to say a few words about what people other than the Minister have said. On the whole, he has not said very much. He has repeated the arguments used in another place. He has said that it is unworkable, meaningless and open to possible abuse. I have dealt with all of those matters. The only matter that he dug out was the suggestion that the sex and race comparison was a mistaken and invalid one because sex and race were not relevant to the employment. If we say that Sunday working is voluntary we say that it is not relevant to the employment. The moment that we say it is relevant we say that the employer is perfectly entitled to say, "Yes, it is relevant. You will not work on
44
Sunday and I will not engage you", and so there are no rights at all. If we are to make anything of all the statements that the Minister, the noble Earl and the Government have made in another place about wanting to do something about new entrants coming into the job, it must be done at the point of entry. We must say that at the point of entry it will not be relevant for the employer to say, "You will not work on Sunday and so you cannot take the job".
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said that one would have to lie. One would have to lie but one would very soon be found out. Whether it was one or three months, one would have to run the gauntlet of the three months in which the employer could say, "You told me that you would work on Sundays. Now you will not work on Sunday, but you shall work on Sunday". I would argue that if there was a refusal, an unfair dismissal claim would not be possible because the employee had lied at the point of entry.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that one could go to the explanatory part of Schedule 11. That is perfectly right. I am very glad that it is there. But all that does is tell the individual worker of his very limited three-month opt-out right. My separate point is that that is of no use to him in this context. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that there was a limited right to recruit workers in certain other cases, and he did not see why it should apply. In reply to another noble Lord I tried to argue today that unless there was a right of the sort that I suggested to opt out at that point it would not be voluntary.
I come to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He underestimated himself. On many occasions, including Second Reading and Committee, the noble Lord told the story about the cement firm. The trouble with that story is that it is an own goal. He kept telling us that when he was chairman of that company there was a need for the premia payments because, I suppose, of something to do with the wages. The only way they could make a living was to work on Sunday. That is precisely our point. Most people will want to work on Sunday. Therefore one cannot use the argument that the Government use consistently, that it will put the employer in a difficult position. It will not, because most people will want to work on Sunday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is the noble Lord really saying that because someone is induced by a premium to work on Sundays that that is any evidence that he is paid inadequately otherwise or merely that he is a sensible hard-working man who wants to earn as much as he can?
Lord McCarthy: What I am saying is that there are obviously many inducements which the noble Lord tells us that he has used in the past to ensure that the employer gets the right number of people to work on Sundays, and that even if we had the amendment we would not have the problem that the Government go on about. Therefore I do not see why I should take the amendment away. I want to press it to a Division.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

[Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howell, L

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jacques, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Walpole, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Burnham, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cadman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Annaly, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor, V.

Chorley, L.

Attlee, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Clinton, L.

Blyth, L.

Courtown, E.

Boardman, L.

Cox, B.

Borthwick, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Crathorne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cross, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Brookes, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Davidson, V.

46

Dean of Harptree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Milverton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monson, L.

Downshire, M.

Morris, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Elton, L.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nelson, E.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Flather, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Geddes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Peel, E.

Greenway, L.

Pender, L.

Gridley, L.

Quinton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Renton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Renwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Holderness, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

HolmPatrick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Shannon, E.

Howe, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kenyon, L.

Stewartby, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Leigh, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Liverpool, E.

[Teller]

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinton, E.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Torrington, V.

Chancellor.]

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Manchester, D.

Tugendhat, L.

Manton, L.

Ullswater, V.[Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Vivian, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Merrivale, L.

Wise, L.

Mersey, V.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 15, line 16, at end insert:
("(9A) In any proceedings falling within paragraph 9 above it shall be for the employer to prove that the reason for the dismissal (or if more than one, the principal reason) was not an actual or proposed refusal to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a further attempt to strengthen the protection afforded to workers dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays. It deals with the burden of proof, and it sets out clearly, without any ambiguity, that it shall be for the employer to prove that the reason for the dismissal, or, if more than one, the principal reason, was not an actual or proposed refusal to work on Sundays or a particular Sunday.
The Minister may tell the Committee that the amendment is unnecessary because the burden of proof is on the employer anyway. However, I do not believe

47
that it is all clear cut. My information is that it is based upon an industrial tribunal decision which may not be regarded as a precedent in all cases. But there is a more particular reason in the Bill to make it clear that that is the case. The Bill seeks to give protection to all employees irrespective of the length or period of service. In other words, the two-year period applying in regard to other kinds of employee protection has been abandoned in the Bill. My advice is that, even if there is some protection for employees with two years' service or more, there would appear to be a difficulty relating to employees with less than two years' qualifying service at the time of dismissal.
I am told that analogous case law relating to dismissal for trade union related reasons indicates that such employees may face the normal civil burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities. I am also told that Schedule 4 does not really address this problem. If my advice is correct—and I see no reason why it is not because it was given by two extremely eminent academic lawyers—clearly something ought to be done about it, in particular as regards short service employees because short service is common in the retail industry.
In any event, the presence of such a clause in the Bill will surely give a signal to employers that they had better be sure of their ground when getting rid of employees. They will have to prove that the reason for the dismissal is for something other than the refusal to undertake Sunday work. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I support the amendment. It is important that it is put into the Bill in order to strengthen the pro-active nature of the employer's position in dismissing anyone on any particular ground. The arguments which arise in relation to the amendment are a mirror image of those which my noble friend Lord McCarthy presented so eloquently in respect of the previous amendment.
When one is trying to encourage the culture of voluntarism in employment on Sundays it is important that it is reinforced in a statutory way whenever possible. Considerable publicity has been given to cases in which there was a suspicion that workers were dismissed because of their refusal to work on Sundays. That has been difficult to prove and therefore there has grown up a culture of suspicion rather than a culture of voluntarism in respect of certain employment and the policies of certain shops. My noble friend's amendment would change the nature of that atmosphere.
Viscount Brentford: I too endorse the amendment. I am happy that it supports the vulnerable members of society, which shopworkers are. There is a frequent turnover, many shopworkers working for fewer than two years in one job. While I am extremely appreciative of all the employment protection contained in the Bill —Schedule 4 gives a lot of protection—it is unlikely to be as effective as it might be because of the burden of proof to show that the principal reason for dismissal was Sunday related. It is difficult to overcome that burden
48
because an employer is unlikely to make it easy for an employee by admitting that a Sunday related reason forms the basis of a dismissal.
Paragraph 7 of the schedule provides protection by means of the cross-reference to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. I understand that the Government hang the burden of proof on that. However, it is uncertain that the burden of proof will rest on the employer, in particular in respect of those employed for less than two years. That appears to be the reading of the law cases on this and similar subjects.
Employees who have the necessary two years' continuity of employment may—but it is not certain —be able to shift the burden on to the employer under the terms of the 1978 Act. However, the burden of proving unfair dismissal for those with less than two years' continuity of service almost certainly rests on the employee. Therefore, I support the amendment, which will help to clarify the law and support the employees.
Lord Rochester: On Second Reading I said that it would take months for an employee to prove before an industrial tribunal and without legal aid that the real reason why he was dismissed or not promoted was that he was unwilling to work on Sundays and would produce only meagre compensation.
In reply to the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington —who I am glad to see in her place—stated:
"It is a misconception that the burden of proof is on the employee. The burden is on the employer to show the reason for dismissal".—[Official Report, 8/3/94; col. 1417.]
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and others who have spoken, I am anxious about the matter. I shall be glad if the Minister will confirm that the reference in paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to Part V of the 1978 Act means that in all cases it will be for the employer to show that the reason for dismissal was not that the employee refused to work on Sundays. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has expressed doubt about whether it will apply to all cases.
I too suggest that it would be as well for such a statement to be endorsed by including in the Bill this amendment or one similar.
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, the matter raised is not completely straightforward and is somewhat complicated. The amendment addresses a technical point and I fear that I shall have to provide a detailed explanation as to why I believe that it is misconceived.
It might be helpful to the Committee if I start by explaining how the protection against unfair dismissal provided in the schedule operates. I believe that the amendment should refer to paragraph 7 and not to paragraph 9. I make no objection to that. I believe it to be a mere drafting error and that the noble Baroness intended to table the amendment relating to paragraph 7. I merely point that out to her. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 provides protected and opted-out shopworkers with protection against being dismissed for refusing to work on a Sunday. It achieves this by cross-reference to the

49
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and provides that such dismissal shall be unfair for the purposes of Part V of that Act.
Precisely what is required of the individual shopworker by way of burden of proof will vary according to how long he has worked for the employer and whether, therefore, he fulfils the qualifying conditions—that is, two years' service—for making a complaint under the general unfair dismissal provisions.
If he does not, in order to demonstrate that the case should be heard under the Schedule 4 provisions, which do not require any qualifying period of service, the shopworker will need to show that there are grounds for supposing that he was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays. We do not believe that that is a difficult hurdle to surmount. All the worker has to do is to show a prima facie case. Once he has done that the tribunal will proceed to hear and determine the claim on its merits.
While it is for the employee to show that he has reason to believe that he has been dismissed for a reason relating to the refusal of Sunday work, Section 57 of the 1978 Act specifically provides that it is for the employer to show the reason for the dismissal and that he acted reasonably in treating it as a reason for dismissal. Of course, I accept that the employer who has dismissed an employee for a reason which makes the dismissal automatically unfair may attempt to mislead the tribunal in this respect. However, I do not accept the possible pessimistic assessment about the ability of a tribunal to determine the true facts should an employer attempt to mislead it as to the real motive for his actions.
Industrial tribunals are a long-established and well accepted forum for resolving employment related disputes. They comprise a legally qualified chairman and normally two lay members with extensive practical experience of employee relations, one drawn from each side of industry. They have considerable experience in determining the truth where the two parties disagree as to the reason for the dismissal. It is simply naive to suppose that tribunals are so green that an employer will so easily be able to pull the wool over their eyes.
The general effect of the amendment is that whenever a shopworker complains of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, the employer has to disprove the presumption that he or she was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays, whatever the real reason for the dismissal. That has some very curious results indeed; for example, the presumption would apply, and would have to be disproved by the employer, even where the dismissed shopworker had always agreed to do Sunday work and had always done it when asked.
I have already explained that any shopworker who has any real reason for thinking he or she was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays does not need the assistance of this amendment: I believe that it will be of assistance only to mischief makers. It would therefore place an unnecessary burden on employers and the operation of the tribunal system to no good purpose.
I do not believe that the amendment offers any real practical assistance to shopworkers who do not have the qualifying period. There is also no legal reason for it. The amendment is circular. The tribunal will be considering whether dismissal is unfair under paragraph
50
7 of the schedule only if it has already accepted that there are some grounds for thinking that the worker was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays. Once it has reached that stage, the burden is very clearly on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal.
I hope that that somewhat complicated exposition has explained the position as regards the burden of proof. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that the arrangements do not place a shopworker at a disadvantage. On that basis I hope that I may have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, not to press the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: We have been round this before and I do not know that we have much hope of persuading the Government in this regard. The problem goes back to 1980, as we have said on many occasions. In 1978, there were two stages and in both stages the burden of proof was firmly on the employer, who had to show that he had a lawful reason and that it was a sufficient reason bearing in mind the merits and equity of the case for dismissal. That was quite clear.
In 1980, in the first Employment Act introduced by the present Government the second limb was changed so that it was still the employer's problem to prove a lawful reason, but at that point the burden of proof was neutralised because the tribunal would decide whether it was a sufficient reason, taking into account the size of the firm and various other factors provided for in the legislation.
We said at that time, and we have said ever since, that that change in connection with the burden of proof—and here we are talking about ordinary individuals who have a right to protection against unfair dismissal and not the two-year rule—was unfair. It was particularly unfair as the tribunals began to develop their notion that they would take as unfair only those matters which were beyond reasonable decisions of management. They said that management had a broad brush approach in deciding what was reasonable. We said that that meant, in effect, that the burden of proof was shifting from the 1978 position to a situation where increasingly workers had to prove that, once the employer had established that he had a lawful reason, there was sufficient reason for treating it as the basis for dismissal. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the general situation.
I turn now to the two-year rule. The Minister told us in very clear terms—and I do not believe that the Government have said it quite as clearly before—that in the first instance under the two-year rule the worker has to establish a prima facie case that he has been dismissed on grounds of sex, race or this new right which we are creating; and that puts the burden of proof on the worker. He says that only when the worker has established that does it become the responsibility of the employer to prove that it was a lawful reason.
However, one must then go on to ask what is the reason which the employer gives. The difficulty is that, unless there is an ordinary tribunal situation with every possible unfair dismissal argument before the tribunal, we find that the employer can put forward almost any argument. He can say that he did not dismiss on grounds of sex, race or because an employee would not work on

51
a Sunday, but because the work was not satisfactory. The tribunal is then limited to the extent to which it can examine that argument because there is no right to be unfairly dismissed on that basis.
Therefore, we have anxieties about both the general position and the position under the two-year rule. However, we have put forward those anxieties on many occasions and I do not suppose that the Government will take any notice of them on this occasion. But that is the situation as we see it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am terribly sorry but I think that the noble Lord is making a considerable mountain out of a very small molehill. As I explained, it is only a matter of establishing a prima facie case. As I made clear, I do not believe that that is a difficult hurdle for an employee to surmount. Thereafter, as the noble Lord agreed, it is for the employer to establish his case. We are merely stating that an employee must establish a prima facie case, and I do not believe that that is the insurmountable hurdle, which the noble Lord implies it to be.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am disappointed, although not surprised, by the Minister's response. I am prepared to accept that the amendment should refer to paragraph 7 rather than paragraph 9, and I shall look again at that before Report stage. I do not intend to divide the Committee on the matter this afternoon, but I wish to return to it on Report.
Quite frankly, I do not accept what the Minister said about it not being a difficult burden to place on employees. It is often an extremely difficult burden because the employer is unlikely to make it easy on the employee by admitting that a Sunday related reason formed the basis for dismissal. As I said earlier, in analogous cases concerning dismissal for trade union related reasons or on grounds of sexual or racial discrimination, employees have often had great difficulty in establishing the reason for their dismissal. According to my advice, protracted litigation and appeals, often resulting in the overturning of industrial tribunal findings, have been quite common.
It is not naive to imagine that industrial tribunals may have difficulty in ascertaining the precise reason, for, after all, there is no right to legal aid to go before an industrial tribunal. If employees are not represented either by their union or a legal representative, the possibility of their winning is greatly reduced. If one looks at the results of industrial tribunal cases over the years, those people who go before an industrial tribunal without representation do not stand as much chance of winning as those who are represented. Yet we know that we are talking about a workforce which is not too well organised and which does not have a great deal of union cover. In that event, it seems to me that we are dealing with a vulnerable workforce. The only way in which those people can be protected is by Parliament providing the kind of legislation which will make it easy for them to insist upon their rights.
As I said earlier, I shall not press the amendment this afternoon. I shall look to see whether the amendment is
52
drafted correctly. I am not at all satisfied by the Minister's response and I shall certainly return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 16, line 3, at end insert:
("(6A) Where an employee who refuses an offer to do Sunday work loses in consequence thereof part or all of his normal working hours, the employer shall use his best endeavours to offer alternative hours of work during the weekday periods of the month in which the refusal was effected.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to address the situation in which an employee may be pressurised into working on Sundays by being told by the employer that otherwise there will be no work for him on a particular weekday or that some hours during the week are no longer available. Quite clearly, that would represent pressure since most workers count on working a full week and getting paid for it. It would be a way in which to cut pay in a sense in order to exert pressure on people who do not wish to work on a Sunday for religious or other reasons.
The amendment simply says that an employer,
"shall use his best endeavours".
It is not a firm commitment; it simply states that he should use,
"his best endeavours to offer alternative hours of work during the weekday periods of the month in which the refusal was effected".
I have to say that such a provision already forms part of the agreement reached between USDAW and the consortium of employers who have campaigned for the six-hour option. The clause in that agreement—and I am indebted to Tesco for this information—reads that,
"where an existing shop worker opts out of Sunday work the employer will use his/her best endeavours to reschedule the employee's lost working hours elsewhere subject to the needs of the business".
I emphasise the last words; namely,
"subject to the needs of the business".
The wording is not dissimilar to that contained in my amendment. As it is acceptable to a large part of the retail industry, I hope that the Government will feel that it has some merit and that they will be prepared to accept what we say this evening. In my view, it would be a great pity if we had the kind of legislation that enabled good employers to be undercut by those who are not so good. I hope therefore that the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I sympathise with the thinking underlying the amendment, but, frankly, I am doubtful as to how far it can be made effective in law. The difficulty is that the employer could always argue that he could not reasonably provide the alternative working hours required. Therefore, the employee would have to take his case to an industrial tribunal in order to gain redress, but no provision is made in the amendment for that to happen. Even if such a means were provided, I do not readily see how a tribunal could judge the matter unless it engaged in some kind of audit of the employer's staffing arrangements, which hardly seems feasible.

53
Having said that, presumably an employee opting out of Sunday work would be replaced by someone else who was willing to work in his stead. The substitute could then be given leave for a day in lieu of Sunday and it may then be possible for the opted-out shopworker to be offered work on such a day. It is to be hoped, as far as is practicable, that that is how the situation would be dealt with. In his response, I hope that the Minister will at least encourage employers to act in such a way or to do what they otherwise can to provide alternative weekday working hours for employees unwilling to work on Sunday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has said very much what I intended to say. Therefore, I can spare Members of the Committee from having to hear it again. If one looks at the amendment, it is quite clear that it would be extremely difficult to enforce and that it would be merely an illusion of protection from the point of view of a shopworker. Further, if it is being seriously suggested that someone who has refused Sunday work shall be given hours which someone else would have worked during the week, that surely means that the recusant Sunday worker would be given an advantage —that is, a privilege —over someone who has not been concerned one way or the other with the question of Sunday working. That would be grossly unfair and would, most likely, entitle the displaced worker to take action against the employer. In any event, it seems to me to be a wholly unworkable proposal and one which I hope my noble friend the Minister will reject.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that USDAW had negotiated an agreement along those lines.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, that is correct.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is excellent, so far as I can see. However, can the noble Baroness say, very roughly, the percentage of shopworkers who are members; in other words, what is the scale of representation? Further, if it were in any way substantial, can the noble Baroness say how many employers are involved in the negotiations? Finally, would it not be much more satisfactory to leave it as a matter of free arrangement between a responsible union and the employers?
Earl Ferrers: During the debate on the last amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that we were concerned with a vulnerable group of workers and that it was only right for Parliament to protect them. Now we come to consider two further amendments the wording of which seems so reasonable. Indeed, Amendment No. 35 suggests that employers should use their,
"best endeavours to offer alternative hours of work",
and Amendment No. 34 states that employers should have,
"a reasonable duty to use [their] best endeavours to replace lost hours … with alternative hours".
All that sounds perfectly reasonable. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In fact, the provision would prove very difficult to carry out in practice.
54
I listened to and can understand the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness. However, if I may say so, I found them unpersuasive. The noble Baroness referred to the voluntary commitment that was given by the employers who support the option of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. The argument is that a statutory requirement must, therefore, be entirely reasonable.
It is, however, one thing for large retailers to commit themselves voluntarily to use their best endeavours to offer alternative weekday working to employees who refuse to work on Sunday. It is quite another thing to impose such a requirement as a statutory duty on all retailers, irrespective of the size of their workforce or their particular circumstances.
I have no doubt that many employers will do their best to find alternative weekday work for their employees who do not wish to work on Sundays; indeed, I am sure that they will do so. But, surely that is a matter for employers to decide —and not a matter for Parliament to require. It is plain common sense that an employer needs freedom to organise his staffing requirements as he judges best will meet the specific needs of his particular business; otherwise, there may be no business and no jobs either.
I am sure that Members of the Committee will appreciate that there is a limit to the working hours which are available within the weekday periods in a working month. The result of the proposal is that it may often only be possible to find extra working hours, for those who have stopped working on Sundays, by reducing the hours which are worked by those who do not work on Sunday and who have never agreed to work on Sundays; or by reducing the weekday hours of those who are content to continue to work on Sundays. Those employees deserve our consideration every bit as much as employees who have opted out of Sunday working. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that it would be quite unfair to penalise those employees in such a way.
The Schedule 4 employment provisions, which allow shopworkers to opt out of a contractual term requiring Sunday working, are generous. Indeed, they represent a significant departure from the normal position that contractual terms, once agreed, are binding on both parties. But, they have been provided because the Government accept that no shopworker should be obliged to work on Sundays against his or her will.
However, to place an employer under a statutory obligation to use his best endeavours to provide alternative hours of work during the weekday period, would extend that generosity beyond what is reasonable. It would be absurd, for example, to make an employer find additional work for an employee who came to work on Sunday only but who then decided that he did not like it and wanted to stop doing it. I can see no reason that there should be any obligation for an employer to try to find extra hours of work during the week for that person, over and above the requirements or wishes of those other people who are employed by him. For example, a shopworker to whom these amendments applied, including a Sunday-only worker, would have first refusal of any work which became available on other days. I agree with my noble friend

55
Lord Boyd-Carpenter that that is unreasonable. That shopworker would be given priority over all other workers, who may themselves wish to work the available hours during the week, regardless of his or her experience or ability.
It is unlikely that businesses will flourish or that new jobs will be created when employers are prevented, without good cause, from selecting the best people for the work available. Such a shopworker would also have priority over other employees whose personal circumstances might otherwise entitle them to first claim on the available work, either because they are disabled, for example, or because they are supporting a sick relative. Such a shopworker as we are discussing would also have priority over workers facing redundancy. Therefore the amendment would give enormous privileges to those people who decide they do not wish to work on Sundays.
The grounds for being granted such exclusive treatment would simply be that the employee had decided that he no longer wished to work on Sundays. I have no doubt that those shopworkers who would be privileged under this amendment would be happy about that situation. However, I doubt whether the vast majority of other shopworkers would feel that way, and frankly I do not blame them. I hope that the noble Baroness will see the force of that argument and will realise that it would be inappropriate to include this provision in the Bill.
6 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position which, he will not be surprised to learn, does not particularly appeal to me. I had thought that we had drafted a reasonable amendment. All that the employer has to do is to use his best endeavours. Indeed the agreement which USDAW has reached states that this provision should be subject to the needs of the business. Quite obviously an employer has to bear in mind the needs of the business when he uses his best endeavours in this regard.
Nor do I accept the argument that we are making specially generous arrangements for people who do not want to work on a Sunday. If it is true—as we have often been told in debate in this Chamber on this Bill—that there are people queuing up to work on Sundays, what is the harm in providing some kind of cover and some kind of protection for people who clearly do not want to do so either on religious, conscientious or perhaps domestic grounds? If a worker refuses to work on a Sunday, there may be good reasons for that. It seems to me that if the employer can then deny the usual range of normal working hours to an individual who is not working on Sunday, that exerts further pressure on the individual and that undermines the voluntary nature of the arrangements set out in the Bill.
I do not intend to pursue this point any further at this stage but I feel the Government's response is unsatisfactory. If the scheme set out in the Bill is really intended to be an entirely voluntary one, it must be the sort of scheme that operates in such a way that people
56
are not put under any sort of pressure to work on Sundays. We have not yet achieved that position with this Bill in my view, but I hope that we shall do so before the Bill leaves this Chamber. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert:
("Enhanced Payment for Sunday Working
. A shopworker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns during his normal working hours on a weekday, or in the case of a shopworker required to work only on a Sunday, at a rate which exceeds that earned by a shopworker carrying out similar shop work for the employer during his normal working hours on a weekday. The normal rate shall be regarded as twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job; this may be varied as a result of negotiation between the parties or their representatives, but shall on no account be less than one and a half times the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.").
The noble Baroness said: This is the amendment that specifies that if workers work on Sundays they should be properly paid for it. Around 2.3 million employees usually work on Sundays. I would point out that that figure is provided by the labour review of 1992. That is approximately 11 per cent. of all employees. That also means of course that 89 per cent.—in other words the greater majority—do not work on Sunday and use it as an opportunity for rest and leisure.
The six-hour option has been strongly promoted as an opportunity for families to shop together; in other words, shopping not just for necessities, but luxury shopping, or perhaps shopping for larger items such as furniture, gardening equipment, and perhaps DIY materials.
But this great majority, for whom Sunday is not a day like any other, owe their possibility of enjoyment very largely to the activities of a minority of workers who provide them with the necessary services. It has for many years been accepted that if such workers are to forgo their Sunday break, they should be compensated for it. And Sunday really is special. For most of us a day off in the week in lieu is simply not the same at all. I can myself testify to that. I have worked on Sundays and had days off in lieu and it is by no means the same thing.
The convention across large parts of the UK economy for many years has been—in both the public and private sectors—that if an employee worked on a Sunday, then he or she should be paid a premium rate, and that premium rate has normally been double time. Arrangements to provide premium rates at double time currently exist for local authorities' administrative, professional, technical and clerical grades, in the NHS for nursing staff and also for NHS ancillary staff, in the non-industrial grades in the Civil Service, and in private industry, in chemical and allied trades, parts of the clothing industry, pharmaceuticals, the glass industry and large sectors of manufacturing and engineering industry. Even without legislation a number of leading retailers pay premium rates at double time. Tesco's has assured me that it does this and has done so because it wants to attract staff to work on Sundays and wants to encourage good people to volunteer.
As I have said earlier, protection of vulnerable people must be a matter for Parliament. One of the ways in which we can protect these people is to insist in primary legislation on their being properly compensated for working when everyone else is either resting or is out enjoying leisure activities. My amendment was carefully drafted to suggest that the normal rate for Sundays should be regarded as twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to a particular job. However, my amendment suggests that this may be varied as a result of negotiation between the parties or their representatives but on no account should it be less than one and a half times the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that particular job.
I am sympathetic to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. However, I must state that I have drafted my amendment so as to cover the arguments that have been made in another place about the inability of a number of smaller shops to cope with a double time requirement. However, I should still like it to be spelt out in legislation that the normal rate for Sunday working should be double time but that it should be open to parties to negotiate the matter of paying a rate one and a half times the hourly rate for a particular job. However, I personally favour the double time option. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, Amendment No. 37:
As Amendments to Amendment 36
Line 3, after ("shopworker") insert ("and any other worker required to work on Sunday by reason of the opening of shops on Sunday arising from the provisions of this Act").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 37, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 38. I am, of course, very much in favour of my noble friend's original amendment. I hope that I shall not repeat many of the excellent arguments which she made in favour of that amendment. I wish to build on her amendment and to draw other workers into the protection that she seeks. That is precisely what I seek to do in Amendment No. 37. We should not only be concerned with shops and their convenience and with shopworkers who are not the only employees who may be required to work on Sundays as a result of this Bill.
All sorts of other people will be required to work on Sundays who fall outside the narrow definition of a shopworker which is contained in the Bill. Shops have to be serviced and a wide spectrum of employment may be covered. For example lorry drivers, warehousemen and women, and possibly production workers and head office staff will be required to work on Sundays. Those people will not necessarily be working in a shop. Fresh food growers and their employees may be required to work on Sundays, as may bakers and contract cleaners who may well not be defined as shopworkers but as something else. Their contract of employment may not cover shop work specifically.
There are also other workers who are likely to be required to work on Sundays. For example, many local authority workers will be forced to be on duty, not only for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act
58
but to provide services. There are some obvious categories, such as car park attendants, traffic wardens, street cleaners, police, bus workers, public health workers, trading standards officers, and no doubt many others.
While it may be true that at present many local authority workers may be covered by Sunday working agreements which give them double time, by no means all of them will be covered by such arrangements. We must remember that many local authority services in many areas are already contracted out. Many more may well be contracted out under the compulsory competitive tendering arrangements so beloved of this Government. It is a system which is bound to extend its boundaries under existing legislation. We do not need new legislation to extend those boundaries. It already exists.
The more we examine the issue the more worrying and complicated it becomes. I have mentioned the servicing of shops directly and local authority services, but as Sunday becomes an ordinary shopping day many other trades and businesses will be expected to open on Sundays. Banks and building societies immediately spring to mind. But will not people also expect post offices to be open and to be able to pay their rates and rents at the town hall or civic: offices? Then Sunday will be like any other day.
Employers will then ask why they need to pay premium rates for Sundays, and what is now so special about that day. Since in my experience employers invariably have the whip hand and since workers these days are in a very weak position, especially those in the retail trade, the Sunday premium payment could be gradually phased out not only for shopworkers but for all workers. Hence my support for the amendment and my attempt to make it even stronger and wider by my own amendments to it.
I turn now to Amendment No. 38. In my own experience Sunday work has ranked for double time. It is true that some employers pay less, but good employers have recognised the loss of amenity to employees as a result of Sunday working. They have recognised that it warrants an especially high premium payment. In other words, good employers have always recognised that Sunday is special. I appeal to all those who voted to keep Sunday special to bear that in mind when they consider this amendment.
Again, in my own experience, which has been relatively wide in the industrial relations field in a lay capacity, the payment of double time on Sunday represented a deterrent against the imposition of Sunday working by employers because Sunday was so special to workers. They could be with their families and go to church or other places if they wished to. Therefore it was a deterrent rate. Without that deterrent employers might too easily have imposed Sunday working on reluctant employees. I therefore do not believe that the generally accepted exceptional premium rate for Sunday should be watered down in any way, whether to time and a half or any other rate. Hence this amendment.
Time and a half, which is mentioned in my noble friend's amendment, has been the minimum premium payment, but it is not good enough. Time and a half is

59
generally recognised as requisite for weekday evening or night work or Saturday work. But because Sunday has always been considered special by both employers and employees an extra premium payment has been regarded as fair and necessary—hence double time. In my view it would be dangerous to resile from that. It would affect not only shopworkers but also a wide range of other workers. I hope that the amendment will be supported.
My noble friend's amendment refers to variation of double time by negotiation. However, since shopworkers are not well organised into trade unions or in any other sense, they are particularly vulnerable and in a weak bargaining position vis-à-vis their employers, who in the retail trade hold the upper hand in negotiations. Bearing in mind the nature of the employment, those employed and the hours worked—much of it part-time, sometimes by schoolchildren and students working in holiday periods—the employer has enormous power. Shopworkers will have no real protection unless their rights are guaranteed by statute. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has done a most effective demolition job on his noble friend's amendment. Those of us who might have had any sympathy with that amendment when we read it now realise how very widespread and damaging its effects would be. Therefore, I am sure that Members of the Committee generally, although possibly not the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for making it quite clear what a very substantial and damaging proposal the amendment of the noble Baroness amounts to.
En passant, the noble Baroness also very much understated the number of people who regularly work on Sundays. The figure that she gave probably relates only to those in scheduled employment and not to those who work as part of a public service such as the Post Office, which operates on Sunday despite what the noble Lord said, and many other public services. In fact the number of people regularly working on Sunday is certainly very substantial. The figure that I have been given is that approximately 20 per cent. of the workforce works on Sunday. I did not want to allow the figure quoted by the noble Baroness—which I am sure refers only to a limited section of Sunday workers—to pass without comment.
It is clear that the amendment of the noble Baroness would impose a considerable charge upon those people who employ workers on Sundays. It is the practice that generally a premium is paid for Sunday work. In the example which I quoted, and which seemed so to annoy the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, of the cement industry it is the fact that a premium is paid for those who are called upon to work on Sunday. It is a general practice. However, to lay it down by statute on a substantial basis, as the amendment proposes, is quite different. It would among other things, be a somewhat inflationary step.
The amendment obviously appeals to certain elements in the trade union movement, but from the
60
point of view of the national interest, the national economy and the proper working of the shops system on Sunday, it would be quite disastrous. I hope that the Minister will be firm in rejecting it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I very much support what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. Figures were quoted earlier by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Henley and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on the number of other people who have to work on Sundays. I think in particular of the transport industries: the railways, airlines, airports, ships, ferries and all the others. So far as I understand it, they may receive a premium rate for working; they may get time-and-a-half or even double time. But nowhere is that provided for statutorily, as the amendment proposes. Therefore, why should shopworkers be treated differently in future from the hundreds of thousands of other people who already have to work on a Sunday and who would have no statutory protection such as this?
If the noble Baroness says, as she may, that she would like everyone who works on a Sunday to have statutory protection, I ask: why upset arrangements which have worked perfectly satisfactorily for many years? It could cause the inflationary pressures to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred.
In addition, the amendment would be completely unenforceable if it were carried. It might be enforceable in the kind of shop to which the noble Baroness referred, which I believe was Tesco's, where perhaps there is union representation and where people know what rates are being paid for Sunday working and other working. However, in the type of shop to which I go on a Sunday such as my local newsagent, where two, three or four people work, how on earth would anyone enforce the provision in such shops? Would we not end up with exactly the same problems with small shops which the Bill attempts to solve on Sunday trading? Furthermore, surely it could lead to job losses in just those small shops if the legislation were enforced. People would say: "I am sorry, I can't afford to pay double time or even time-and-a-half. Therefore I am better off not opening at all on a Sunday". Then the job opportunity for that person is lost altogether.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, went on to quote a whole series of different people who might or might not be affected by shops being open on a Sunday. He mentioned that some local authority workers were already required to work on Sundays. They are required to do that sometimes: for example, we can see them gritting the streets in the winter on a Sunday. The noble Lord said that others would be required to work on Sundays because of the passing of the Bill. We would therefore have the extraordinary situation where one set of local authority workers was covered by statutory protection and another set was not and they could well be the same people. So for all those reasons I hope that my noble friend will firmly resist the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: I strongly support the amendment. The removal of minimum wage protection for shopworkers has already led to a significant reduction in pay rates. Employers who are

61
seeing the opportunity which the lack of regulation gives them in this direction are unlikely to pay premium rates for Sunday working unless required to do so by law. Those retail traders who have reached a national agreement with USDAW (to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred) to continue premium rates of pay for Sunday work are firms of high standing. Some of them have led the campaign for the Sunday trading option. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has put her name to this important amendment.
If those mainstream retailers are prepared to tighten protection in this way, why will the Government not incorporate that protection into the Bill? Those who are most vulnerable, who most need protection, do not work for those companies and do not have union support.
We have heard from a number of Members of the Committee who supported deregulation of their intentions to keep Sunday as a different day. I hope that they will support the amendment. If Sunday opening is to become more widespread, it is vital that there should be a legal requirement for shopworkers to be paid a premium rate for Sunday working. Without that, the concept of Sunday as a normal working day would quickly become accepted, with consequences for other workers.
The premium rate establishes that Sunday is different, and that is a point which again the noble Baroness. Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made. For those who choose to give up the special benefit of a free Sunday with their family, there is and should be a particular bonus for working on Sunday.
We have heard a great deal in both your Lordships' House and in this Committee in our debates on the Bill about freedom: the freedom of the shopper, the freedom of the companies and the freedom of those who want to work on Sunday. As in so many human situations, the freedom of the strong can be bought at the expense of the freedom of the weak. There are some shopworkers who are in a very weak bargaining position. The amendment is about offering them proper protection.
I have listened more than once to Professor Patrick Minford of Liverpool University on the value of forcing wage rates down in order to produce more jobs. I think we have heard of such beliefs from a number of Members of the Committee. But his arguments do not persuade me; and I am more greatly concerned about the huge subject of unemployment and the future of work than anything else. That is one of the most crucial questions that the world has to face. Merseyside, where I live, continues to have double the national rate of unemployment, as it has done consistently for many years. Nothing is more important. But I believe that questions about the future of work are far more profound than can begin to be solved by depressing wage rates.
I know about pricing ourselves out of the market. No doubt there need to be competitive disciplines. But that will not be a way in which Britain can become competitive with Taiwan or the Philippines. Pushing wage rates of shopworkers down will not make any serious contribution in areas of high unemployment, not least because they will offer no incentive to those on
62
benefit, if their wage rates are so low, to believe that they can start to earn, as the great majority want to do. If part-time jobs pay very low wages, they make little or no contribution to the Exchequer, as well as providing no incentive to people to move away from benefit.
The Low Pay Network made a study of a new set of opportunities for jobs in Stirling. It was a study of 91 jobs that appeared in the jobcentre, clearly from one employer, assumed to be a new superrnarket—just the thing that we are told will make more opportunities for work. A third of the jobs offered less than £30 a week. All but 14 per cent. offered less than £50 a week. If a worker earns less than the national insurance threshold of £56 per week, then neither the worker nor the employer pays national insurance contributions and the worker pays no tax. The worker is not entitled to contributory benefits such as unemployment benefit, statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and the state pension. The employer gains a worker without any social security costs.
The Low Pay Network worked out the contribution to the Exchequer of these 91 jobs. We bemuse ourselves by statistics unless we say what jobs are, and I believe that every set of statistics should always say how many jobs are full-time and how many part-time. The Low Pay Network worked out the contribution to the Exchequer of the 91 jobs, assuming the higher hourly rate of pay. The total amount of tax and national insurance payable on the 91 jobs is £15 per week—a total of £781 per year from 91 jobs. The network makes the point that if the 91 jobs were translated into 28 —which it would have been—full-time equivalents on £3.44 per hour, the higher rate of the most common band, then the total amount paid by employees in tax and national insurance would be £570 per week or £29,000 or more per year.
The total amount of national insurance paid by the employer for those 91 jobs is £13.26 per week—£669 per year. If they were 28 full-time jobs, the employer's national insurance bill would be £235 a week, or £12,000 more per year. The loss to the Exchequer of having 91 part-time jobs against 28 full-time jobs is over £40,000 per year.
Some posts are necessarily part-time, and some people are helped by having part-time jobs. But the erosion of full-time jobs and of proper rates of pay is doing the economy no favours in saving, poverty, in the capacity of people to buy in the high street or in contributions to the Exchequer in helping people to cease being simply beneficiaries. We treat people as less than citizens when we regard them simply that way. A healthy community sees ail of us as members one of another and helps as many as possible to be contributors to the common good. Pushing wages down and down does not help. The premium rates for Sunday trading will help to protect low-paid workers.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: The right reverend Prelate has answered a large part of the question which seems to puzzle the other side as to what is so exceptional about

63
legislating for distribution for shopworkers. The answer of course lies in the fact that the Government abolished the wages councils.
If the wages councils had been there they would have had to set some premium rate for Sunday. They would have set such a rate before they were abolished, except that it was supposed to be illegal. The wages councils set overtime rates. Firms did not disappear. From the early 1970s until 12 months ago we had an increase of about 2 billion in the number of people working in distribution. Most of the time we had wages councils. It did not destroy jobs, and it would not destroy jobs now.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in saying that it is not so exceptional. That is the remarkable thing. If one looks at manufacture, transport, extraction, indeed at the whole public sector, one finds that double time is paid on Sunday. That is standard. The remarkable thing is that as Sunday working has crept in to distribution, it has not been followed by a similar general principle.
If we look at the evidence that we have had, there is complete chaos. The situation is absolutely bizarre. Less than double time is paid in Sainsbury's, Woolworth's, Budgen's and Gateway. Double time is paid in Tesco's. Who can say that Tesco's can afford to pay and Sainsbury's cannot? It is nonsense. One-fifth of the shops in Scotland pay no premium at all and a tenth of them pay double time. It is not the large shops that pay the premia. If one looks at the premium payments, they are not related to size or profits. No one knows what they are related to, except perhaps the ability of the employers to be relatively ruthless on Sundays. That is why they need legal regulation.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether I may dare to answer the right reverend Prelate. Like the rest of us, he is very rightly worried about unemployment. I have to tell him (as I shall later) that if this amendment were accepted it would increase unemployment. Also, the right reverend Prelate is worried about reduced wages. But the amendment is not concerned with that. I hope to show him that he can set his mind at rest on that point.
It is customary for people to be paid more on Sundays. It is very proper and acceptable that that should be so. But to have a statutory limit of 1½ up to 100 per cent. would be pretty killing for the small shops. The arguments that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has just used, and the arguments that the right reverend Prelate used, related largely to what happens in the large stores. But perhaps I may explain what would happen if this amendment were accepted so far as the small shops are concerned. I have to use the information that is given to me as well as the information that I have.
Let us take the first part of this amendment:
"A shopworker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns during his normal working hours on a weekday".
It so happens that in the village where I live we have a very small village store on which all of us who live in the village, which is five miles from the nearest town, greatly depend—and where, incidentally, the old people are able to get their pensions. Quite frequently on Sundays a man and a woman come in to help who never
64
work there on weekdays. The opening phrases in the amendment would simply not be relevant to their case, which is, I believe, quite a frequent one.
However, I should like to speak more generally. I understand that a typical local shop would be forced to shed two to three shopworkers if double wages had to be paid. That would be on top of the loss of 5,000 jobs in small shops that has already been forecast by the London Economic Survey as being a result of the Bill when it becomes law. Therefore unemployment would result.
Let us consider the effects upon a typical small shop. It has been estimated that double pay—it is only right to refer to double pay because that is what the real burden of the amendment is—would add around £4,000 a year to the wages bill of a typical small shop. That would mean that the cost would either have to be passed on to the customer in higher prices—in other words, it would be inflationary —or that the small shop would close. Small shops have had a great struggle for a long time against competition from the large stores. It is partly price competition and partly competition in the range of goods that can be supplied. Obviously, a small village store cannot be a Tesco or a Waitrose. Putting all those factors together, this amendment would have a very bad effect on employment, and it would kill the small shops. I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I said that people who work on Sunday should of course be properly compensated for so doing. I feared that once the large stores, willingly or reluctantly, to preserve their market share were open for six hours, it would not be long before, first, other shops and then other businesses in the high street followed suit. If that happened and Sunday became just like any other day —the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has already made a point on those lines—I questioned how work on Sunday could any longer be regarded as abnormal and thus warrant premium pay. I said then that the only way to make sure that that situation did not arise was to prevent large shops from opening on any except the four Sundays before Christmas. Unfortunately as I see it, the Committee did not accept that option. Now we are stuck with the consequences.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, would agree, recognised the problem by stipulating in its agreement with USDAW that payment at double-time rate would continue unless there was a material change in circumstances, or words to that effect. Clearly it is with that consideration in mind that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, provided for payment for Sunday work to be made at no less than one-and-a-half times the normal hourly weekday rate. I am tempted to support her and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in his counter-proposals, if only because their amendments would have the effect of acting as a disincentive to more and more employers thinking of opening for business on Sunday.
However, we must recognise that—apart from the basic question of whether it is right for rates of pay to be prescribed by law at all—if they are to be prescribed, we must consider how they are to be enforced. The

65
amendment makes no reference to that point. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it would be more difficult for small shops than for large stores to make payments at the minimum rate called for in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and still more difficult if the second proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, were to take effect.
As I see it, the future of small shops is already threatened by the Bill's provision that large stores may trade on Sundays. Alas, that battle has been lost. However, we should surely think very carefully before adding to that danger by forcing small shops to shed labour or close altogether at the expense of disadvantaged people who depend on them. If the Government resist the amendments on those grounds —as no doubt they will—perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will consider withdrawing the amendments at this stage with a view to seeking, on Report, to introduce more realistic amendments if they can.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I can briefly intervene on a question of fact relating to the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the undertakings drawn up in its agreement with USDAW. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, they were to maintain the premium payments. That is why I support that part of the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lady Turner, but there, I am afraid I part company with my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Perhaps I can equally briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who seemed to suggest that if the amendment were accepted, some sort of floodgate would be opened in which there would be vast new expenditures on wages and that there may even be a threat to the national inflationary position. A survey was conducted by the SHRC which covered over 3,000 shops which, between them, employed 82,900 workers. It was found that 96 per cent. of those surveyed already received between 1.5 and 2.3 times their basic rate and the remaining 4 per cent. were in rolling agreements which covered Sunday payments with enhanced pay. All we are doing therefore is suggesting that there should be statutory enforcement of a situation that already exists.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I will come to that point in due course. Much has been said during the debate on Sunday trading, both here and in another place, about the principle of paying shopworkers a premium for working on Sundays. We believe that while employers and employees should be free to make any such arrangement on a voluntary basis—as my noble friend Lord Renton put it, that may be both customary and proper—we do not believe that a statutory obligation to do so would be either necessary or desirable.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the amendment to that amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, seek to ensure that shopworkers who choose to work on Sundays should be paid at a higher rate for Sunday work than their weekday
66
counterparts. It stipulates that Sunday shopworkers, including Sunday-only workers, should generally receive pay at double time for Sunday shop work. However, the amendment recognises the burden that such a requirement could place on employers, particularly on struggling enterprises. It provides that the rate for Sunday working may, by negotiation, be reduced to not less than one-and-a-half times the weekly hourly rate, but in no circumstances to less than that. Amendment No. 38 deletes even that provision and allows only statutory double time for all shopworkers in all shops of whatever shape and size.
Perhaps I can briefly deal with Amendment No. 37. The schedule is designed to protect shopworkers who, under the provisions of the Shops Act 1950, could not generally lawfully be required to work on Sunday. The schedule already goes far wider and encompasses all those who may be required to do shop work in or about a shop. There is a point, and even the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, may accept it, at which the line must be drawn and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change the employment conditions of individuals who would be largely unaffected by the proposed changes to the laws governing Sunday trading.
The amendment would also create indefensible anomalies in the treatment of Sunday workers and I have little doubt that it could quickly become apparent that it would be unworkable. It would be impossible to reach a sensible adjudication in regard to what work had become necessary because of Sunday opening and what work would have to be done regardless of Sunday opening. For example, the noble Lord cited the case of the traffic warden or policeman whose job is presently carried out seven days a week. How does one calculate the additional burden caused by Sunday opening? The amendment would be a nonsense and my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara made that perfectly clear.
Turning to the substantive amendment, we believe that there are no persuasive arguments, be they economic, social or moral, to support the view that premium pay for shop work on a Sunday should be enshrined in legislation. It is true that some retailers who support the SHRC option for reform signalled—the noble Baroness mentioned Tesco's—their willingness to see premium rates of pay enshrined in legislation. I understand that members of the SHRC generally agreed with USDAW to continue to pay the current premium rates. However, from the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in terms of the survey of 3,000 shops and the number of people employed, the implication is that by definition all those retailers are, in the main, the larger shops employing larger numbers of people. They are not generally reflective of the entire shopping community. I am sure that the noble Baroness would be the first to accept that.
However, all those retailers have been able to exercise their own judgment regarding what rates of pay to offer for Sunday work in the light of their own specific business circumstances. That is only right and proper. In this case they agreed to continue to pay premium rates which I understand vary between one-and-a-half and two times the standard weekly rate. They found that that was the rate which their businesses

67
could afford and which was sufficient to attract the numbers and quality of staff they required to cover Sunday opening.
It is no part of the role of Parliament to seek to impose a similar premium Sunday rate on all retailers. I appreciate that noble Lords opposite may wish to do so with their plans for a national minimum wage which, as we all know, will cost something in the order of 2 million jobs. But to do so would be to suggest that Parliament was in a better position than the parties themselves to determine what rate of pay was conducive to allow individual retail businesses to flourish, not just today in 1994, but until such time as Parliament considered it necessary to make a further assessment.
Everyone will agree that if a business is on the edge of viability—and Amendment No. 36 partially addressed this point—it is vital that the manager of that business be able to agree rates of pay which the business can afford and which employees will accept in order to protect their jobs. It would be an extraordinary negotiation if an employer, struggling to protect the livelihood of his employees, could not offer a rate of pay which he could afford because restrictive legislation would not allow it. Would his workers, faced with the loss of their livelihood, really be grateful and thankful for this provision?
There may be those who would be unpersuaded by the arguments I might put forward as spokesman for the Government. But those like my noble friend Lord Renton who have spoken in favour of the small shops sector may wish to recall what representatives of the small shopkeepers themselves have said about the effect on their viability of a statutory requirement for double pay for Sunday shopworkers. The local shops campaign group, Open, summarised the effect thus:
"Mandatory double pay for Sunday work will be the death knell of the small firms sector".
That point was reiterated and emphasised by my noble friends Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Renton.
The problem of maintaining viability in the competitive world of retailing is not confined to the small shopkeeper. A big store with high overheads, a large workforce and many local competitors may also find it even more difficult to manage than a small but comfortably profitable shop. The point is that businesses themselves are best placed to judge what they can afford.
I am tempted to pursue the right reverend Prelate on his more general theme of the growth in part-time jobs and whether part-time jobs are satisfactory; but I do not think that is relevant to the argument today. What I can say is that, yes, there has been a dramatic growth in the number of part-time jobs over the past 10 or 20 years. But what the right reverend Prelate has to recognise is that many people actually want a part-time job. Many people prefer a part-time job. On our evidence, at the moment around 85 per cent. of those in part-time work are not looking for full-time work. Low pay for a part-time job and, for example, low family income cannot be equated. There are many in part-time work
68
whose husbands or wives are in full-time work. The part-time work of the other partner is merely used to supplement family income.
Perhaps I may say a few words about wages councils, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I do not think this matter was relevant but it would be constructive for the Committee to hear that gross earnings of young people, men and women, in each of the main wages council trades have risen by some two-fifths since the Wages Act 1986 removed them from regulation by the councils. During the last Labour administration some 11 councils, covering 600,000 workers, were abolished. Studies of a number of industries affected did not reveal any general reduction in wages as a result of abolition, and workers formerly covered by the councils are now simply in the same position as other employees whose pay is settled between the employers and workers concerned in the light of their particular local circumstances.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the right reverend Prelate that once Sunday trading becomes legal and Sunday working becomes more widespread, employers will no longer consider it necessary to pay premium rates for Sunday work and Sunday will be just like any other day of the week. The noble Lord further suggested that many of those who are at present willing to work on Sunday would be rather less willing once the incentive of premium pay is removed and that retail employers will then somehow force their employees into Sunday working.
There are a number of points in that analysis with which I should like to take issue. For example, outside the retail sector, Sunday working is not uncommon. Various figures have been quoted. I shall repeat the figure I quoted in response earlier to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that something of the order of one in four of all employees at the moment regularly or occasionally works on a Sunday. Yet in the particular sector which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned, or for that matter other sectors, premium pay has not disappeared.
However, the particular point I must refute is the idea that retail employers will somehow be able to compel their employees to work on Sundays at rates of pay which they find unattractive. Quite simply, that would not be the case. The package of employment rights which the Bill provides will ensure that the decision to work on Sunday rests with the employee. If shopworkers are unwilling to work on a Sunday except for premium pay and if shops wish to open, they will have to pay higher wages to attract the staff that they need. We do not believe that a statutory requirement is therefore necessary. The provisions of Schedule 4 place shopworkers in a wholly exceptional position among the workforce. Virtually no other group has any statutory right to double time other than what they might agree. They certainly have no statutory right to extend the already exceptional provisions of Schedule 4. To include statutory double time would take that far, far beyond what any other worker has.
Lastly, I cannot accept the notion that additional pay for shopworkers is a necessary condition for maintaining the special nature of Sunday. Shopworkers

69
will have the choice whether to work on Sunday. I cannot believe that the lure of additional money will make any difference at all to those who wish to set Sunday aside as a special day to spend with their families, to pursue their chosen leisure activities, to practise their religion or to pursue whatever activity that may make Sunday a treasured time for them. I believe that their conscience would not let them work on a Sunday. It would be a strange argument to suggest that statutory double time might ease that conscience.
We are all agreed that any shopworker should have the right to decide whether Sunday is for him or for her a special day and a time to leave thoughts of work behind. The Government have recognised that and have provided that no shopworker can be compelled to work on Sunday against his or her wishes. I hope therefore that the Committee will also agree that the statutory provision of enhanced rates of pay is neither desirable nor necessary. The law has no place in setting standard rates of pay which take no regard of an individual employer's economic circumstances. It would be wrong —quite wrong—to include a provision which could jeopardise the viability of some shops, put retail jobs at risk and would at the same time deprive some shopworkers of the right to work on Sundays at rates of pay perfectly acceptable to them as individuals. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am not surprised that the Government have responded as they have to our amendment, which seeks to ensure that shopworkers have premium rates for working on a Sunday. I do not accept the argument that that should not be written into statute. We are looking at an entirely different situation as a result of the acceptance by both Houses of the six-hour option. I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should take the view he does. He has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is in favour of total deregulation. If we had total deregulation, in due course Sunday would not be at all special. But the majority have said that Sunday should be special and therefore the people who give up their time—their special time—ought to be compensated.
I do not accept what has been said about the possibility of it leading to fewer jobs. The evidence for that is very slender indeed. The wages councils were abolished last year. In the course of their existence there was no claim that they had led to unemployment. It was claimed that there would be more employment if there were no wages councils, but that has not happened.
Lord Henley: Unemployment has come down.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It has not happened. More employment has not been created as a result of the abolition of wages councils. The Low Pay Unit has recently produced evidence to indicate that in many areas the wages council rates that existed have been cut by a number of unscrupulous employers. That was one of the reasons why the abolition of the councils was opposed so vigorously on this side of the House when the issue was before us for discussion.
I must commend what the right reverend Prelate had to say. He is quite right. If we still had wages councils
70
covering the retail sector they would, if they existed' in their original form, have had the job of making a decision about premium rates on Sunday. But they are no longer with us. We have a large workforce which will now be put under pressure in some instances to work on Sunday. As I have said before, we have an obligation to ensure that such people are protected. Perhaps I may now deal with the comment which I believe was made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that my amendment was very wide. I point out to him that it is deliberately devised to fit within this Bill. It refers only to shopworkers as defined in the Bill. It is the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stoddart which widens the issue way beyond this Bill.
On this side of the Committee we have already quoted the large number of employers who already pay double time. I have made an effort (although I am not very happy about it) in this amendment to try to come to terms with the arguments about small employers and small shops by suggesting that there can be a variation on the double time and that it can be possible, if there is negotiation or agreement between the parties, to pay at an hourly rate of time-and-a-half. I am not very keen on that, but it was an attempt to deal with the argument that many small businesses could not afford to pay double time.
As regards the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I am grateful for the general support which he has given. He raises the question of enforceability. He is quite right about that; the amendment does not include a mechanism for enforcement. If the Committee were to agree to enhanced payment for Sunday working as a clause to be written into the Bill, it is my intention to come back at Report stage with some measure which would enable that provision to be enforced. It would enable the employee not getting the right amount of premium paid to enforce that requirement. But first I need to get the Committee's agreement that there should be enhanced payment. With that in view I would like to test the feeling of the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord
Skelmersdale): Before the noble Baroness does that I must point out that we are still considering Amendment No. 37, about which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has to decide what he intends to do.
7 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. I shall be very brief because my noble friend Lady Turner has replied extremely well to the points which were made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who suggests that these amendments are damaging, that the people whom this Bill affects certainly would not believe that they were damaging since the amendments seek to protect their position further vis-½-vis Sunday working and Sunday pay. As regards his view that it is not a subject for legislation, I hope that as a committed Christian he will take note of the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool that legislation is for the protection of the weak against the strong.

71
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, did not make a very good case on behalf of small firms. The noble Lord does not do justice to the very many small shops. Many of them are already giving enhanced pay for Sunday and they also give holiday and sick pay. Is he really suggesting that small firms are not as good as large ones as regards the treatment of their employees? If he is doing so, he is not doing them justice.
Lord Renton: I do not believe that the noble Lord could have understood what I was saying. I said that it is usual, customary and acceptable for people to be paid extra pay for Sunday compared with what they are paid at other times. That is done in small shops as well as in large stores.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am glad that the noble Lord confirms that because he gave the impression that small shops were unable to do that and that some of them were unwilling to do so. I am glad that he has clarified his position. Having said that and having made those points, I believe that my noble friend's original Amendment No. 36 should be given a clear run. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw both my amendments to her amendment.
[Amendment No. 37, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, by leave, withdrawn.]
[Amendment No. 38, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question I therefore have to put to the House is that Amendment No. 36 be agreed to?
Lord Rochester: Before the noble Baroness decides what she intends to do about Amendment No. 36, if I am in order in saying a few words—
Noble Lords: No, the Question has already been put.
Lord Rochester: Am I in order in proceeding? I see that I have the approval of the Chair, which is sufficient. The noble Baroness said that I was in general support of her amendment. I did go so far as to say that I was tempted to support the amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, if only to act as a disincentive to more and more employers seeking to open their businesses on Sunday. That is what I said. I hope that I also made it plain that I questioned whether it was right for the law to seek to prescribe rates of pay. I also said how difficult it was to see how any such law could be enforced. There was also the question of small shops, which I was unhappy about as regards employment. In those circumstances I shall not find it possible to support her amendment.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 36) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Carter, L.

Brookes, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

72

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Diamond, L.

McCarthy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mulley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Howell, L.[Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Liverpool, Bp.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lock wood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Haslam, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Holderness, L.

Ashbourne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Attlee, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Blyth, L.

Kenyon, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Leigh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Long, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Cadman, L.

Chancellor.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Monson, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Moran, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Clinton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newall, L.

Courtown, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peel, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Pender, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodney, L.

Downshire, M.

Romney, E.

Dundonald, E.

Seccombe, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Flather, B.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gowrie, E.

[Teller.]

Hacking, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tebbit, L.

73

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Torrington, V.

Wharton, B.

Trumpington, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ullswater, V.[Teller]

Wise, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.14 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 18, line 43, at end insert:
("16A. —(1) Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Schedule, or

(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal by virtue of any provision of this Schedule.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply to an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint where—

(a) a conciliation officer has taken action under section 133(2) or (3) of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation) or under section 134(1), (2) or (3) (conciliation in case of unfair dismissal) of that Act, or

(b) the conditions regulating compromise agreements under the 1978 Act (as set out in section 140(3) of that Act) are satisfied in relation to the agreement.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 39 meets a commitment given by the Government in another place to ensure that a provision in an agreement between a shopworker and his employer cannot generally exclude the provisions of this schedule.
Amendment No. 41 provides that the remedy by way of complaint to an industrial tribunal in respect of the right not to be dismissed for refusing Sunday work, which is set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 4, will not be replaced by the provisions of a dismissal procedures agreement designated by the Secretary of State for Employment under Section 65 of the 1978 Act. This is simply because we thought it better to rely on the statutory provisions in this schedule. Indeed, at present, there is only one such designated agreement in force, in the electrical contracting industry. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 43, at end insert:
("Transitional modifications relating to maternity cases
16B. —(1) Where an employee exercises a right to return to work under Part III of the 1978 Act (maternity) and, because amendments of that Part made by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 (in this paragraph referred to as "the 1993 Act") do not have effect in her case, her right is a right to return to work in the job in which she was employed under the original contract of employment—

(a) the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect subject to the modifications in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, and

(b) sub-paragraph (4) below shall have effect.

(2) In paragraph 1(4), for "her contract of employment on the last day of her maternity leave period" there shall be substituted "her original contract of employment".
(3) In paragraph 2(5), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—

"(b) under her original contract of employment, she was a shop worker and was not employed to work only on Sunday".

(4) If the employee was employed as a shop worker under her original contract of employment, she shall not be
74
regarded as failing to satisfy the condition in paragraph 2(1) (a) or (d) or 5(1) (c) above merely because during her pregnancy she was employed under a different contract of employment by virtue of section 60(2) of. the 1978 Act (as it has effect before the commencement of section 24 of the 1993 Act) or otherwise by reason of hear pregnancy.
(5)In this paragraph and in paragraphs 1 and 2 above as modified by sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above "original contract of employment" has the meaning given by section 153(1) of the 1978 Act a; originally enacted.").
The noble Earl said: This is also a technical amendment to ensure that all shopworkers, who are subject to the current statutory provisions on maternity absence, will not inadvertently lose their protected or opted-out status under the schedule by virtue of being temporarily employed under a different contract from their normal contract. It is necessary because, under the current provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, some women, who are normally employed as shopworkers, may be employed on a temporary contract which does not require them to do shop work. This may happen if, because of her pregnancy, a woman is incapable of continuing in her job or is not by law permitted to do so (for example if it contravenes health and safety regulations). For example, if she is still engaged on this contract at the point when the Bill comes into operation, and then returns to her original contract of employment as a shopworker, without this amendment she would not have fulfilled the requirement of the schedule that, in order to qualify as a protected worker, she should have been continuously employed as; a shopworker. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 18, line 48, at end insert:
("17A. In section 65 of the 1978 Act (exclusion in respect of dismissal procedures agreement) at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added "or the right conferred by paragraph 7 or 8 of Schedule 4 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Antarctic Bill
7.18 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Parliamentary Commissioner Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Photographs and Films (Unauthorised Use) Bill [H.L.]
7.19 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

75
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Cox) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Infringement of privacy by publication of photographs and films]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("the subject of") and insert ("portrayed recognisably in").
The noble Lord said: As a some time photographer I find interest in this Bill, although I no longer have any interest to declare. I have put down these three amendments simply because I want to help improve the Bill if I can in any way. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in his efforts to make it law.
The first amendment refers to the person that the Bill aims to protect. He is described in line 7 as:
"A person who is the subject of a photograph which has been taken".
It seemed to me that that was not the best wording because of the likelihood that the photograph involved would be one in which more than one person—perhaps 30 or 40 people—would appear. The subject might be members of a cricket team, people on a dance floor or whoever else it may be. That will be the subject, not the person we aim to protect. Therefore, I suggest that the passage should read simply:
"A person who is portrayed recognisably in a photograph".
I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I believe that the noble Lord's amendment makes the Bill more lucid. I would be most happy to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1. line 8, after ("film") insert ("or videotape").
The noble Lord said: A couple of lines further on reference is made to,
"the subject of a photograph which has been taken or a film which has been made".
A videotape is not embraced by the word "film". It seems clear that the Bill should include videotapes. Therefore, I propose that the words "or videotape" be included, as stated in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: This amendment brings the Bill up to date and as a consequence improves it. I am most happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("intrude upon") and insert ("cause serious damage to").
The noble Lord said: This amendment flows from the helpful views expressed during Second Reading. I believe that it helps the Bill achieve what it set out to do when we first introduced it; that is, to make certain that, if it became a statute, it would not be played about with and that only if people were seriously damaged would we expect them to make use of it. I beg to move.
Lord Burnham: This amendment seems fundamentally to change the nature of the Bill. Many of your
76
Lordships will remember the photograph taken in the late 1940s of two people in France kissing. The photographer died within the last month. In recent years the people claimed that they had been damaged by that perfectly harmless and delightful photograph. A considerable problem arose. It might have been considered to have intruded into the private lives of those people but in no way could it be said to have damaged them seriously.
A number of years ago a friend of mine was startled to be rung up one morning and to find that his picture was across the front page of the Daily Mirror as a person who the previous day had been convicted of assaulting youths at Piccadilly Underground station. The picture had come from a news agency. Next morning when I got to my office where I worked in the Daily Telegraph the picture editor of that agency was waiting to ask who the various people in the photograph were. That information I was able to supply. Several of them were Members of your Lordships' House. It might be said that the photograph as taken was totally harmless. I need hardly say that my friend found that occurrence, though distressing, highly profitable. The Daily Mirror was quick to correct the error and coughed up with hardly any pressure at all. But, if uncorrected, the picture would have caused serious damage, even if none of his friends would have believed it of him, or indeed had read the Daily Mirror.
This amendment would have supplemented any claim that he might have had for damages, but because of the laws of libel it was not necessary then, nor, do I suggest, is it necessary now. Anything which causes serious damages can almost certainly be covered by the libel laws as they now stand. Without the amendment in this form I believe this Bill to be dangerous.
There can be no doubt that many people in recent times have suffered grievously from monstrous intrusions into their privacy. I am sure that the noble Lord who sponsored the Bill has that in mind. The intrusion has come both from the reporting and the photographic departments of tabloid newspapers. Understandably, emotions run very high on this point. There is a general feeling that self-regulation has not worked and something more drastic must be done. As far as photographs are concerned I have no doubt that this Bill is that "something".
I cannot speak for television, but responsible newspapers have been agonising for years on this point. I remember discussing this matter over lunch with the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, at the time of his Royal Commission on the press in the late 1970s.
In countries where newspapers are to one degree or another censored, they have been unable to expose political, financial and social wrong-doing because of the restrictions placed upon what they may print. It is largely because of its campaigning activities, including the exercise of the ability to intrude into personal affairs, both public and private, that the British press has been able to expose so much wrong-doing.
Who is to be responsible for saying what is public and what is private? It is a question of the greater good. No one of any integrity can be happy with the situation as it stands at the moment. Nevertheless, I am on

77
balance reluctantly convinced that if the media cannot be persuaded voluntarily to exercise the restraint that we all wish we shall have to let this intrusion go on in spite of all the horrors to which it gives birth.
Ideally, we hope that public condemnation will stop it, but realistically those who complain the loudest are the first to buy the newspapers in which the rubbish is written. While we were voting on the previous matter a noble Lord told me how much he enjoyed some of the particularly curious things that had appeared in the tabloid newspapers.
The poem runs:
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God' the British journalist,
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
As somebody whose family has for five generations been in a section of the British press with an honourable record for campaigning and reportage and who is convinced of the need for this to go on more or less in the way that it has done, I urge caution with this Bill. I suggest to the noble Lord that without this amendment it is desperately dangerous; with it, it is unnecessary and superfluous.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend has 100 per cent. of my sympathy. What he is asking for should be achieved, and achieved soon, but I am afraid that the only way in which we are likely to achieve that is if we can persuade the Government to make the Bill a government Bill. We must recognise the constraints that exist in trying to rectify certain wrongs through the Private Bill procedure. As I have made clear on many occasions, such a Bill must be careful about the scope that it tries to cover.
On Second Reading—my noble friend may not have been here —my noble friend, speaking for the Government, said that she had every hope that the Government would be publishing a White Paper which would take us nearer towards what I suppose can be called a privacy Bill such as they have in France. That may meet my noble friend's wishes. It is said that politics is the art of achieving the possible. As I said on Second Reading, a privacy Bill is needed to meet the points that my noble friend has properly made.
All that this Bill can do in the meantime is to alleviate some of the problems that my noble friend has described and which we all know have occurred in recent months. The description given on Second Reading covers the Bill. We consider that the roof is in a bad state. We know that the building needs a new roof, but we know that the cost of a new roof is high and that it would take some considerable time to build. That does not mean that we cannot put a bucket under the present leaks to avoid damaging the carpets and other things. The Bill does no more—the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, drew attention to this in his excellent speech on Second Reading—than for the time being provide a bucket for the one clause about which we can do something in a Private Bill. Short though the step is, it will be only one of many that the Government will take in the months ahead.
78
The Bill as drafted uses the word "intrude". But the interpretation of intrusion could mean that if one were photographed at a football match that could be deemed to be an intrusion, although it would not have done any harm to justify the taking of drastic steps. As a result of what was said on Second Reading, the amendment deletes the words "intrude upon" and replaces them with the idea that, if something is done deliberately to cause serious damage, then the person involved would have the opportunity to go to court to take action, similar to, as my noble friend said, a libel action to obtain damages for what was done. I believe that that is as far as we should try sensibly to go, otherwise we shall lose even the bucket under the leak. I should like, at any rate, to put that in place to begin with.
Lord Burnham: I oppose that course. My noble friend detected that I was not present on Second Reading. Had I been present, I should have opposed the Bill.
Baroness Wharton: As a keen photographer, I have enormous sympathy with the motives behind the amendment. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for people who have been hurt by cruel and thoughtless reporting. However, I have reservations about the wording of the amendment. The Bill makes no distinction between public and private property. I believe that it should, because there is a great difference between taking photographs in a public place and the intrusive keyhole paparazzi-style photography to which we all object.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord thought that the subject would be ideal for the Private Member's Bill procedure, as its scope is so modest. So he decided to tag it on to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I feel that it falls more into the infringement of privacy area, if I read the noble Lord correctly. As he has just said, this is no more than a temporary measure designed to tide us over until we have a privacy Bill, I do not believe that this is a simple, little Bill. It covers a much wider area, and is open to diverse interpretation.
The words "intrude upon.' are being replaced by the words "cause serious damage to", which is an improvement. But serious damage for one person could be water off a duck's back for another. The result could be a flood of court cases with judgment being passed from a highly subjective point of view.
People in the public eye, be they in the entertainment industry or politicians, are well aware that in public places they are liable to be photographed by professionals and amateurs alike. They are of interest to the public. That is much of what photo-journalism is about. Indeed many such people have publicity agents whose job it is to keep their names and their faces before the public. Having said that, I agree that some restrictions need to be imposed upon the continual abuse of someone's privacy which of course is not in the public interest.
So far, the Press Council appears to have little power to control the type of intrusive photographer who harasses the ordinary member of the public after there has been a tragedy, perhaps a murder, within a family. The amendment does not cover that situation as that

79
does not necessarily cause serious damage, although it causes immeasurable distress to that family which, after all, might be unable to resort to the courts. The well-known journalist Harold Evans has said:
"The camera cannot lie, but it can be an accessory to untruths".
I give the example that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, gave on Second Reading of the recent picture of the Prime Minister at a social function shown behind bottles and glasses at a table. Was it not the caption rather than the photograph which influenced the reader to see something in the photograph which was not there? A photograph is of no value until the owner markets it. Who then will be liable to be prosecuted? Will it be the photographer of the subject or the person who publishes the photograph?
I feel that we should wait for the Government's consultation paper on the infringement of privacy and see what it has to offer. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: It might be helpful to the Committee if I were to repeat the Government's attitude to the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and to the amendments which have been moved and which will be moved. I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Burnham. I hope that the Committee will appreciate my brevity. We have grave reservations about the Bill. I think that we all agree that the protection of privacy, in particular the unwanted and unjustified attentions of the press, is an important but difficult issue. That photograph of the French couple kissing, was enchanting, but I wonder whether they were both married to the people whom they were kissing. That is a little point.
The essential question is how to balance the freedom of expression with other equally important rights, including the right to privacy. But the Bill, even with the proposed amendments, gives a disproportionate protection to a single aspect of privacy. I hope that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls will understand when I say that we are not convinced that this slightly piecemeal and unbalanced approach is the right one.
We can live with Amendment No. 3, although it does not go far enough, and the other amendments that are to be moved tonight. Although most of them improve the Bill by limiting and clarifying its application, they do not remove our fundamental objections. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and again ask the Committee to be patient and await our proposals on press regulation and privacy.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend causes me to warn the Committee not to be bemused by the reluctance of the Government—the Executive —to allow private Members to do anything, other than regarding matters guided by them. I recognise my noble friend's reply, having heard similar replies during the 40 years that I have been in Parliament. It was what I call a civil servant's reply—
Baroness Trumpington: I never give civil servant's replies. I always speak for myself in my capacity on behalf of the Government.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend Lady Trumpington knows that discipline is an important part of efficiency, and she is as efficient as the next person. It is clear that in a matter such as this the Executive would much prefer to have a clean and open field in which to develop their thinking. However, it takes them so long and the problem is that this issue is with us now and almost every day people are suffering as a consequence. My noble friend's observation is some confirmation of that.
The Bill will in no way interfere with the Government's preparation of their privacy Bill. Indeed, I am a little disturbed because on Second Reading only a week or two ago my noble friend, on behalf of the Government, suggested that the White Paper which would be the beginnings of such a privacy Bill was well on the way. Since then the Government have announced that that White Paper is further away than they thought. On Second Reading I warned the House that that would happen.
The problem, which is difficult, will continue and it will take a long time to resolve. I have studied the French privacy legislation that is in operation and it is intricate and difficult. When the Government try to meet the problems to which my noble friend referred, they will have a great task and I do not envy them.
In the meantime, this Bill does not answer all the problems but it deals with one of the most immediate and vicious. In recent months we have seen people adept in using a camera, distorting their positions and boring holes in dressing room walls, as was done in order to take a picture of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales while she was preparing to do her exercises. The photographer did that in order to have a picture to send round the world for all sorts of reasons and in order to receive lots of money. Photographers have received lots of money and will receive lots of money.
The object of the Bill is to do no more than to give people who believe that they have been damaged the same rights as they have if they are damaged by libel. A thousand-word article could not be as damaging as a distorted photograph, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. The Bill is no more than a humble, temporary measure which lets the Government know that a move in this direction is necessary. I hope that eventually the Government will go much further. However, that is no excuse for this Committee to refuse to take the present opportunity to go some way towards clearing up a dangerous and unfair situation.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, that the Bill in no way interferes with the actions or freedoms of the legitimate photographers. They can take what pictures they like and can carry on as they are. However, people do not write for newspapers and magazines articles which overstep the mark because they know that the machinery exists to deal with that. We want such machinery to apply to the taking of damaging photographs—
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. What will happen to an innocent photographer who takes a picture which in the eyes of

81
the subject causes serious damage but the photographer does not realise that? There could be a compromising situation in a public place and a picture could be taken innocently. The subject could decide that it causes serious damage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That is a hypothetical question. In accepting it, I expect that the subject will have to satisfy the court that he has been damaged in a way which requires compensation. If he cannot satisfy the court, no damages will have to be paid. The court will take into account whether the photographer was innocent in taking the photograph or whether it was taken deliberately. If it was deliberate, the compensation will be higher than if it were accidental. Another of my amendments provides that the subject must bring a case; the police cannot do so.
The more that I examine the issue I believe that inadequate though the Bill is in facing up to the big problems, it can go some way towards dealing with some of the smaller problems. It may well prevent this disease from developing into a big problem. I hope that the Committee will take the same view and I submit the amendment with considerable confidence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 10, leave out (", where copyright subsists in the resulting work").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment. I do not understand the noble Lord's motive in including the words,
"where copyright subsists in the resulting work".
When a photograph is taken or a video tape or a film the copyright automatically subsists in the person who takes the photograph, just as it does if he writes a book, a newspaper article or a letter—
Lord Burnham: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Every single press photograph that is taken is stamped on the back with a copyright mark.
Lord Kilbracken: Of course I know that perfectly well and a lot of my photographs have had that copyright mark stamped on them. I was going to say that if a photographer takes a picture, then initially the copyright belongs to him. Of course, if he is employed by a newspaper, there may be certain terms in his contract about the destination of the copyright or, if he is a freelance photographer and it appears in another paper, he may sell the copyright to that editor. But there always is copyright subsisting in somebody, initially in the photographer.
Therefore, I do not see any need to include the provision:
"where copyright subsists in the resulting work",
since it always does, as far as I know, subsist in the resulting work.
It also seems to me that there is nothing in this new Bill about copyright at all. It has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright does not enter into it and I personally would be happier if it was not tagged on to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, but stood as an Act on its own, although I appreciate that there may be
82
difficulties about that. Therefore, I am suggesting that those words should be deleted because they are unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I understand the noble Lord's reaction to this because it is quite true that the purpose of the Bill has nothing at all to do with copyright and yet the word "copyright... appears in it, and I wish it to remain there.
I can explain that with reference to the Private Member's Bill procedure. Earlier in the Committee I referred to the Bill as a Private Bill but, of course, a Private Bill can be promoted only by local authorities, companies and so on. This is a Private Member's Bill. When the need for this protection was brought to my attention, I had to find a way in which to use the Private Member's Bill procedure in order to give effect to the necessary shift in the direction of a privacy Bill. The only statute to which I could attach this Private Member's Bill was the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, because the procedures for its operation are already embodied within that legislation. Therefore, copyright is merely a vehicle by which to give effect to those provisions. That avoids the necessity of a larger and more complex Bill.
The other day I read that Miss Sarah Keays, who everybody knows about now, is instituting in the courts a claim for damages against someone who has published a photograph of herself and her companion which was taken some 20 to 25 years ago. The photograph to which she objects was taken by her own camera. She had obviously handed her camera to someone who had taken the photograph of her and her companion She is taking legal action under copyright legislation. She feels able to take that action because the photograph was taken with her camera, although she did not take the photograph.
If my Bill, with the help of the noble Lord, reaches the statute book, she would be able to instigate proceedings under this Bill, if she feels that she has been damaged. Without this Bill, she must rely only upon the argument as to whether or not the photograph is copyright; and I know that the noble Lord, as a photographer, has some experience in that field.
The current law does not cover a photograph which is taken with one's own camera. That is why the word "copyright", is included in the Bill. I have had to use that legislation for the Private Member's Bill procedure. I understand the noble Lord's confusion but I hope that he will feel that it is worth taking a risk in order to give effect to the protection which we all wish to see.
Lord Kilbracken: I am afraid that Miss Keays is going to be disappointed because it does not matter who owns the camera—that has absolutely nothing to do with it—what matters is who presses the -tit", if I may use a professional word. That is not she and the copyright does not reside in her.
Having listened to the noble Lord and not having been completely convinced by him, I nonetheless feel that I should let the matter go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert:

("(2) An infringement of subsection (1) above is only actionable by the subject of the photograph or film."").

The noble Lord said: I dealt with this matter when I answered the point raised by the noble Baroness. The person who has suffered the damage must take the legal action. It is not for the police or any outside body to allege a breach of the criminal law. The subject of the photographs must take the responsibility for proving that he has been damaged. He must be responsible for taking that action. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: I think that I must just mention that, in view of the acceptance of my first two amendments, for which I am most grateful, it will be necessary to make minor consequential amendments to this amendment. However, that can be dealt with on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert:

("(3) Nothing in this section of this Act shall prevent the legitimate publication of photographs or films by the police or any other body if it can be proved that the intention of such publication is the pursuit of justice."").

The noble Lord said: I do not expect that there will be any objection to this final amendment because it is so obviously right. We are making certain that this legislation does not prevent the legitimate publication of photographs in the interests of public security. I expect that there will be unanimous support for that proposition even from the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

  RAILWAY PENSIONS
  RAILWAY PENSIONS
  MIGRATORY BIRDS: PROPOSED CHANGE TO DIRECTIVE
  MIGRATORY BIRDS: PROPOSED CHANGE TO DIRECTIVE
  SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR-OLDS: SEVERE HARDSHIP PAYMENTS
  SIXTEEN AND SEVENTEEN YEAR-OLDS: SEVERE HARDSHIP PAYMENTS
  EASTER HOLIDAY
  EASTER HOLIDAY
  HEAVY LORRY BANS: PROSECUTION
  HEAVY LORRY BANS: PROSECUTION
  YEMEN
  YEMEN
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS: UNPAID PARKING FINES
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS: UNPAID PARKING FINES
  DIPLOMATS: SERIOUS OFFENCES
  DIPLOMATS: SERIOUS OFFENCES