Sitting of 9 February 1994

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

    INCOME TAX
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF HER MAJESTY'S HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1993, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order 1993, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uzbekistan) Order 1993, and the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Saudi Arabia) Order 1993 be made in the form of drafts laid before your House.
    I will willingly comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Henderson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met leaders of the engineering industry to discuss assistance for investment for small businesses.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): There are frequent contacts between the Government and the engineering industry. The best incentives for increased investment are low inflation, low interest rates and a growing economy, all of which are in place.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister confirm that in his talks with the engineering industry its representatives have told him of the industry's deep commitment to an investment-led recovery, which would not only help companies that want to retool British industry but bring stable growth and help the companies that want to compete in export markets to invest? In that connection, will he also confirm that the industry sees deregulation of health and safety as at best an irrelevance and that what it wants are capital allowances to help companies throughout the industry and, specifically, investment grants to help companies in the small business sector to invest in new technology?
    Mr. McLoughlin: When we talk to industry we are continually told of the requirement to bring some deregulation to some of the forms and regulations with which it has to comply. I wholly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about investment; in his region there has been more than £3 billion worth of inward investment,
    268
    which was attracted by a Conservative Government. It would never have been attracted by a Labour Government committed to the social contract.
    Mr. Ward: On the subject of investment in small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important not only that the investment be used productively, but that debts can be collected promptly? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that all Government Departments pay their bills promptly, especially to small businesses?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget some time ago that the Government were consulting on the whole question of small business debts. Moreover, in the previous Budget a commitment was given that all Government contractors and subcontractors would be paid within an acceptable timescale.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister realise that 90 per cent. of small engineering companies employ fewer than 20 people and have special difficulty in meeting the exacting new standards on zero defects and quality control? Why have the Government decided to scrap in April their cash help to small engineering companies to meet those quality control standards?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The simple fact is that what industry and small businesses want are fewer regulations. They understand that quality is important for attracting their customers—and that is exactly what they are doing.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the principal sources of renewable energy supplies in the United Kingdom in 1993.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): In 1993 approximately 1,400 MW of large-scale hydro-generating capacity were operational. A further 270 MW were available from other renewable energy sources, mainly under the non-fossil fuel obligation.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is lie really convinced that enough is being done to encourage a variety of renewable energy products? Is the non-fossil fuel obligation really encouraging diversity in the renewable energy industry?
    Mr. Eggar: I know that that is a matter of widespread concern. The whole House shares a commitment to increasing the proportion of our electricity generated from renewable sources. None the less, concern has been expressed about, among other things, the proportion of wind farms that may be established under the non-fossil fuel obligation. I shall consider that issue and I welcome the inquiry that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is making on the subject.
    Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware of the study conducted before Christmas by the Association for the Conservation of Energy which showed that burning gas in the home was about 60 per cent. efficient, while burning electricity generated by gas in the home was only 40 per cent. efficient? Does the Minister agree that that is a waste and that there is a need to reconsider the energy sector and prepare a new framework for energy before it is too late?
    Mr. Eggar: The Government's energy policy was clearly laid out in the White Paper following the coal review. It is important to increase the efficient use of energy and it is also important that we meet out Rio targets through, for example, increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that electricity generated from gas is much more environmentally friendly than electricity generated by coal.

    Gas
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received since he announced his conclusions on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the supply of gas.
    Mr. Eggar: There has been a widespread welcome for the decision of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to abolish the monopoly and introduce competition to supply all parts of the gas market from 1996.
    Mr. Bellingham: Has my hon. Friend noticed that over the past few years the real price of gas has fallen? Has he also noticed that Eastern Electricity has announced that it will reduce its prices to customers? Does he agree that that is extremely good news for all people who are concerned about VAT on household fuel and that that would not have happened had it not been for privatisation?
    Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, gas prices have fallen in real terms since privatisation by 22 per cent. Even after the full implementation of the VAT decision, we shall see a real-terms decrease in bills for gas domestic consumers of about 7 per cent.—a considerable achievement. I welcome the decision by the electricity companies to increase competitiveness. Indeed, in my constituency, I shall be opening the headquarters of Eastern Electricity for the supply of gas to customers throughout its area. Competition is good for all consumers.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister accept that the reorganisation of British Gas in Scotland will cost more than 1,000 jobs? Does he accept that, in addition to the loss of jobs through the setting up of five new business units, if those units are not headquartered in Scotland, there will be a loss of management control? Why is it that in the British Gas company, as in the House, Scotland supplies the bulk of the energy, but has none of the power?
    Mr. Eggar: Why is it that the hon. Gentleman always looks backwards? Why does not he campaign for competitors to British Gas to come in and open up their headquarters in Scotland and in the north-east?
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that millions of senior citizens and other low-income consumers deeply resent the standing charges on gas, on electricity and on telecoms? Does he appreciate their concerns and will he consider doing something about it?
    Mr. Eggar: Why has not the hon. Gentleman got to his feet to welcome the recent reduction in prices announced by BT and the subsequent price reductions by Mercury? Why has he not welcomed my announcement about the reductions in British Gas prices? Why has he not welcomed the fact that the decision of my right hon. Friend
    270
    to increase competition in the gas market may lead to competitors looking carefully at the level of standing charges?
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Government's conversion to opening up the gas market to greater competition, which we called for at the time of the privatisation of gas. [Laughter.] Indeed we did. Is he aware of the statement by the Director General of Ofgas to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the past week that, as the differential in distributing gas does not vary by more than 2 per cent. anywhere in the United Kingdom, the introduction of competition should lead to further downward pressure on gas prices? Is he satisfied that under those circumstances, a relaxation of the price formula of British Gas is necessary?
    Mr. Eggar: I am very satisfied with the decision made by the Director-General, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. The hon. Gentleman's selective quoting of the position that the Liberal Democrats may have taken at one time or another is becoming a laughing matter.

    Post Office
    Mr. Hain: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of the Post Office to discuss his review of its future.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I met the Post Office chairman on 18 January and discussed a number of issues relating to the Post Office review.
    Mr. Hain: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm the statement in a letter from the general manager of North Thames and East Anglia Post Office Counters that the Post Office
    "has agreed targets with the DTI"
    for hundreds of local post office closures and conversions? Does not that reveal grubby collusion between the Government and the Post Office to run down the post office network and to privatise by the back door?
    Mr. Heseltine: The only grubby collusion is the technique that the hon. Gentleman uses to make in this House allegations that have no foundation. He will know that the vast majority of organisations in Post Office Counters are private sector organisations over which the Government have no control.
    Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a letter here—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order later.
    Mr. Alexander: Was my right hon. Friend able to tell the chairman of the Post Office that privatisation would not be wholly welcomed among Conservative Members, particularly those whose constituencies contain rural areas? Was he further able to discuss with the chairman the increased commercial freedom that he seeks to enable him to operate the Post Office as a normal business and to keep the dead hand of the Treasury away from its operations?
    Mr. Heseltine: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is extremely difficult to see how one can give commercial freedom to the Post Office to invest public money unless

    271
    that money is subject to public expenditure rules. The dilemma that the Post Office faces is that overseas Governments are privatising their post offices, enabling them to compete with ours. The judgment that the House must make is how we can enable the Post Office to use its resources to fight as a major British industrial organisation—which it is—in a competitive world that is growing tougher all the time.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does not the President appreciate that the Post Office is a success story and that everything that the Government are doing is putting that success story at risk? Is he aware that the delay that he has caused over the review is causing confusion to management; that the Treasury demand for an even bigger share of the profits is robbing management of the money for investment; and that, as a result, the Dutch public post office is now picking up business in Britain? When will the Government start backing British business instead of creating openings for foreign business?
    Mr. Heseltine: If that is an example of the new thinking of the Labour party, I can understand why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has announced his resignation from the House. Of course the Post Office is a success story. The issue is how we enable it to be more successful. How do we enable it to face the fact that the Dutch are privatising their post office to enable it to compete here?
    Mr. French: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the care and thoroughness with which he is conducting his review of the Post Office? He is quite right to resist quick solutions. It is more important that the eventual answer should be the right one. In reaching his decision, however, will he bear fully in mind the formidable international competition that the Post Office faces?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am well aware of the growing international competition—and, indeed, the competition from a range of other service providers in this country—which has been eating into the Post Office's market in recent years. We are certainly concerned to ensure the health of the rural post office network and have been looking, and will continue to look, at a number of ways in which we can open up the increasing market for rural post offices. I was delighted that we were recently able to take the decision to enable them to sell fishing licences.

    Nuclear Review
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a further announcement on the nuclear review.
    Mr. Eggar: The Government will announce the terms of reference for the review and how it will be conducted as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: That is a helpful answer.
    Given that the Prime Minister has recently gone on record stating his commitment to growth in the nuclear industry, how can a review of the nuclear industry carried out by the Government be anything other than a charade and a sham? Even if he cannot announce when we will have the review or what its terms of reference will be—all promised for last year—will the Minister at least tell us whether the Government will examine whether the industry is economically viable and environmentally
    272
    acceptable and deal with the question of waste as well as the functioning of the industry? May we have some idea whether it will be a proper review, or will we have to go to the courts to get an independent adjudication, as Greenpeace and Lancashire county council did over THORP?
    Mr. Eggar: I am always willing to accept praise from whatever source. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I hope that it will not be too long before we can make an announcement including the terms of the review and the way in which it will be conducted. The way in which the hon. Gentleman enumerated the various different factors itself illustrates that it is most important to spend time getting the terms of reference absolutely right and to try to satisfy as many of the numerous interested parties as possible.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that work has started in the past week on a visitor centre at Bradwell power station in my constituency? Does he agree that such centres have a valuable role in spreading the message that nuclear power is one of the safest, most economic and most environmentally friendly forms of generation available?
    Mr. Eggar: I do agree—[Laughter] It is necessary for the full facts about the benefits of nuclear power to be made available to the public. It is unfortunate that Labour Members simply laugh at the idea that members of the public should be fully briefed on all the facts in an objective way.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Could Ministers help me with a little research on these matters? Could they ask their civil servants to research reports that there was an outbreak of leukaemia in West Cumbria during the second world war—40 years before the Sellafield plant opened?
    Mr. Eggar: I am very interested to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I shall find out whether there are any records of that and, if so, the implications of them.

    Textiles
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect of GATT on the British textiles industry.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The GATT agreement will lead to the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement over 10 years, which will be largely balanced by improved GATT rules to deal with unfair trading practices, better intellectual property rights and lower tariffs in many export markets.
    Mr. Riddick: Have there been any developments since my Adjournment debate two weeks ago on the continuing punitive levels of duty being levied on British textiles by some countries, especially India, Pakistan and Indonesia, which makes it almost impossible for our companies to export to those countries? Could I ask the Minister and, indeed, the European Commission to continue to apply pressure to those countries to reduce their tariffs? At the same time, I welcome the GATT deal, which is very good news for most British exporters.
    Mr. Needham: Since the Adjournment debate on 27 January, we have continued our efforts to ensure that

    273
    maximum pressure is brought to bear on Indonesia, India and Pakistan by the Commission. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry went to Athens to exert that pressure only last weekend. There was a preliminary meeting between the Commission and the Indonesians on 1 February and another meeting is being arranged with India and Pakistan on 4 February. As I said to my hon. Friend, the deadline for the GATT proposals to be agreed is 15 February and I have nothing further to report at this stage, except that we are continuing to exert maximum pressure on those countries.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister realise that in six days' time there must be some definite negotiations because British jobs are at stake? Does he accept that a group of textile employers said at a meeting I attended that they regarded the GATT deal that the Government had entered into as selling the textile industry down the river? In Bradford, 11,000 direct jobs in the textile industry are at stake and real pressure, including the threat of retaliatory action, must be exerted against the 100 per cent. tariffs for British textiles that are exported. The Government negotiated entry by those other countries into the United Kingdom market, which is extremely unfair and disadvantages textile workers here.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman, as so often happens with Labour Members, welcomes the GATT agreement in the general and then attacks it in the particular. Indeed, they have a policy: if I contradict myself, so what? The Government, through the Commission, fully understand the concerns expressed by the woollen industry. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in the Adjournment debate, we will continue to put all the pressure we can on the Commission and the countries involved. Certainly, if we do not achieve our objectives, there is action that we can take under the multi-fibre arrangement, which still has some 10 years to run, either from 1 January 1995 or 1 January 1996, to apply pressure to those countries to come round to a more sensible arrangement.
    Mr. Waller: May I emphasise to my hon. Friend yet again that there is genuine concern in the House and throughout the textile industry about the enormous tariffs of 80 or 100 per cent., referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, which are applied by Indonesia, Pakistan and India? Before the GATT agreement is ratified in Marrakesh in mid-April, will he ensure that no stone is left unturned in emphasising to our European Union negotiators that the jobs that will be lost in this country if we must fight this lack of free trade will never be regained?
    Mr. Needham: I give, as I have already given, an undertaking that the Government will do everything that they can to ensure that we continue negotiating up to the last minute of the last hour. I should say to my hon. Friend that in Indonesia the tariff limits on wool cloth, woollens and other textiles are 40 per cent. We are talking about getting duties down to a maximum of 35 per cent. The real problems occur in India, with 85 per cent. tariffs, and Pakistan, with 125 per cent. As I have said, we will do everything that we can to reach a satisfactory conclusion for our industry.
    Mr. Bell: In addition to the high levels of import duties in those countries, does not the additional question of child
    274
    labour have to be faced? Will the Minister look again at the exchanges between the Leader of Opposition and the Prime Minister on 16 December, when the GATT agreement was announced to the House? Is not it a fact that child labour is turning out textiles in many countries and is not it also the case that there are no health or safety provisions for other workers in those countries? Should not we build new platforms, after the Marrakesh final act in April, which prohibit forced labour, which give protection to workers and which are against discrimination?
    Mr. Needham: If there are breaches of United Nations conventions on issues such as child labour, the Government and other European, OECD and G7 countries will make sure that they are taken into consideration in our trading arrangements.
    However, I think that the hon. Gentleman, once again, is trying to get it both ways. The whole point of GATT and free trade is to open up world trade and particularly to allow goods and services from the developing world to come into the developed world without the high barriers which existed in the past. GATT sets out to do that and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have welcomed it, although I am never quite sure how real that welcome is.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Council of Ministers yesterday announced the abolition of 6,000 quotas and, in particular, that quotas applying to the Baltic states would be abolished in the new year? However, none of those quotas included the textile industry. Will my hon. Friend urge his colleagues on the Council of Ministers to move to the next step of textile quotas?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about quotas, although I must express considerable disappointment about the way in which the toy quota was finally settled. Quotas on textiles come within the phasing-out arrangements of the multi-fibre arrangement. That is one of the weapons in our armoury to ensure that what is happening in Indonesia, Pakistan and India comes out more favourably for the British woollen industry.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry.
    Mr. Eggar: Both the President and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry and other matters.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that the National Rivers Authority has instructed British Coal to continue pumping mined water from the closed pits in the Durham coalfield? Is he further aware that if pumping were to cease it could be calamitous for the River Wear in particular, where the pollution would be horrendous? Will the Minister give myself, my constituents and all the people who live in the Durham area a commitment that he will instruct British Coal before privatisation to continue to pump? Will he also instruct the body that takes over after privatisation to keep pumping until it is 100 per cent. certain that pollution will not occur?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the widespread concern about this matter in the north-east and the hon. Gentleman

    275
    and others brought a delegation to see me. I assure him that, while the matter is the responsibility of the NRA as the regulatory body, the responsibilities that currently rest with British Coal will be transferred to the coal authority following the enactment of the Coal Industry Bill. I am sure that the coal authority and the NRA will co-operate, in the same way as co-operation exists at present between British Coal and the NRA.
    Mr. Churchill: While congratulating Malcolm Edwards and R. J. Budge on their recent purchase of certain redundant pits from British Coal, and while sending my best wishes to the miners in the pits involved, may I ask my hon. Friend to say when the hard-pressed electricity consumer may expect to see passed on the 30 per cent. reduction in the cost of the generator's principal source of energy? What are the Government doing to ensure that those vast reductions in fuel costs are passed on to the consumer?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the interest of the private sector in British Coal pits. Opposition Members do not seem to realise that no fewer than eight pits are in negotiation or are controlled by the private sector. Clipstone, Betws, Trentham, Coventry, Rossington, Markham Main, Calverton and Wearrnouth are all under discussion. Why do not the Opposition welcome the success of the private sector in its negotiations with British Coal? As for my hon. Friend's specific question, that is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is in discussion with both the generators and the electricity supply companies.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware of the huge anger and sense of betrayal of more than 1,000 miners who work at Ellington in my constituency at the fact that, only weeks after it announced a plan to keep the colliery in operation with a reduced work force, British Coal has announced its closure? When he meets the chairman of British Coal, will he do everything in his power to ensure that, at a time when there is genuine private interest in taking over that colliery, the pit is kept in a condition in which it can be taken over by someone else and the machinery essential for that is kept in the pit?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware, of course, of the understandably strong feelings in south-east Northumberland about the proposals announced by British Coal. The chairman of British Coal has made it clear that if a decision were made to close Ellington—we cannot prejudge that because there is a modified colliery review procedure—the pit would be kept on a care and maintenance basis until the main privatisation took place. He has given me an undertaking that the equipment at Ellington and the other pits that were the subject of consideration last week under the general review procedure will not be removed from the pits unless it is essential to do so for safety reasons or because the reserves of a pit for closure are reallocated to adjacent mines. That is a major step forward.
    Mr. Batiste: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the real concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Coal Industry Bill Second Reading debate? We expressed concern that the guidelines in mineral planning guidance 3, and the consultation process that takes place under them,
    276
    should provide for a much tougher regime to prevent unsuitable applications for opencast mining in green-field sites from proceeding.
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the strong feeling on the matter. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Consultations are being held on MPG3. I personally brought to the attention of the Department my hon. Friend's speech in the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a suggestion among the British Association of Colliery Management people—[Interruption.] I will say it again. Is the Minister aware that there are people in BACM—the senior management of British Coal—who are saying that by March they could be down to six or eight pits only? Will he confirm that that is correct? Will he acknowledge that, in the past 18 months, the man who is sitting at his side—the President of the Board of Trade, who aspires to be the next leader of the Tory party—had the gall to talk about saving pits? He conned Parliament. He conned these tinpot Tories who talked a good fight but were no good in the ring. What is more, he conned the British people. At the same time, the Government are allowing subsidy for nuclear power and the French interconnector link. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
    Mr. Eggar: I think that the Liberal Democrats sitting behind the hon. Gentleman wound him up too much. It does the coal mining community and the country no good to use the scaremongering tactics which are such a feature of the hon. Gentleman's approach. Why does not he welcome the fact that Clipstone, Betws, Trentham, Coventry, Rossington, Markham Main, Calverton and Wearmouth, and perhaps other mines, are pursued for privatisation by private sector companies that want to make a success where British Coal has failed?
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people recognise that privatisation is the only hope for a competitive cost structure in the coal industry and that only a competitive cost structure can guarantee the long-term future of employment in that industry?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend—privatised industry has a great future.
    Mr. O'Neill: On the question of a competitive cost structure, will the Minister tell the House why Manton colliery, which produces coal at prices lower than the world spot market price, is going to be closed? Does not that show that the Government have no concern for the coal industry and that the promised subsidies last year, which have saved no jobs whatsoever, were a complete sham and a distortion of the truth?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has been shadow energy spokesman for almost two years. Surely he should know that such issues are the responsibility of British Coal and not the Government.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the coal industry is the best thing for the miners and for the production of coal? From 1974 to 1979 the lot opposite closed 10 times more pits than we have closed in 14 years.
    Mr. Eggar: I wish that I could put my points across with such elegance.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to assist the aerospace industry in the north-west.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The aerospace industry in the north-west benefits from a positive business environment, Government support for military and civil exports, specific Department of Trade and Industry programmes to help the industry and substantial orders from the Ministry of Defence as a customer.
    Mr. Lewis: I put a similar question and the Minister gave a similar answer a month ago. What happened? In that month, British Aerospace at Lostock has shed another 300 jobs. Since the Conservative party came to power in 1979, about 5,000 jobs have been lost at that plant. When will the Minister really do something instead of coming here and talking bull?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the consistency of my answers. I suppose that if I changed them, I would be accused of making a U-turn. Naturally, we all regret the job losses, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the change in the requirements for defence equipment underlies those losses and I am sure that we all welcome the reasons for that change. The problems that that change is causing the aerospace industry are widespread. They are worldwide and do not affect merely this country.
    If I can give the hon. Gentleman two examples, between 1989 and 1993, the United States aerospace industry is reckoned to have lost one third of all its jobs; and the German industry, Deutsche Aerospace, recently announced 16,000 job losses. We regret the job losses at Lostock, but it is inevitable that changes in defence requirements will lead to changes in the requirements for staff.
    Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work for British Aerospace at Warton. Does he agree that, during the past decade, the aerospace industry has made a consistent and positive contribution to the United Kingdom balance of payments—£2·3 billion last year. In contrast to the negative comments by Opposition Members, the British aerospace industry is a continuing success and will go to even greater strengths once the European fighter aircraft 2000 is built by many of my constituents.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the industry's considerable achievements, especially in exports. The industry is uniquely helped by the Government and has received more than £1·5 billion of Government support since 1979.
    Mr. Eastham: Now that the Minister has expressed regret at the massive loss of jobs in the aerospace industry, what positive measures is his Department taking to give some positive encouragement to the aircraft industry for the development of the C130 large aircraft?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the reply that I just gave that the Government have given consistent and very substantial support to that industry through a number of programmes. The Royal Air Force's choice of aircraft is a matter for my right hon. and
    278
    learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I can give an assurance that my Department is keeping a close eye on the alternatives and on their importance for the British aerospace industry.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of Rover to BMW will allow British Aerospace to concentrate on its core activities—in particular, its aerospace activities in the north-west? Does he agree also that it is still important that Government launch aid is available for long-term civilian projects in the aviation industry?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad that my hon. Friend draws attention to the advantages to the British aerospace industry of BAe's recent sale of Rover to BMW. That matter was rather overlooked by the carping critics of the Opposition. BAe emphasised the advantage when, in its letter to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, it drew attention to the fact that this arrangement enabled it to progress plans for the turbo-prop and regional jet businesses based at Prestwick and Manchester.
    Mr. Fatchett: During the past six weeks, more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in the aerospace industry in the north-west of England. The people affected will be leaving British Aerospace with a small redundancy payment after many years of service. What sort of leadership is British Aerospace giving to the industry when its chairman, John Cahill—a tax exile for nine months of the year—is to receive a golden handshake of £10 million? Would not it be better for British Aerospace to improve its business practices? Does not the Minister agree that such behaviour is totally unacceptable and totally wrong for Britain's aerospace industry?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I suppose that it would be too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to recognise the benefits to British Aerospace's aircraft interests that have been brought about by the sale which I mentioned, but perhaps even he will recognise that the figures to which he has referred—figures that he, like me, will have seen in the press—arise from the very significant increase in the value of BAe's shares. That increase reflects the market—[Interruption.] That is a typical reaction from the Labour party. A company is successful—it increases its profits and its value—and the Labour party complains. Labour Members want to see failure, not success.

    Small Business
    Mr. Steen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the progress of his deregulation unit in reducing the number of rules and regulations affecting small businesses.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): We announced about 450 deregulation measures on 19 January. Many of these will substantially benefit small businesses—for example, the abolition of the statutory audit, which will remove a useless cost from tens of thousands of small companies; and the rise in the value added tax threshold, which will free up to 75,000 small businesses from the tentacles of VAT. In future, we shall judge regulatory proposals first by the results of a small business litmus test.
    Mr. Steen: In view of the tremendous commitment by the President yesterday and by the Minister responsible for deregulation, which is supported by both sides of the House, will the Minister instruct the deregulation unit to alter the individual divisional objectives that apply to the working practices of the 11,389 officials in his Department? Will he provide an incentive-related pay scheme so that the more rules and regulations his officials get rid of, the more they will be paid?
    Mr. Hamilton: I hope that if we were to introduce such a scheme, it would apply to Ministers, too. All officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are fully committed to deregulation, as we well understand that that goes to the very heart of the competitiveness of British industry. It is the wealth that industry produces which pays the wages of all of us.
    Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware that most people will see this latest gimmick of the Government as a very thinly disguised means of reducing the protection of workers in industry in order to maximise profit? Is not that the sole intention of the legislation?
    Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman, who, as a union wrecker and a keen supporter of the dock labour scheme, had an important part to play in the destruction of the port of Liverpool, knows quite well the consequences of absurd regulations for the jobs of British workers. I am happy to say that, as a result of our getting rid of the dock labour scheme, British ports are expanding again. The port of Liverpool is doing more trade today than it did in its heyday in the 1950s.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement made this week to modify rules on portable electrical appliances will be warmly welcomed, particularly by hoteliers in my constituency? They say that the burden on their businesses caused by regulations, especially those relating to testing electrical appliances, has been onerous and has affected their profitability.
    Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are keenly aware of the advantages that will accrue to smaller businesses and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, particularly to tourist businesses in the west country, if we continue to take an imaginative approach to deregulation.

    Trade Descriptions Act 1968
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to extend the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to embrace services as well as goods.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Trade Descriptions Act has always applied to services as well as to goods.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain why the Government have done nothing to protect consumers from rogue cowboy firms such as those that install double glazing, carry out car repairs or service household appliances?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The simple fact is that the hon. Lady's question referred to the Trade Descriptions Act and she asked whether it would embrace services as well as goods. I have explained that it does. Under section 14 of
    280
    that Act, there were 171 prosecutions in 1991–92 and 238 in 1992–93. On conviction in a magistrates court, a person is liable to a fine of up to £5,000 or, in a Crown court, an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment.

    Regulations
    Mr. Burden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the procedures established by his Department to determine whether a particular regulation is a burden to business; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: If Parliament is to take rational decisions, hon. Members must be informed in advance of debates of the costs that proposed legislation would impose on business. In future, a compliance cost assessment will be published with all such regulations put before Parliament. The procedures for preparing CCAs are set out in a guide which I have placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that, although existing statute allows Ministers to replace health and safety regulations if they are out of date, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which received a Second Reading last night, gives Ministers the power to repeal health and safety legislation without replacing it? On the day when it has been reported that accidents and ill-health at work will cost employers between £4 billion and £6 billion, will the Minister tell the House of one health and safety regulation or law which Ministers would not have the power to repeal if the Bill becomes law?
    Mr. Hamilton: All that we seek to do by that provision in the deregulation Bill is to repeal legislation that is wholly redundant; we already have that power under legislation passed since 1974. The Health and Safety Commission has requested that change because it recognises that its cause is not assisted by all sorts of nonsense cluttering up the statute book. The Agricultural (Ladders) Regulations 1957, for instance, which regulates the number of nails that must be put in wooden ladders, and all sorts of unnecessary restrictions have been replaced by new British standards and more modern legislation.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not less than satisfactory that the only safeguard against ministerial misjudgment in the exercise of delegated powers of deregulation is the consideration of a 90-minute debate on statutory instruments that are unamendable by the House? My hon. Friend may argue that there is consultation before the orders are drafted. In the case of the proposal to abolish charter market franchises, the representations were 10:1 against, but the Government are still going ahead with it. What confidence, therefore, can people have in consultation?
    Mr. Hamilton: It comes as no surprise that the majority of those who responded to that consultation exercise possessed the monopoly privileges which we propose to abolish. Of course they were against taking away from themselves an undesirable privilege which they now possess, but I am satisfied, as a result of consultation, that the British public generally will benefit from the removal of antique, mediaeval restrictions which have no place in the modern age.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister regard as an antique, mediaeval regulation the protection of consumers,

    281
    particularly in relation to small lorry firms which, in future, will be able to park lorries under six tonnes wherever they wish and, once they receive licences, will no longer be monitored by the Department of Transport? Will he ensure that he consults the Department about the safety of our constituents before he goes ahead and abolishes rules that protect them?
    Mr. Hamilton: I make it absolutely clear that we neither need nor desire to reduce public protection in health and safety or in other areas. In the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as the hon. Lady will know if she has read it, there is a requirement that necessary protection should not be removed if the order-making power that we seek will be used. I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Lady mentioned, but if she would like to write to me about it, I should be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that the European Commission is intent on banning through regulation the use of the United Kingdom standard 240-volt plug? Is he further aware that the intention is to replace it with the inferior European two-pin model? How does he anticipate that that would affect the United Kingdom electrical market? What can be done about that?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that no such proposal is before the Commission. If it were, I am sure that we would pay the greatest possible regard to the criticisms that he has made.

    Libya and Iraq (Sanctions)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has of the cost to British trade of the implementation of sanctions by the United Nations against (a) Libya and (b) Iraq.
    Mr. Needham: It is impossible to say what the cost has been to British trade of the implementation of United Nations sanctions against Libya and Iraq.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question that offends conventional wisdom? In view of the quite appalling and horrendous nutrition-related infant mortality that some of us have seen in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, with rows and rows of babies expiring; the ambiguities of policy, those grey areas highlighted not least by Sir Robin Butler in front of the Scott inquiry this morning; and the profound doubts as to whether the Libyan state was the prime mover in the Lockerbie crime—God knows that was awful, because it was the police in my area who had to clear it up—could not the Government at least consider whether this sanctions policy is justified and whether they have to go the whole way with Washington? After all, Iraq and Libya were traditionally British markets, not American markets. Let us not be American led.
    Mr. Needham: I know the hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling on this subject, but it is not going along with Washington—it is going along with the sanctions that were approved and imposed through the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the consequences were Britain to be the only one out of 187 countries to opt out of the sanctions arrangements that were agreed and accepted through the United Nations Security Council. I cannot imagine that that would find more favour with Opposition Members than with Conservative Members.
    282
    The fact is that the problems in Iraq are the problems of its regime. The blame can hardly be placed at the door of the Governments who are imposing the sanctions. United Nations sanctions have been specifically designed, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, to try to ensure that medical assistance and help get through to the people who need it. Let us be clear that the problems of the people who are suffering in Libya and Iraq come from the fact that they are governed by barbarians.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the nature of the reply, may I ask for a Thursday Adjournment debate in your gift?

    Mnufacturing Industry
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he plans to conduct of the competitiveness of British manufacturing with particular reference to (a) exchange rate competitiveness, (b) investment and (c) labour productivity; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have already announced that the Government will be publishing a White Paper on competitiveness in response to the forthcoming report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee.
    Mr. Mitchell: Before the President of the Board of Trade rushes to print, perhaps I can help him. Is not it correct that, in a market economy, the chief determinant of manufacturing success is price competitiveness and that that, in turn, is largely determined by exchange rate competitiveness? Cannot that be demonstrated by looking at the increase in manufactured exports since White Wednesday, which is four times greater to those non-EEC markets against which our devaluation was greatest than it is to EEC markets? That being so, is not it crazy to allow the Bank of England to sabotage an historic opportunity to recover the manufacturing base of this country by encouraging the pound back up against the deutschmark?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will have his own views on what constitutes competitiveness; but he may well wish to apply the test provided by today's CBI survey, which reveals that all regions report strong growth in both business and export optimism. That is excellent news for British industry, the economy and the country, and disastrous news for Labour.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Do not our recent labour market reforms mean that Britain's international competitiveness is now better than ever?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has made his point briefly, and extremely well. Today's economic indicators are as favourable as any that I can remember.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although we are competitive at present and the dollar-pound exchange rate is good for British industry, over recent months—since White Wednesday—the pound has been in danger of appreciating against the deutschmark? Not only is that bad for our position in Europe but we have come up against German manufacturers which are reducing prices like mad in other markets throughout the world. While we await a report that

    283
    will be of great interest to all hon. Members, is it not vital to maintain exchange competitiveness with the deutsch mark in Europe and elsewhere?
    Mr. Heseltine: I accept at once that it is necessary to remain competitive amid all the current factors. The Labour party should bear in mind the effect that the imposition of the social charter would have on British industry.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of trade and the internal position of British industry have never been better than they are now? We have a real chance to flatten the international competition both inside and outside Europe. Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to scotch the myth that ours is a low-wage, sweatshop economy? It is our total payroll costs that are lower; we are not a low-wage economy. We are beginning to achieve high productivity, which will enable us to afford high wages.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a remarkable set of economic statistics behind us and our productivity has risen very sharply. That is another reason for us to cling on to our advantages, rather than frittering them away in the manner threatened by so many of Labour's policies.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the President of the Board of Trade really believe that we can compete with other nations when we invest less than they do? Is he aware that last week's figures show investment in manufacturing industry to be 12 per cent. down on the 1979 figure? They also show that under the Conservatives, manufacturing investment, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has in no year matched any year's investment under Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to give us good news, will he tell us in what year the Government will return manufacturing investment to where it was before they ran it down?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be preoccupied with the results obtained from investment. He doubtless includes in his figures our investment in a range of nationalised industries that then lost money. The real test lies in the fact that British exports are at an all-time high, in a real market with real products and profits earned by real people—as opposed to phoney policies from a phoney party.

    Defence Industries (Redundancies)
    Mr. Burns: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department is taking to help redundant workers in defence-related industries return to work.
    Mr. Sainsbury: In addition to the substantial help available to redundant workers from the Department of Employment, areas that are adversely affected by defence changes have benefited from the European Community Konver initiative, which was worth some £.15·5 million to the United Kingdom. As a result, a regional technology centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will receive £300,000 and Essex training and enterprise council will receive £125,000.
    Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the sense of pleasure and relief that was felt when the Essex bid was found to have been successful, before Christmas? Does he recognise the pleasure and surprise that Chelmsford will feel today on learning that the amount provided to assist the training of redundant defence workers will be £125,000, rather than the £54,000 that was expected?
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, and will not feel that I am pushing it too much, if I ask whether companies in Chelmsford, or elsewhere in the industry, might qualify for any other assistance.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that he and his constituents were misinformed about the scale of the assistance for Essex TEC. That was due to a minor administrative slip-up—"a bank error in your favour", as they say.
    As my hon. Friend will know, the Commission's Green Paper on Community initiatives states an intention to continue with Konver as a multi-annual programme. Now that we have succeeded, as a result of British efforts, in making sure that Konver is available outside areas covered by objectives 2 and 5(b), we must wait to see the outcome of the considerations of the suggestions in the Green Paper and whether there is a successor scheme that would help companies and employees in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Denham: I welcome the successful Hampshire bid for the Konver programme, but will the Minister explain why the unanimous feeling in the Hampshire area among local authorities, business people and trade unions is that local councils and Europe care about jobs for defence workers, but they cannot point to any tangible initiative by the British Government to provide for them?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a wide range of schemes to help workers who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs in an area. We have, however, given specific help by changing tack seminars and changing tack manuals, and through a range of DTI schemes for companies in the defence sector, to help them adapt their output so that they can adapt to the changing demand for defence equipment. It would be unrealistic not to recognise that we do not want to reverse the reasons for that change of demand.

Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the procedure to be followed later this evening on motion No. 4, relating to the Government's assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position.
This motion is the first to be made under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which requires the assessment to be reported to the House for its approval. In this respect, tonight's proceedings will be analogous to the procedure on an affirmative resolution for the approval of a statutory instrument, when, as stated on page 341 of "Erskine May", no amendments to the motion are possible since the Act provides only for approval.
I do not propose, therefore, to select any amendments this evening, but the House will of course be free to vote against the main question and to raise in debate many of the arguments advanced in the amendments on the Order Paper.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me with an inconsistency that I perceived in the answers today. A junior Minister decided that it was a matter for him to answer a question about Mr. Cahill and his £10 million payout for the Rover deal, yet, when we asked him yesterday about that, the Prime Minister said that it was not a matter for him. Can you enlighten me?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is wise enough and has been in the House long enough to know that she must pursue that matter by other means.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the unsatisfactory replies by the President of the Board of Trade to my question about the Post Office—he did not even appear to know anything about it—may I apply for a Thursday Adjournment debate?
Madam Speaker: That is precisely the way to proceed on these matters.
Dr. Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns the transfer of oral
286
questions accepted yesterday and asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and me. The questions were directed to the House of Commons Commission. I note from today's Order Paper that those questions, which concern the provision of child care facilities in the Palace of Westminster, have been transferred to the Chairman of the Administration Committee. Could that be reviewed?
I am aware that the Chairman of the Administration Committee is responsible for the questionnaire currently being circulated and analysed, but overall responsibility for this important matter rests with the Commission, so I hope that the matter can be reconsidered in order that the House can debate it in the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The rule for questions is that they should be addressed to the hon. Member with primary responsibility for answering them. I am having inquiries made into the matter raised with me by the hon. Lady and shall be in touch with her as soon as I can.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question relates to your original statement, although it in no way seeks to question it. While it would be totally improper for any amendments to be selected, do I take it that it is still possible for some amendments to be tabled, as they provide a valuable means for people to express their opinions?
Madam Speaker: Yes, of course, it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to table amendments, which can provide an opportunity for expression and can be referred to during the debate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Would you, Madam Speaker, agree that the Government and the Cabinet have collective responsibility at all times? My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked a question about the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. The tinpot Minister of State answered the question for which the Prime Minister said he was not responsible. Last week, the Prime Minister called on all his Ministers and others to sing from the same hymn sheet—but they sound like a rabble.
Madam Speaker: I hardly think that is a point of order for me. It seems to be an extension of Question Time. I am sure that all hon. Members who are interested can find other methods of pursuing that subject.

Public Inquiries (Improved Procedures)
3.37 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision as to transcripts, oral evidence and other submissions to public inquiries, and for connected purposes.
Presenting this Bill today is for me rather like a maiden speech, as it is the first time that I have introduced a ten-minute Bill.
My Bill makes two specific proposals that are modest and, on balance, will save taxpayers' money. I hope that it will have the unanimous support of the House of Commons, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I shall begin by describing the Bill's background. It stems largely from my recent experience of a public inquiry into the development of the A27 in the Worthing district. Alas, nothing in the Bill, even if it proceeds with the greatest speed, will have any effect on that inquiry. My experience of that inquiry showed me that it was worth while introducing a Bill to help those who are engaged in public inquiries in future. While we pass much legislation, and Government Departments introduce many procedures for our constituents, we do not always have first-hand experience of all aspects of that legislation.
Public inquiries into road schemes could be improved in two ways. The proposal in Worthing will not be affected by the Bill. I believe that Worthing should have a bypass, but the Government propose to put the road through the built-up part of the town. Our position is unique, in that there are two possible routes for the road.
The normal procedure is for the Government to propose a route, which is the only one to be worked up in great detail. The overall effect of that is to bias proceedings heavily against objectors and in favour of the Department of Transport's scheme, which should give the House considerable cause for concern. It is important that schemes should be considered and alternatives fully examined.
The other general matter of concern is that, although we introduced the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which did something to help those affected by road schemes, I am increasingly of the belief that the way in which some of my constituents are treated can only be described as a form of highway robbery. The Government have interpreted the Act in a restrictive way. They pay compensation under discretionary powers only to those within, in general terms, 100 m of the central line of the roads, which may be six lanes wide. That seems to leave a large number of people who live outside the limit, but who are seriously affected.
The Government have consistently taken the view that the crucial factor is whether the enjoyment of property is affected by the proposed road. Many people are unable to sell their property for a number of years, regardless of how difficult their personal circumstances may be. The way in which the matter is handled is a considerable disadvantage to constituents who take their case to a public inquiry.
There is much to be said for the French system, whereby substantially more than the market value of the house is offered, which avoids the delays and unfairness that would otherwise result.
The Bill essentially addresses two problems. The first is that, when a public inquiry begins, one is expected to present a so-called proof of evidence in writing. That is an
288
onerous undertaking, although I am amazed at the expertise in matters such as road programmes that emerges among constituents during such inquiries. None the less, one may have to write 80 or 100 pages of detailed analysis to present the so-called proof of evidence.
That is all very well, but the absurdity is that one is then required to read out that proof of evidence at the public inquiry, which can only be described as a field day for lawyers. [Interruption.] They are perfectly able to read the proof of evidence, but, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is suggesting, they earn a considerable amount in legal fees for simply sitting and listening to evidence being read.
In addition, a considerable number of officials from the Department of Transport attend inquiries. They could also read the proof of evidence, but instead sit and listen for day after day doing nothing.
The result is that the inquiry that I mentioned has continued for three months, and is likely to continue until Easter or beyond. Much of the time has been taken up by the absurdity of people having to read out their proof of evidence. My proposal, therefore, is that the reading out of evidence should not be necessary, or that it should be allowed only if the inspector believes that it is appropriate.
The second problem arises when constituents do not feel able to present an elaborate written proof of evidence, and instead give their evidence orally. The absurdity is that the decision about whether such evidence should be transcribed is at the discretion of the inspector.
I do not wish to comment on the case that I mentioned, but it appears that a transcript is not being provided, on grounds of cost. The scheme is likely to cost about £120 million, yet finance is not available for transcripts, which might achieve a result that is better, fairer and less biased in favour of the Department. We must correct that. My Bill, perhaps with a de minimis provision, would ensure that transcripts are provided.
The other absurdity that arises is that no transcript is provided of cross-examination—the interesting exchanges that are vital if one disputes matters at a later stage. As an objector's notes can be disputed, he is unable to present his case in a fair way, with all exchanges being recorded. That matter should be put right. It is absurd that constituents can attend an inquiry every day for three or perhaps five months, listening to the cross-examination, only to have their notes disputed.
For those reasons, I believe that the case is overwhelming. On balance, it would mean a substantial saving of public funds, and the saving of time and trouble under the first part of the Bill would more than compensate for the cost of providing a transcript.
It has been suggested that proceedings could be tape-recorded. A recording is not necessarily provided but, as the House knows, a tape-recording is not an adequate substitute for a written record. If one wishes to dispute a particular exchange, one cannot whip back and forth through a tape-recording which might run for some hours, but one can pick out and cite a passage from a manuscript immediately. Therefore, there is no reasonable argument for proceedings to be recorded.
I very much hope that the House will be kind enough to allow me to introduce the Bill. I also hope that, unlike some other ten-minute Bills, it might find its way on to the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.

289
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Terence Higgins, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Gary Waller.

Public Inquiries (Improved Procedures)

  PUBLIC INQUIRIES (IMPROVED PROCEDURES)
  Sir Terence Higgins accordingly presented a Bill to make provision as to transcripts, oral evidence and other submissions to public inquiries, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are occasions when one regrets that the ten-minute Bill procedure does not have a fast track to fruition, and this is one of them. In the presence of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, may I suggest that some thought should be given to finding a way to dispatch ten-minute Bills through the House? I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who has struck a chord with many of us in saying that the way in which public inquiries are carried out is a scandal. Those of us who went through the Orkney scandal believe that the procedure is outrageous.
  Madam Speaker: That is a matter of opinion rather than a point of order for the Chair.

Orders of the Day

  Sunday Trading Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 8 December]
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  3.46 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the selection of amendments. Having heard what was said during the debates on the Maastricht treaty, I know that you cannot explain why you have selected some amendments and neglected to select others.
  I have tabled an amendment which would exclude Wales from the Bill's provisions. It has no crossover with any of the other amendments that are to be considered, and I should like an assurance that there will be an opportunity to raise that point on Report, as I have been denied that opportunity now. It is an important point, not only for me but for most hon. Members with Welsh constituencies. Therefore, if I may, I ask for an assurance that the matter can be raised on Report in the House.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I noted the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feeling from the speed with which he tabled the amendment. Nevertheless, he knows full well that I can give no assurance about the Report stage; I can say only that Madam Speaker will read Hansard and will be aware of the hon. Gentleman's plea.
  Ordered,
  That the order in which the remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Sunday Trading Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 2, Schedule 4, new Clauses and new Schedules.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Sunday Trading Bill
    Schedule 4

      RIGHTS OF SHOP WORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY WORKING
      Ms Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 15, line 46, after 'customers', insert
      'and includes any work in connection with the delivery of goods for retail sale at the shop which necessarily involves attendance at or adjacent to the shop for the purpose of those deliveries'.
      Many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, wish as few workers as possible to have to go to work on a Sunday. However, under the Bill, many workers may be obliged to work on a Sunday, and the conditions that apply to them are at the heart of the debate, and are of considerable concern to my hon. Friends and to myself.
      Employees are covered by many provisions in the schedule. It contains definitions both of shopworkers and of shop work, and it was our original intention to explore the definition of the term "shopworker". However, we have been advised that it is more appropriate to try to amend the definition of "shop work", and that is what the amendment is designed to do.
      The amendment is not only probing but is of substance, too. I hope that, as a probing amendment, it will draw from the Minister a clear and expanded definition of what is meant by shop work and therefore how those who

      291
      undertake that work can be described. It is also an amendment of substance, because it would bring within the ambit of the schedule and the Bill workers involved in deliveries to shops that open on a Sunday.
      We are most anxious to understand precisely who is covered by the provisions of the Bill. There are many workers whom a lay person might not regard as shopworkers as such. They are not necessarily serving at counters, providing goods or taking cash or cheque payments; they may be workers replenishing the shelves, or working in the yard around the shop bringing goods in from delivery vehicles. They may be the people who go out and collect those trolleys that always seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
      We may presume that all such workers are covered by the definition on the face of the Bill, but in our debates on the specific employment protection measures, it will be essential to know which workers are specifically covered by the provisions.
      Shop work is defined on the face of the Bill as
      "work in or about a shop in England or Wales on a day on which the shop is open for the serving of customers".
      That appears to include workers in the yard at the back of the shop, doing the ancillary tasks. But we wish to know definitely whether it covers, for example, workers who may be housed in offices at the back of the part of the retail premises where goods are being sold, operating the computers dealing with the cash tills and the flow of goods out of the store.
      Does the definition of shop work as
      "in or about a shop"
      cover such workers whom a lay person might not imagine were involved in retail work of any kind? Does it cover the manager? Are we clear whether it will cover all managers associated with work in or about a shop that is open on a Sunday? Because we want to know the answers to those questions, we are testing the Minister by including in the amendment a definition of shop work that would include all those whom I have described—I have not yet heard a clear explanation whether they are covered or not—and also people delivering goods to the store.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not important to establish whether the definition covers people who serve staff meals and refreshments? They may not serve the public, but many superstores such as Sainsbury's have staff cafeterias, and it is essential that the people who work in them be covered by the protection we seek.
      Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He has mentioned yet another area where clarification is needed. I see that the Minister is beaming, which must mean that he will be able to say that those people are covered. We shall be delighted if he does. It is important to get such information on the record. I encourage all my hon. Friends to intervene as often as possible, so that we can have as clear and comprehensible a list as possible of workers defined as doing shop work "in or about a shop".
      I shall now comment on those workers who make deliveries. It may be a somewhat controversial subject, and those who make deliveries may hold differing views on whether they wish to be included in the Sunday Trading Bill. Many of those people who will be required to work on Sunday and to make deliveries to stores which are trading on Sundays may already have to work on Sunday.
      292
      I acknowledge that some delivery workers already work on Sundays because they supply stores that open early on Monday morning. We also know that many workers who currently make deliveries, especially of fresh fruit, vegetables and milk, and who work illegally under the present arrangements which stores have instituted, will be required to work legally if the Bill becomes law. We wish to test the Minister to clarify whether such people are already included in the Bill's provisions. If not, our amendment would include those who make deliveries.
      Delivery men and women are an important group of people who already often work unsociable hours. Many deliveries are made in the early hours of the morning in preparation for a day's trading, and they have a work pattern which is not conducive to the best sort of family life. As for other workers who will be required to work if the Bill becomes law, we believe there ought to be an opportunity for delivery workers to opt out of Sunday working.
      We seek to make Sunday working a voluntary activity, and people should be able to choose whether to go to work or not on a Sunday when they are performing an activity where choice is of the essence. Of course we do not expect there to be a choice over the provision of emergency services or essential services which require people to drive vehicles on Sunday—that is clearly understood. However, we are discussing retail opening. It should be voluntary and would be a new provision in our society on Sundays, and therefore would affect a group of workers who could have to work in new conditions.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome the attempt that my hon. Friend is making to present as broad a range as possible of the groups of workers who should be protected. Does she agree that there is no possible protection in the Bill for workers who are currently being pressured, including one group of maintenance engineering workers I know of, who have been told that, probably, they would have to work on a Sunday as all the shops would be open? Those jobs are unrelated to retailing, yet, because of the whole ethos of Sunday opening, there is pressure on those workers to work on Sundays as well, which is of major concern to many of us.
      Ms Ruddock: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the consequences of Sunday opening and of legalised Sunday trading are wide-ranging. We have debated those matters in Committee, and that debate will clearly continue. I firmly believe that, when the House opted for limited Sunday opening and partial deregulation, it was not giving the Government a free-for-all approach to Sunday trading and to the commercialisation of Sundays.
      There is a sense throughout the House, especially among Opposition Members, that many workers could be adversely affected. It is our intention to extend the protection provided in the Bill to as wide a group of workers as possible.
      4 pm
      Mr. Ray Powell: I support the amendment tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench, which extends the employment protection contained in schedule 4 to lorry drivers and distributive workers employed to deliver goods to shops opening on a Sunday. I welcome the amendment, because it will offer protection to some people working in ancillary retail services who will be substantially affected

      293
      if Sunday trading became law: workers who will no longer be guaranteed respite from work at weekends; workers who are often separated from their families during the week and who will no longer be guaranteed free time with them at weekends; workers who will be required to work longer hours at low rates of pay. I support the amendment in recognition of the fact that employees in ancillary retail services should and must be given comprehensive protection on Sundays.
      I want to draw to the attention of the House two inadequacies in the amendment—inadequacies that also permeate the Bill itself. The first is that the amendment applies only to a limited section of those employed in the distributive industry. It would offer no protection to those working in warehouses and regional distributive centres who, equally, will be required to work throughout the weekend if Sunday trading becomes prevalent.
      Nor does the amendment offer protection to other employees working in ancillary services who will be affected directly by the introduction of full Sunday trading—for instance, those employed in food preparation. I am sure that we are all aware of the case of workers at Middlebrook Mushrooms who were dismissed for refusing to work longer hours at weekends in order to prevent further instances of discrimination and the harassment of workers into working unsociable hours.
      The House has a responsibility to introduce comprehensive employment protection. That cannot be achieved through employment protection provisions such as those contained in schedule 4. It can be achieved only by restricting the level of trading on Sundays.
      Equally, no protection is offered under schedule 4 to local government workers such as inspectors, traffic wardens and the police, all of whom will be required to have a larger presence in the community on Sunday if the Bill is passed. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) mentioned that in an intervention. It is important that all employees who are affected should be protected.
      The second inadequacy to which I wish to draw attention is the fact that neither the amendment nor the Bill deals with the increased pressure that will be exerted on workers such as lorry drivers to work on Saturdays as well as Sundays. Information received from the United Road Transport Union shows that the experience of limited de facto Sunday trading is that, in order to serve shopping needs on Sundays, lorry drivers and warehouse workers have had to work on Saturdays, often every Saturday.
      That pressure will increase if Sunday trading becomes widespread. Already, most lorry drivers work 60 hours a week, and are away from home from Monday or even Sunday to Friday. The only chance those workers get to see and spend time with their partners and their children is at weekends. Is it right, in a modern society, that workers should be deprived of the right to go to football matches with their children?
      Already society is suffering the worst effects of the break-up of extended family networks in which parents, grandparents and children met and interacted regularly, and in which there was usually someone around who cared enough to keep the youngsters out of trouble. Nowadays, children are all too often left to fend for themselves long before they are ready to face the world alone.
      294
      While we cannot blame all the break-ups in society on Sunday trading, the preservation of a common day of recreation forms the central plank in a strong family-orientated community. Therefore, today and on Report, the House must vote to keep Sunday a special day for as many people as possible.
      Yesterday, I received a letter from the general secretary of the United Road Transport Union. It is necessary to record parts of that letter. I quote:
      "It is not generally appreciated that the deregulation of Sunday trading will have a significant impact not only upon shop workers but, also, upon those engaged in the road transport and distribution industry".
      It is right for the general secretary to send letters to Members of Parliament who are involved and interested in this Bill to ensure that his workers are protected. The letter continues:
      "The advent of 'just in time' regimes, coupled with deregulation, will affect everyone in the supply chain; those delivering to regional distribution centres will find themselves working on Saturday afternoons and on through the night, whilst those delivering directly to retail outlets will be required to work on Sunday. Those changes, designed to bring benefits to retailers and shoppers, will be achieved at the expense of professional drivers, and at a huge cost to the social lives of them and their families … Substantial changes in working practices, leading to even greater pressure to breach existing regulations on drivers' hours, as there is no immediate prospect of a significant increase in the number of available qualified and experienced drivers to meet increased demand.
      A detrimental effect upon road safety caused by those pressures and by the absence of opportunity for rest and relaxation.
      A serious deterioration in family relationships as drivers become increasingly unable to fit in with the free time of the rest of the family … A substantial cost to society in dealing with the effect upon family relationships, higher rates of divorce and juvenile offending as the influence of the breadwinner is removed from the family home for longer and longer periods.
      Complete deprivation of any real choice about whether or not to work in accordance with the new demands as they become incorporated into the core of commercial activity. Concerns for the social welfare of the family and the well-being of children will, of necessity, be replaced by concerns for the security of employment and continuance of income."
      David Higginbottom, the general secretary of that union, is concerned about his members. He also expressed concern about a number of other people who will not be safeguarded by this amendment. The Government do not intend to safeguard some employees.
      In other letters that I have received, workers have complained bitterly—Members of Parliament have also complained bitterly about this—that no hint was given or effort made to inform hon. Members that a deregulation Bill would extend weekday shopping to 24 hours a day Monday to Saturday. Why on earth do we want a Sunday Trading Bill to extend shopping on a Sunday when we will have shopping 24 hours a day six days a week?
      What employment protection will be extended to workers when we take away the Shops Act 1950, which at least limits the number of hours that shopworkers are expected to work? The ancillary workers whom I mentioned—in all probability, my hon. Friends will mention them later—do not have employment protection. No amendment has been tabled that would give them protection. What protection will they be given by this Bill? I cannot see that happening.
      In addition, my hon. Friends have already received complaints, and I tell Government Members in Scotland that their constituents will have no protection. We should be looking at that matter when we talk about the protection

      295
      of workers. I will not take up any more of the Committee's time, because a number of my hon. Friends would like to express similar opinions.
      Mr. David Alton: I support the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and amendment No. 63. The amendment should be seen in the context of later amendments, which deal with the protection of workers who will be required to work on Sunday.
      Many hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and myself, would say that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This is a bad piece of legislation which cannot possibly be enforced in law. It will lead to the exploitation of employees who will be pressurised in the labour market.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a bad Bill.
      Mr. Alton: However many of the amendments are passed today—I will vote for those before the Committee because they attempt genuinely to make a bad situation better—the fact is, as the hon. Lady says, it is still a bad Bill.
      Ms Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than trying to deal in a highly complex and convoluted way with the narrow group of retail workers who work on Sunday, we should be looking to much simpler legislation which provides full-time rights for part-time workers? Should not that legislation be available on the hour that a person takes up employment, no matter how many hours they work or how long they have served in a shop? Would not that help to solve most of the problems in this area?
      Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Lady, but she will recall that, only yesterday, the House discussed further deregulation for the rest of the week. We are going against the rights of workers. We rejected the inclusion of the social chapter when we debated the Maastricht treaty, and the rights of workers have been eroded week in, week out, during this Parliament.
      I support what the hon. Lady says, although some of the amendments ought undoubtedly to commend themselves to the Committee. For example, some seek to protect applicants at interviews for retail work from discrimination because they choose not to work on Sundays. Other amendments shift the burden of proof from the employee on to the employer in cases of unfair dismissal on Sunday-related grounds.
      One reduces the notice period for opting out from Sunday work from three months to one month, and another ensures that employees are informed of their Sunday employment rights. An amendment improves the remedies available to shopworkers who are seeking redress for the violation of their Sunday rights.
      Perhaps most importantly, there is an amendment to introduce statutory double-time payments for all shopworkers on Sundays, thereby extending the best existing practice relating to pay within larger stores to workers throughout the retail industry and fairly compensating employees for time sacrificed with their families and friends, as the hon. Member for Ogmore described.
      All the matters which we will debate—including amendment No. 63, which extends employee protection to people in distribution who work on Sunday—are worthy, and ought to be commended to the Committee. We should
      296
      not fool ourselves into believing that the measures will protect people, because everything is based on a wish and a prayer.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) talked about the voluntary principle, which shows a trust and belief in those who will be responsible for taking on employees in the future. Past practice does not give us any grounds for that touching belief expressed by the hon. Lady. The Shops Act 1950, after all, is what we are seeking to replace, and employee protection is at its heart. That principle has been tested in the British courts and the European courts, yet its provisions at the moment are paper-thin.
      Legal aid is not available for industrial tribunal applications, and costs are not awarded except in wholly exceptional cases. Applicants without legal representation have been successful in only some 10 per cent. of cases when the employer has been represented. That is the present situation, so should we be making a bad situation even worse? Undoubtedly, the Bill will do that.
      The remedies which are awarded are totally inadequate. Reinstatement—the primary remedy available—is awarded in only 1 per cent. of cases which proceed to a hearing. The compensation is derisory. The median compensation awarded in 1990 and 1991 was just £1,773.
      Applications to industrial tribunals are subject to delay, and no interim relief is available. In June 1992, it was reported that, in a majority of regional jurisdictions, fewer than half of all applicants received a hearing within 26 weeks of their application being registered. Throughout the process of the hearing, the burden of proof of discrimination for refusing to work on Sundays lies with the employee. That is difficult to satisfy.
      Even if later amendments are accepted, it will still be difficult to enforce the law.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The burden of proof does not lie on the appellant—the employee; it lies on the employer. We shall come to that later. The later amendment is unnecessary. What the hon. Gentleman has said—I know that he has read it elsewhere—is wrong.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Alton: It is not simply that I have read it elsewhere: it is the practice on the ground. If the Minister looks at the case law that is available, he will see that any employee faced with the full weight of an employer is in a vulnerable position. We must bear it in mind that most of the retail industry is not unionised. Of the 2·2 million workers in the retail industry, probably 1·8 million are not in a union and have no real protection.
      As the figures that I gave demonstrate, when workers receive a tribunal hearing following all the delays, they are not properly represented and, even if the courts find in their favour, they are not properly compensated. We shall see: what the problems of employment protection will be. The Bill is a charter for exploitation.
      Britain is taking a retrograde step. Not only will we leave employees more vulnerable, but we shall destroy the one opportunity that many employees in the retail sector have to spend time with their family in their home and community. It would not be right to rehearse all those arguments again. They were heard on Second Reading and

      297
      in other sittings in Committee. The Bill damages employees who like to have time with their families, and places them in a vulnerable position.
      The amendment and those which follow try to make a bad situation better. I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support them, but we do so in the recognition that, even if we passed every one, workers would still be vulnerable. Conservative Members will tramp through the Lobby to vote each amendment down like a row of skittles. I suspect that we shall be left with an unamended Bill at the end of the Committee stage. Then it will be left to Opposition Members to determine what to do on Report.
      The intransigence of the Government, having—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Alton: Of course I will.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman will not like the point that I am going to make. If the shopworkers had not changed their mind, the Bill would not be before us in the state it is.
      Mr. Alton: I regret that as much as the hon. Lady. I wrote to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers expressing my regret that some of their members had changed their view. But in fairness to the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—
      The Chairman: Order. We are going wide of the amendment. I urge the hon. Gentleman to come back to it.
      Mr. Alton: I was about to provide some employee protection for the hon. Member for Preston, who is the president of USDAW. She has taken an entirely consistent position on the Bill throughout, so what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says is not entirely correct.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Oh, yes it is, about the executive of the union.
      Mr. Alton: I agree with what she says about the executive of the union, but it is not true of some of its representatives in the House.
      The amendment is narrow. The debate that we shall have in the next few hours will rove around the employment protection issues in their many guises. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said, the amendment would include the delivery of goods to a shop in the definition of shop work covered by the schedule. That definition is already wide, as she acknowledged. She asked just how wide it was. All I can say is that all the roles to which she referred as performed in or about a shop would be covered.
      The definition would include cleaners, storemen, shelf-fillers and trolley supervisors. The hon. Lady particularly asked about trolley supervisors. The definition would also include clerical workers at the back or above the shop or doing work related to the shop. Staff of the shop and staff cafeterias and managers on or about the premises would also be covered.
      298
      As well as the staff who serve customers, all those people will be covered, and I believe that van drivers based at the store, who deliver goods to customers, would also be included. In fact, all those whose work is connected with and for a shop that decides to open on a Sunday will be covered.
      I hope that my remarks will help the hon. Member for Deptford and her hon. Friends with the probing part of the amendment.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I spoke too soon.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The Minister referred to deliveries to a shop. We all know of the large superstore chains, which have large lorries carrying their brand name on the side. I am concerned about smaller shops which are perhaps contracted out as part of a chain of deliveries. If I understood the Minister correctly, those drivers who have to work on Sunday, delivering to six shops that are owned and managed by different people, will not be covered.
      Mr. Lloyd: I may have inadvertently misled the hon. Lady, or I did not make myself clear. When I referred to van drivers, I meant those drivers based at shops who deliver to their customers, and not drivers delivering goods to shops for onward sale. If she meant the latter, they are not covered, but I shall come to that in a moment.
      I think that there were other potential interventions.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: It has been put to the Minister, Mr. Morris, that we are determining the conditions of employment not only for people who work in the retail trades but for many others, not least local authority workers, cleansing workers, bank employees, bus drivers and other people who work in public transport. The Minister really must address himself to what has been a theme in Opposition Members' speeches—that the issue is much wider than the Government have so far addressed.
      Mr. Lloyd: I was going to come to that later, but I shall deal with it now.
      The schedule covers those people who work in and about a shop; it does not cover people employed by other agencies or authorities. Some part of their work on a Sunday may have to do with a shop opening. For example, if a policeman is on duty, a tiny part of his work—perhaps an infinitesimal part—might have something to do with a shop being open, but by and large a policeman is on duty for the whole range of public order reasons.
      It would therefore be absurd if the police were covered, and the same is true for health inspectors, local authority workers and traffic wardens. It is not reasonable that they should be covered, or for hon. Members to imply that, in 99 cases out of 100—or more probably 999 out of a 1,000—their work will have anything to do with the Sunday opening allowed by the Bill.
      For example, if health workers and cleaners are involved, it is most likely to be in catering establishments and fast food outlets, which can already open on Sundays quite lawfully. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not worthy of greater scrutiny as these people will be on duty not because a particular shop decides to open but

      299
      because of a wide range of responsibilities, only a tiny proportion of which have anything to do with Sunday opening.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: How can the Minister possibly doubt that many people who are not employed in retail trades will now, for the first time ever, have to work on a Sunday? He says that the number will be tiny, but we are talking here about principles as well as numbers. These principles are very important to all Opposition Members.
      Mr. Lloyd: Retailing is the only activity that, in large measure, may not be legitimately engaged in on a Sunday. The people who work in factories that make goods for the shops may work on Sunday. Many of them have an evening shift. When I worked in the food industry, we always had a Sunday evening shift. There will be no change in that situation. The hon. Gentleman exaggerates very heavily.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about attendants in car parks that would not be open but for the passage of this Bill?
      Mr. Lloyd: Many car parks are open on a Sunday. If a local authority were to decide to charge for Sunday use of its car parks, it would have to recruit people. In fact, local authorities do recruit people for this purpose, irrespective of Sunday trading. I see here the intervention of no novel principle.
      Mrs. Audrey Wise: I should like to come back to the question of delivery workers. It seems to me that there is fundamental illogicality in what the Minister has said so far, and I hope that he will remedy it.
      He has said that a person employed by a shop to deliver goods to its customers will be covered. The hon. Gentleman must know that that is now a very rare service. The number of drivers so employed will be tiny—the Minister is keen on the word "tiny"—whereas the number of people delivering to shops may be very large indeed. It is quite clear that the latter would not have to be employed if the shops were not open. Can the Minister explain his reasoning? I hope that, in the rest of his speech, he will do better.
      Mr. Lloyd: I had not reached the question of drivers who deliver to shops. The hon. Lady is quite right in saying that the number of delivery drivers employed by shops is very small. I have mentioned these people for the purpose of establishing even a minute piece of common ground between the hon. Member for Deptford and myself about the major part of the hon. Lady's amendment.
      It would not be reasonable to extend the provision to drivers working for another company who deliver goods to a store but who do not, by any stretch of the imagination, work at or around the store. As the hon. Lady said. we should have the anomally that a driver making Monday's deliveries on a Sunday to a shop that opened on a Sunday would be included, whereas a driver making Monday's deliveries on Sunday to a shop that did not open on Sunday would not be covered.
      The employers of the delivery driver would never know where they were. Even if the amendment were taken away and revised to remove some of the confusion, there would remain the fact that the relationship between employer and employee would depend not on their negotiations or decisions but on whether one or other of a string of
      300
      customer stores decided to open on Sunday. The position could vary from week to week, without the knowledge of the employer or even of the employee.
      The hon. Lady mentioned the delivery of fresh goods. These are delivered not just to the supermarkets and grocery shops that will be affected by this legislation but also to restaurants and catering outlets that are currently allowed to open on Sunday.
      I wonder whether the hon. Lady intends the protection under this Bill to apply if a delivery driver's journey includes one shop that chooses to open. Which will govern the relationship of the driver to his employer—the one shop opening under this Bill, the others that remain shut, or the ones that have always been allowed to open and are not affected by the legislation?
      Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has just begun to touch on some of the anomalies that we are coming across because we are attempting in this complex web of legislation to give a very narrow group of workers protection, when many other people work on Sunday, and, in my view, should he guaranteed similar protection? Would it not be better to withdraw the entire Bill and return to the House with a Bill that gives thorough and complete protection to all workers, whether they work part-time or full-time, during the week or on Sundays.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: Withdrawing the Bill would cause enormous disappointment not merely to the majority in the House who voted for this solution to the Sunday trading problem but to the retail trade and the many, many people who work on Sundays and would like their position to be completely regularised, with the protections contained in the Bill.
      The hon. Lady talks of anomalies. I, too, am discussing anomalies, which inevitably arise when protections are provided. All I can say is, were we to accept this amendment, those anomalies would be greatly increased, in the ways that I have described and in others.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: May I take the Minister back to the problem of deliveries? He has conceded that a driver who delivers from a shop—most of us agree that the problem would arise in the context of small supermarkets rather than large superstores—would be covered by the definition under schedule 4. But what happens if the same driver is also engaged in collecting goods from a warehouse or elsewhere, as could easily happen in such a shop? Would not that open up the difficulty which the Government are trying to avoid?
      Mr. Lloyd: I am in no difficulty whatever. It would be for the courts to determine where the borderline lay. But if the driver worked in and around a shop that opened on Sundays and was partly delivering to customers and partly collecting goods from a cash-and-carry or central warehouse, I believe that he would be covered by the protections provided in schedule 4. Ultimately, if the matter came before a court, it would be for the court to decide. I can only give my best judgment.
      Of course there are anomalies. It is anomalous to protect one group of workers in this way, but the hon. Gentleman knows why we are doing it. Sunday work has always been treated differently and, compared with the Shops Act 1950,

      301
      we are fundamentally changing the rules on Sunday working. The only way to get rid of those anomalies is to protect every other worker.
      If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that train drivers, doctors, nurses and policemen should all have similar protection, that might rule out the theoretical anomalies, but such huge practical difficulties would arise that the hon. Gentleman would wish that he had never embarked on that course.
      Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister acknowledge the deep alarm that is felt on this side of the House when a smiling Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, with the authority of the Government, about a schedule headed "Rights of…workers"? In so far as the schedule provides a minuscule protection, will he confirm that the Government are offering that protection with the sole objective of getting the legislation through? Is it not absolutely abhorrent to the Government's fundamental instincts, which are to provide no protection for workers whatever?
      Mr. Lloyd: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. First, the protection is not minuscule: it is wide, radical and sweeping. We shall return to that matter later. Secondly, as the Minister guiding the Bill, my objective is to find workable arrangements for the combination of Sunday trading and employee protection that satisfy a majority in the House. In that way, the problems with which the trade, Sunday workers, and those who wish to shop on Sundays are fed up can be sorted out in a clear and enforceable way.
      Mr. David Clelland: On the point about testing these issues in court, will the Minister explain where a van driver working in the retail trade is supposed to find the money to test the issue in court?
      Mr. Lloyd: I dare say that the unions would be interested in the general issues of principle. If it is a question of testing it from his own interest in a tribunal, he does not need money for that. I was going to come to that later.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about how long it took to get to a tribunal, how difficult it was to be represented and how the employee seldom won. He should know that two thirds of cases are decided before they get to a formal tribunal hearing, because the employer and employee have settled; they would settle when the employee realised that perhaps he had breached the rules.
      We do not know the details of every case that has been settled, but the fact that two thirds are settled beforehand suggests to me that the law works well. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics for 1991—I do not have them to hand at the moment—he will find that, of those who did go to a tribunal, there was a greater success rate among those employees who had attended without formal representation, either with a friend or on their own accord, than those who had secured professional and full representation, which suggests to me that tribunals work well informally, look behind the case that is brought and are not particularly impressed by professional representation.
      Mr. Hoon: Just to set the record straight, in relation to cases that are settled from industrial tribunals, they do not
      302
      particularly assist the Minister, because it is highly unlikely that a settlement would involve the continuation of that person's employment. Almost every settlement involves the payment of compensation. Therefore, in effect the Minister is saying that it does not matter that the person does not wish to work on a Sunday, that the settlement will resolve that matter and that the employer would pay a modest amount by way of compensation—the settlement figures are very modest. In those circumstances, the company would in effect avoid the problem of employing somebody who chose not to work on a Sunday.
      Mr. Lloyd: I venture into a subject for which I do not have ministerial responsibility, so my familiarity with the figures and the detailed background is not great. The hon. Gentleman may correct me if I am wrong, as may the officials in the box, but I believe that, in the majority of unfair dismissals, the employee does not want to go back to that place. Only a minority of employers are uninterested in whether they lose a case or settle out of court. The fact that the rules are there and can be enforced has a salutary effect. One should not judge the effectiveness of the rights or the tribunal by cases that are settled by it. One should judge the effect that it has further down the line and on the behaviour of employers. I think that that will be true in this case.
      By the way that it is worded, the amendment would have a wider effect than the hon. Member for Deptford appeared to have intended, but not wider than many of her hon. Friends would have liked. The phrase
      "any work in connection with the delivery of goods"
      could stretch, as the right hon. Gentleman wanted, to traffic wardens and police overseeing the parking regulations near the shop. One must then ask whether it would affect them if five minutes of their 10-hour shift were related to parking that had something to do with the shop. The amendments should be more clear on whether that is so. It would be ridiculous if it were. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is getting up to tell me that he had no intention of suggesting anything quite so absurd.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister does not accept that any group of workers outside the retail trade will, for the first time, have to work on Sundays as a consequence of legalising the Sunday opening of shops. If he can be convinced that there will be other groups of workers who for the first time will have to work on Sunday, will he then accept that they should have the same protection that we are seeking as retail shop workers?
      Mr. Lloyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in error. If some workers are not currently working on Sundays, such work is not part of their jobs, and will not be in their contracts. If their employer wants them to work on Sundays, he cannot make them do so; he cannot break or change their contracts unilaterally. He may open negotiations, but it will then be up to both sides to agree.
      This is no different from a hundred and one other changes that an employer may wish to make—introducing evening working, for instance. That is where the protection lies.
      Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware of the increasing prevalence of contracts that do not specify when work will be required—"zero hours" contracts, for instance? Many employees in the non-retail sector may be forced to work on Sundays, with no requirement for a change in their

      303
      contracts. Such contracts, which do not establish the hours that should be worked or when they should be worked, are virtually a sham.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that some people have no written contracts, and that some written contracts are completely inadequate to describe the nature of the job involved. If it came to a dispute, and if that dispute went to court—which would be the last place along the line—it would be for the court to determine what was properly understood between employer and employee.
      It would constitute a change of contract if there had originally been no question of Sunday working, and the employer was now asking for a whole set of different arrangements—even if there was nothing in writing, or the contract required the employee to "attend the place of employment at the usual time".
      The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has entered a vexed area. The Bill cannot make up for the inadequacy of contracts elsewhere; the problem that we are discussing, however, relates not to the vagueness of some contracts, but to contracts that clearly require an employee to work on Sundays if Sunday working is necessary. Employees may enter into such a contract believing that they will never be asked to honour the agreement.
      I believe that the provisions in schedule 4 are very wide, in that they cover all workers associated with the work of a shop on or around that shop's premises. They do not extend to delivery drivers, and I do not believe that they should. I hope that the Committee will agree.
      Ms Ruddock: Replying to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the Minister made it clear that he did not consider car park attendants to be associated with the company providing the retail premises. Some car parks, however, are organised by the retail premises. I assume—the Minister nods helpfully—that their attendants are covered by the Bill in its present form.
      My hon. Friends and I fear that many workers would have to undertake new tasks if the Bill became law. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is absolutely right: what we need, and what the Government have constantly and pitifully refused to give us, is proper protection for all workers, so that they can exercise real choice and real control over the way in which employers institute and enforce contracts.
      The Minister has made a great deal of the point about anomalies. All he has done, however, is encourage us to reconsider our amendment, engage in consultation and bring it back on Report. It is clear to us that some workers' contracts, and the requirement for Sunday working, will be fundamentally rearranged as a consequence of the Bill—which would not happen in any other circumstances.
      That applies particularly to an instance that the Minister has not considered: the case of workers employed by a company—Sainsbury is a good example—which has its own delivery vehicles and drivers, and delivers its own goods from its own warehouses to its own stores. Deliveries of fresh goods resulting from the introduction of Sunday opening would be a specific result of the Bill's enactment: in every other respect, those workers are working for the same employer, while performing tasks that could arise only if the Bill became law.
      We shall want to press our case further; but, on this occasion, I shall not press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. John Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in schedule 4, page 16, line 23, after `to', insert
      `section (Discrimination against prospective employees who object to Sunday working) and'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—

      DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES WHO OBJECT TO SUNDAY WORKING
      '(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it is unlawful for a person ("the discriminator") in relation to employment by him at a shop to discriminate against any person seeking employment as a shop worker ("the applicant")—

      (a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment, or

      (b) in the terms in which he offers the applicant that employment, or

      (c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer the applicant that employment,
      on the ground (or, if more than one, the principal ground) that the applicant objects to working on Sunday.

      (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to employment as a shop worker only on a Sunday ("Sunday-only work").
      (3) A complaint by the applicant that the discriminator has committed an act of discrimination against the applicant which is unlawful by virtue of subsection (1) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
      (4) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under subsection (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done.
      (5) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (3) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—

      (a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and

      (b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

      (6) Where an advertisement is published which indicates or might reasonably be understood as indicating that the employment to which the advertisement relates is open only to a person who is willing to accept a requirement to do shop work on Sunday and the employment in question is not Sunday-only work, a person who is unwilling to accept that requirement and who seeks and is refused employment to which the advertisement relates, shall be presumed to have been refused employment for that reason.
      (7) A person shall be taken to be refused employment if he seeks employment as a shop worker (other than Sunday-only work) with a person and the prospective employer—

      (i) refuses or deliberately omits to entertain and. process his application or enquiry;

      (ii) causes him to withdraw or cease to pursue his. application or enquiry;

      (iii) refuses or deliberately omits to offer him employment;

      (iv) makes him an offer of such employment, the terms of which are such as no reasonable employer who wishes to fill the post would offer and which is not accepted; or

      (v) makes him an offer of such employment but withdraws it or causes him to not accept it.

      (8) Where a person is offered employment on terms which include a requirement to do shop work on Sunday, such an offer shall be accompanied by a written notice of the person's rights to opt out of shop work on Sunday, under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 below and subsection (9) below.
      (9) Where a person is offered employment on terms which include a requirement to do shop work on Sunday, that person

      305
      may give to the prospective employer at any time prior to accepting employment with that person written notice that he objects to doing shop work on Sunday and if the offer is subsequently withdrawn by the prospective employer it shall be presumed to be by reason of the person's refusal to do shop work on Sunday.
      (10) When a person who has given notice under subsection (8) above commences employment, the provisions of Schedule 4 below shall apply to his employment as if he were a protected shop worker.
      (11) In section 136 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals from industrial tribunals to Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the words—
      "(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".'.
      Amendment No. 41, Title, line 2, after 'workers', insert
      'and applicants for employment as shop workers'.
      Mr. Hutton: The amendments and new clause are designed to ensure the effective operation of the employment protection measures already contained in schedule 4. These simple and modest proposals draw heavily on existing provisions in other areas of employment law—especially those relating to sex and race discrimination, and discrimination on the ground of trade union membership. I remind the House that the legislation on trade union-related discrimination was introduced by the present Government.
      Schedule 4 protects existing as well as future employees from unfair treatment based solely on their unwillingness to work on Sundays. Sunday is a special day, in both the social and the religious and ethical senses; it is right that shopworkers should enjoy special employment protection in recognition of that simple fact.
      Paragraph 10 of the schedule already recognises and endorses the principle that employees should not suffer discrimination on the basis of an unwillingness to work on Sundays. We simply wish to extend that essential principle to prospective employees—job applicants. As drafted, schedule 4 will still allow employers to discriminate against employees who do not wish to work on Sundays: it implicitly tolerates the possibility that those seeking work in a shop will be discriminated against if they tell their prospective employer that they do not want to work on Sundays.
      The Minister of State, Home Office has already implied that the Government consider our proposals unnecessary. Underlying his argument is the Government's view—expressed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading—that new employees can always say that they do not want to work on Sundays. But what is to stop an employer from penalising those who express such unwillingness, recruiting only those who say that they will work on Sundays? There is a fundamental contradiction in schedule 4.
      It would be singularly dishonest of Ministers to advise applicants to mislead employers, and, having gained employment, to take advantage of the opportunity to opt out of Sunday working. They might be understood to be telling applicants, "Do not tell your prospective employers the truth; say that you are prepared to work on Sundays, wait to gain employment and then exercise the opt-out right conferred by the schedule." An industrial tribunal might well decide that an employer was justified in dismissing an employee on the ground that he or she was not honest when interviewed for the job. That principle of candour is enshrined in existing employment law. As the Minister of State, Department of Employment is no doubt
      306
      aware, in numerous cases tribunals have told applicants that, because they lied to their employers, they cannot benefit from unfair dismissal provisions.
      It is no argument against our proposals to say that they are unnecessary, because future employers will have the opportunity to opt out. That misses the fundamental point behind the amendment, which is that the schedule extends no employment protection measures to job applicants.
      Paragraph 20 of the White Paper, published in July 1993, on the subject of discrimination against job applicants, offers us some early insight into the Government's thinking on recruitment. The Government argue in that White Paper that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal—that there should be protection against discrimination in recruitment—is"unworkable". There is no reason why that should be so. Whether it is unworkable will depend on the quality of the amendments proposed to the schedule.
      There is nothing unworkable in principle about a provision designed to give protection to job applicants. We already give them protection in a number of other areas. I have already quoted the legislation governing race and sex discrimination. Indeed, this very Government introduced the principle that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their trade union membership when they apply for jobs. There is thus nothing unworkable about a principle of non-discrimination in job interviews and applications.
      Another of the Government's arguments in the White Paper against any such proposals was that employers would be open to claims of discrimination by anyone who failed to be given a job and then said that was because he did not want to work on a Sunday. That too misses the point of the amendments, which the Government of course had not seen at the time. Nevertheless, their whole argument is flawed, overlooking as it does the fact that these are issues of proof and evidence that need to be argued before an industrial tribunal. We know, for instance, that the Government's legislation on union membership has not provoked hundreds of thousands of people to bring frivolous or vexatious litigation to industrial tribunals.
      Still, we were conscious of this possibility, and we drafted the amendments accordingly to make it a matter of proof before an industrial tribunal that the reason why a job applicant was not employed was chiefly his refusal to work on Sundays.
      We start from the proposition that, underlying the principle of this schedule, is the simple idea that people should be free to choose whether to work on Sundays. If they choose not to, they should be immune from any form of victimisation. Indeed, paragraph 10 of schedule 4 endorses that principle, and the schedule itself is a reflection of it.
      The schedule, however, does not go far enough. How is the freedom to choose whether to work on Sundays guaranteed—sanctified? I ask that because of the omission of any provision in the Bill to protect job seekers. Effectively, there will be one law for existing and future employees and no protection for people who might want to enter the labour market as shop workers.
      I have established that the amendments are not unworkable and that they will not lead to abuse. To claim the contrary is a spurious argument designed to lay a false trail.

      307
      My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott)—unfortunately not in his place—has drawn attention to the sardonic nature of the schedule. After 15 years of a Conservative Government whose members have systematically taken as one of their fundamental objectives the dismantling of decent employment protection laws, they now propose to recreate some of those very employment rights. The hollowness of their approach can be seen when it comes to these amendments. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to let their prejudices get in the way of common sense and fair play in respect of job protection rights for job seekers.
      Given the need to recognise the special ethical considerations of Sunday working, we should pay particular attention to the situation of job seekers. It is just not acceptable to regulate for future and existing employees but to omit from the framework of law the position of job seekers.
      It is worth noting that there is little logic behind the Government's objections to the amendments. I have already said that the principle underlying the schedule is that Sunday working is genuinely optional and cannot be enforced, so why will not that protection extend to job applications? What is the fundamental objection to such an extension? It certainly cannot be logical. It can only be ideological: that it is not right for the Government to intervene in this way. But I reiterate that the absence of any provision for job seekers is to be regretted.
      The amendments closely follow the wording of other areas of employment law dealing with job discrimination, and are therefore not new in any sense—the idea behind them is well established. There is nothing unworkable, unsound or unsatisfactory about them. They are drafted so as to allow employers to recruit employees for Sunday-only working. We are aware that we do not want to encourage unnecessary applications to industrial tribunals. Their workload is already heavy and they are already under pressure. We do not want to add to it by creating bogus cases. We have thus recognised that if an employer wants to recruit people solely to work on Sundays, he should be free to do so—the amendments would not prohibit him from doing that.
      We do say, however, that if the employer imposes a condition of Sunday working when the work itself is not exclusively related to Sunday, that constitutes an unfair industrial practice that can generate a claim before an industrial tribunal.
      If the Government respond to these amendments by saying that they will result in unnecessary claims before tribunals—bogus claims motivated by a desire merely to get compensation—we say that that argument is incorrect and cannot be substantiated. Of course, such arguments can always be deployed; we simply do not accept that they are sustainable in this case.
      It is clear, I hope, from the amendments that compensation under new clause 4—if it becomes part of the Bill—will be in line with existing employment protection ceilings. There may be argument about whether those are adequate, but it should be borne in mind that, under these proposals, the tribunal will have discretion as to the remedies that it awards in a successful case. We do not prescribe a manadatory award of compensation for every case brought under this part of the schedule. We merely say that the tribunal can make an order declaring
      308
      the rights of the parties, if it thinks fit, or can in addition make an award of compensation, subject to the ceiling set out in section 75 of the Employment Protection Act 1975.
      If the Government argue that the amendments will impose unnecessary costs on employers, we will argue that that cannot be sustained. As I have said, we borrow the concept of compensation from unfair dismissal legislation in Government proposals. We have applied that concept to job seekers who are discriminated against solely because they decline to work on Sundays.
      We are also conscious of the fact that there is always a problem with the burden of proof before industrial tribunals. The Government's White Paper clearly stated their concern that there will be frivolous applications—that people will allege that they were not offered employment because they would not work on Sundays, and that that will generate new and troublesome litigation. We are conscious of that problem and have tried to deal with it in the amendments.
      New clause 4 involves the burden of proof as it relates to job advertisements. The new clause will assist the applicant who alleges that he or she is being discriminated against on the basis of Sunday working. It is always difficult to assess the burden of proof in discrimination cases. It would be misleading for Ministers to say that the law on discrimination itself is an invitation for people to bring claims to industrial tribunals. We are aware of the problems surrounding the burden of proof and have tried to deal with them fairly in the amendments.
      5 pm
      A careful perusal of the amendments and new clause 4 should lead all hon. Members to the same conclusion—that they are necessary to fill a gap in schedule 4. If it is acceptable to protect existing and future employees, why is it not acceptable to protect job seekers or job applicants? In principle, there should be no distinction between the protection afforded those three groups. If the two groups—future and existing employees—are to be protected, the third group—job seekers—should also have access to that protection.
      The amendments are sensible and well considered. They are designed, rightly, to improve the job prospects of people in the labour market for retail work. They are designed to recognise the special ethical and social considerations that properly apply to Sunday working. Opposition Members do not regard it as acceptable that people seeking work in shops should be discriminated against if they do not choose to work on Sunday. That is an illogical, unacceptable and immoral proposal, which the House should not be prepared to accept.
      I hope that common sense and fairness will prevail in the debate. I hope that Conservative Members, particularly Ministers, will tell their supporters that the amendments make sense, fill a gap in the schedule and should be supported. I hope that Ministers will give the amendments sensible and reasoned consideration. I hope that they will not fall back on the empty arguments and windy rhetoric of the White Paper, which tried to argue that debate on employment protection in schedule 4 was unworthy. Job applicants are clearly deserving of employment protection. We recognise that principle in other sectors, and there is no logical reason why it should not apply to job applicants.
      I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Conservative Members, to show fairness and support the amendments.
      Mr. Alton: I strongly support the case of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who advanced a logical and compelling argument. I hope that the Minister will save us time by saying that he accepts the logic of the argument—I can see that the Minister is shaking his head. In doing so, he gives the game away. If the Government are not prepared to extend something as reasonable as the provision to prospective job hunters, what is the legislation about? It must involve the same subject as yesterday's debate—total deregulation of the market and the removal of the last vestige of protection from employees. It should be seen in that context.
      A report by Kevin Brown appeared in the Financial Times on 7 December 1993. It stated:
      "A former employee of a London menswear chain claimed yesterday that he had been forced to accept a contract requiring him to work on Sundays against his will.
      The claim follows earlier allegations that leading retailers such as J. Sainsbury have put pressure on employees to work on Sundays."
      The report continued
      "Mr. Matthew Phillips, a former supervisor for the Mister Byrite chain, said he had been given an hour to sign a contract making Sunday a normal working day.
      The revised contract stipulates that Sunday is the first day of the working week, and that employees will be paid at the company's normal rates.
      Mr. Phillips, who left the company voluntarily in April, said he signed the contract because he was told he would be made redundant if he refused.
      The details of Mr. Phillips' contract were confirmed by Mister Byrite, which says that 350 other employees accepted the changes without complaints."
      Presumably, those employees were fearful of losing their jobs if they did not accept the changes.
      The report continued
      "Mr. Mick O'Connor, general manager, said the contracts were issued to put all employees on similar terms when it became 'obvious' that the group would have to trade on Sundays to protect its market share.
      Mr. O'Connor denied that employees had been forced to sign the contract. He said, however, that Mr. Phillips was told that he should reconsider his future in retailing if he refused to sign."
      That case is borne out by a letter that I received this week from a Mr. Turner of Harbledown road, Sanderstead in Surrey. He wrote
      "My son, who is aged 17 and still at school, has a part time job at Allders department store in Croydon. They have asked him on several occasions to work on a Sunday, but he has refused. However, they are now preparing for Sunday trading and have asked him to sign a new contract under which he agrees to work on Sunday if asked".
      He has been told that
      "if he refuses they have the right to dismiss him."
      We know what the law is supposed to do, and we know that various voluntary arrangements are supposed to apply to existing employees. If they do not stand for existing employees, what chance have prospective applicants—the group that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is trying to protect? The incorporation of the new clause is vital if Sunday working is to remain a voluntary activity. There is no point in granting protection from discrimination to employees once they are in work, as the Government have already done, if similiar protection is not also granted to prospective employees. The new clause would grant that necessary protection.
      The Government have made concessions on employment protection for future retail employees that mean that people starting new jobs in the retail sector will have the
      310
      right not to work on Sundays if they choose not to do so. Those concessions will be rendered worthless unless the new clause wins the support of the Committee today.
      Hon. Members have made it perfectly clear that, whether or not they favour widespread Sunday trading, they want any work done on Sundays to be undertaken by willing volunteers who have freely chosen to give up a common day off with their families and friends. Without the sort of protection that the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend, it will be impossible to meet that objective.
      Hon. Members are surely agreed that freedom to choose a common day off should be enduring. The Committee accepts the principle of providing some protection to the 2·2 million retail workers currently employed in the retail sector. We must not forget that the retail sector has an extremely high turnover of staff. Each and every year between 20 and 40 per cent. of retail employees change jobs. Given that fact, there is no point in protecting future employees from discrimination once they have started work if they can be discriminated against while they are applying for jobs. Any job applicant expressing a desire not to work on Sundays will be rejected out of hand, as the letter from which I have quoted shows.
      With so many people on the dole at present, employers who open on Sundays will undoubtedly choose the most compliant and submissive applicants. Unless the new clause wins the support of the Committee, everyone who applies for a retail job in future, and who does not want to work on Sundays, will not stand a chance of obtaining work. Job applicants will be forced to renounce their right to a common day off with their families. They will be sorely tempted to lie about their intention not to work on Sundays, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said.
      Is that the sort of society that we want to create? Do we want people to tell a pack of lies in order to obtain a job because they know that that is the only way that they can gain access to the employment market? If they lie they will have a far better chance of obtaining a job, and once they have the job they can give notice of their intention not to work on Sundays and acquire the protected-employee status which the Government say will be available under the legislation. If it is logical to provide that protection once someone is employed, why is it not logical to do so in advance?
      There is a serious danger that the Bill, as it stands, could become a charter for liars, so that people resort to dishonesty merely to secure a job. The new clause will do away with that danger and ensure that Sunday working remains voluntary—the principle that all hon. Members are supposed to accept.
      Unless people who change their jobs or who apply for a job for the first time are given statutory protection against discrimination, within a few years only a tiny fraction of retail workers will still be able to enjoy a common day off with family and friends, without fear of discrimination or dismissal. The Government are aware of that. Many Conservative Members who supported the total deregulation option have a secret agenda, which they revealed in yesterday's debates and which they are determined to force through regardless of any paper-thin assurances that are incorporated in the Bill.
      That is a dreadful prospect for Britain's shopworkers, families and communities. New clause 4 would prevent that dreadful prospect from becoming reality and I hope that it will commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The amendment is important. I believe strongly that it particularly affects women who wish to return to work after having a family. On one matter, however, I take issue with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I do not believe that people who decline on principle to work on Sundays would succumb to the temptation to lie. We would be catching, so to speak, decent people twice over because they would not lie to preserve their jobs. All those who value family life and the principle of Sunday should vote for the amendment and I shall most emphatically do so.
      Ms Eagle: After spending many hours on the Bill in Committee, I feel somewhat relieved that we have finally reached the meat of the Bill. Some hon. Members who voted for partial deregulation were uncertain about what the final terms of the Bill would be and how we would vote on Third Reading. Until we finish debating schedule 4, which should have been considered at the beginning of the process, some of us will still not know how to vote on the Bill as a whole.
      Amendment No. 64 is the first in a series of important amendments that will allow us to decide whether the provisions of schedule 4 offer adequate and meaningful protection for those who may be required to work on Sunday.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that two considerations guide them in the matter. The first, on which the House has agreed, is that all Sunday working should remain voluntary. The amendments deal with that principle. The second, which we shall debate later, is that there should be a proper reward for Sunday working.
      In considering the amendments, we should decide whether retail workers who may be required to work on Sunday have entirely voluntary contracts. I shall not be as uncharitable to Ministers as some of my hon. Friends about the worker protection provisions of schedule 4. I served on the Committee that considered the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill last year and fought a constant battle to avoid the stripping down of worker protection. I therefore find the worker protection provisions in schedule 4 a revelation. They show how much pressure the Sunday shopping lobby has put on the Government to provide reasonable protection and to enable shops to open on Sundays.
      I do not object to shops opening on Sundays, but the crux of the decision is that Sunday working should be voluntary and that proper employment protection should be available to those who will be asked to work on Sunday.
      One difficulty is that, after 15 years of union-bashing legislation, which has weakened employee rights and protection, we are attempting to add employment protection measures to employment legislation that offers workers weak protection. Another difficulty is that we are having to fit employment protection measures into a complex system of employment law, to which many of my hon. Friends have referred. Workers face difficulty in claiming their rights. That is the background to the amendments.
      The Bill offers existing and future employees two statutory protection measures on voluntary working. Those measures pose some difficulties and I shall comment on how effective they are when we discuss schedule 4. New clause 4 deals with a new category of workers: job seekers
      312
      and potential workers. It aims to provide them with the same protections as the Bill provides existing workers and those who will work on Sunday.
      5.15 Pm
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, the Bill offers no protection against discrimination for job seekers. That gaping hole must be plugged if the legislation is to have any credibility and to offer reasonable protection for retail workers.
      I agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who reminded us of the high turnover of staff in the retail sector, which makes useless the protection for existing workers. The protection offered by schedule 4 will apply only to a certain percentage of the retail work force. Until we plug the gap, people who leave retail jobs or start new ones will have no effective protection. That will be the position for a large percentage of workers in the retail sector.
      We should not pretend that we have reasonable protection for workers and are offering retail workers a choice if they will not be employed because they are riot prepared to work on Sundays. Although we have had concessions from the Government, they will not be worth much if the gap is not plugged. Turnover in the retail industry is an important factor.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, the way in which current anti-discrimination law works provides a reasonable model for ensuring that job seekers have the protection that we are seeking to extend to existing and future shop workers.
      Another group of workers is covered neither by the amendments nor the Bill. I should be interested in the Minister's interpretation of the Bill because I may be wrong about that. The new protections and statutory rights against dismissal and detriment appear to protect existing and future shop workers who opt out, but contract workers, who might be described as freelance, casual workers and who might be on one of the new zero-hour contracts to which I referred earlier, and those workers whose service is interrupted for reasons other than maternity leave, will not be protected. I may be misunderstanding the Bill and I should be more than happy to be corrected on the matter, but many workers who may be described as self-employed are increasingly casual, freelance workers. As a result of deregulation in the labour market, they form an increasingly large percentage of that market and I am not certain that they are covered by the Bill. I should appreciate clarification of that matter.
      If we are to make the Bill stick and if we are to be able to say that we have reached a genuinely good compromise, one that can be supported by shop workers and by Labour Members who are desperately worried about the pressure that might be brought to bear on a deregulated and often un-unionised work force—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady keeps referring to Labour Members, but she should know that appealing to her colleagues is not enough—she needs to attract some Conservative Members to her side.
      Ms Eagle: It is for Conservative Members to decide what they think is right when they come to vote. I was saying that Labour Members are especially worried about appropriate and proper employment protection. One has only to consider the Government's record to realise that the Conservatives have not always covered themselves in

      313
      glory in this respect. The hon. Lady will doubtless make up her own mind, but I hope to see her with us in the Lobby tonight.
      We shall make the Bill stick and I shall vote for it on Third Reading only if we can tell our constituents that the protections granted under schedule 4 are genuine, enforceable and easily usable by a work force who are often vulnerable, un-unionised and perhaps working in small companies where they are unsupported by colleagues. They may be unsure of their rights and unable to go to experts for help. We must be able to prove to ourselves and our constituents that the protections in schedule 4 are workable. I shall not vote for the Bill on Third Reading unless I am satisfied that that is the case.
      One way of proving that the protections are workable would be to plug the hole that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness has sought to plug with the excellent amendment. I hope, too, that we shall receive assurances on a range of other issues that I should not even dream of mentioning at this stage because I know that you would leap up and rule me out of order instantly, Mr. Morris.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance about contract workers and casualised workers and that the Committee will realise the crucial nature of the amendment and support it so that we can extend to job seekers and the hundreds of thousands of people who regularly change jobs in the retail sector the choice of whether to work on Sundays.
      Mr. John Marshall: I shall be brief, but I wish to reiterate the concern of all hon. Members that people should not be forced to work on Sundays against their conscience.
      I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). As he knows, I sympathise with him on some issues, but that is not the case today. He said that if someone went to a job interview and said that he did not want to work on a Sunday for reasons of conscience he would not be employed. That is absolute twaddle. He should know by now that one of the greatest problems in the retail trade is the fact that a certain amount of wastage is caused by employees helping themselves to some of the stock at the end of the day.
      If someone told a retailer that he was a dedicated Christian and therefore did not want to work on a Sunday but promised to give value for money on the other days, I happen to believe that the retailer would appoint him because he would know that he was honest and a man of integrity. I should have thought—[Laughter.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) does not believe that people want to employ men of integrity and honour. I should have thought that that was exactly—
      Ms Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the Committee to accept the bizarre suggestion that integrity can be found only among those who practise the Christian religion? How can he say that in view of the many other religions practised in this country?
      Mr. Marshall: I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady's comment because, as she knows, I have said many times that the precepts of the Torah are equally as good as those of the New Testament. If someone says he is a Christian
      314
      and can be trusted, his word is worth something, but people of other religions can be trusted equally. It is wrong to assume that people with a particular religious faith about which they feel strongly do not on the whole tend to be honest and honourable employees whom anyone would be happy to employ.
      Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman accused me of speaking twaddle. I have heard some strange things in the House over the years, but what he said leaves me virtually speechless—but not entirely speechless, he will be glad to learn. Is he seriously suggesting—if he is, it is an extraordinary slur—that only a certain group of shop owners are honest and likely to be trustworthy? I was talking about applying for a job. If a candidate for a job told an employer that he was not prepared to work on Sundays, does the hon. Gentleman think that he would get the job, bearing in mind the current state of the job market in which many people are chasing every position?
      Mr. Marshall: I did not say that all shopworkers were dishonest. I said that one of the retail industry's problems was that some shopworkers were dishonest and that, as a result, a certain amount of produce disappeared through the back door at the end of the day without being paid for.
      Ms Jackson: Surely the Bill has been introduced because of the basic dishonesty—to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase—of the people who manage the retail industry. It is the management of the large shops who break the law.
      The Chairman: Order. The amendment is not about slippage.
      Mr. Marshall: There may be a certain amount of shrinkage.
      Let us consider the Sunday employment pattern in the retail industry. The vast majority of those who now work on Sundays do so voluntarily. Some shops have so many volunteers that they have to draw up a roster.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I know that he is having a rough ride. I do not ask him to give way merely to interpret the flow of his thoughts. He seems to be suggesting that employers will find it possible to staff their shops with volunteers on Sundays and will therefore be willing to employ someone who refuses to work on a Sunday. I know of a director of a shop that sells china and glassware in my constituency. He happens to be a committed Christian and, although he broadly supports the Keep Sunday Special stance, he said:
      "We are wary of legal protection for shopworkers who choose not to work on Sundays since, if we are forced to open on Sundays through continuing to lose so much business, we will need to staff our shop with people with specialist knowledge and experience."
      That shop, which sells specialised goods, cannot be alone. Many shops will need to call on their staff if they are forced to open on Sundays because of competition. Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong to argue that someone who says at an interview that he or she refuses to work on Sundays will not be jeopardising his or her chances of employment.
      Mr. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remarkably concise intervention. If one considers the shops that open on Sundays at the moment—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Cheats.
      Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene? If so—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was defining those who open on Sundays as cheats.
      Mr. Marshall: Perhaps the small shops that the hon. Lady supports, which have been opening for a long time, have been cheating and other shops have decided to emulate their behaviour.
      We were talking about employee protection. We must recognise the fact that many people volunteer and many retailers currently have a queue of people waiting to work on Sundays, and are only too anxious to do so.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Hutton: The whole point of law making is to allow for unforeseen circumstances. There may well be, as the hon. Gentleman says, a surplus of workers prepared to work on Sunday now. But can he confidently say that that will always be true? In the House we should be trying to make legislation that will stand the test of time. That is the reason for the new clause and the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped it.
      Mr. Marshall: One has to look at current trends and trends over recent years to decide whether there is likely to be a sudden reduction in the number of people who want to work on a Sunday. If that happened, because of a sudden change in the attitude to Sunday working and shopping—
      Ms Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to argue that so long as there is a ready supply of people who want to work on Sundays they should not have any protection at work?
      Mr. Marshall: I did not say that. I have given way many times and that is the last interruption that I, and others, will put up with. The flow of my speech is becoming even more disjointed than it was at the beginning.
      We must accept the fact that there are many volunteers. When the people who run the retail trade make appointments they look for individuals of integrity. If someone said that he would not work on Sundays, most employers would say, "That guy"—or that lady—"is a person of integrity and that is the sort of person whom I want to employ."
      Mrs. Wise: As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) said, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) had a rough ride. I now want to comment on what he said from a different point of view. If he thinks that in general employers would not discriminate against a job seeker because they would regard a person with scruples as an honest person of integrity and probity, why does he resist the amendment?
      The hon. Gentleman cannot say that nobody would be discriminated against. He may say that it would not happen to the majority, but what about the minority? He may suggest that if only a few people are involved the problem does not matter—but we do not frame our other laws in that way. A very small minority of people are murdered, but we still have laws against murder, to protect people. We must press the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for a better reason for resisting the amendment. We are not trying to
      316
      forecast how often the amendment would take effect; we are simply saying that it should be there to be used when needed.
      I shall stress briefly two other aspects of the argument. First, the high turnover in the retail trade means that over a relatively short period most of the people affected will be job seekers. There has always been an enormously rapid turnover in retailing, but that is now exacerbated by the increasing practice by some large employers of giving people only temporary contracts. Now there is a turnover of staff even when the staff are reluctant for that to happen. The fact that increasing numbers of people are being forced to seek jobs makes the amendment all the more important.
      The other important aspect is the dilemma in which people will be placed without the protection in the new clause—a dilemma that it is impossible for applicants to resolve satisfactorily. As the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, there will be those who will not stoop to lying. I think that a substantial number of people will fall into that group, because they will resent being put into the position of having to lie, and will resist the pressure. Nevertheless, they will feel the pressure and people who have failed to get a job will wonder whether they did the really moral and ethical thing if their family suffers as a result. The job may have been desperately needed.
      No applicant for work should be put in the position of either having to lie or being unreasonably refused a job. The Committee should take that matter extremely seriously. I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster that, despite the risk of losing—or rather, not gaining—the job, many people will resist the pressure to lie. But what about those who do not, those who lie to the employer because they feel that in their circumstances the pressure is irresistible? Such a person may get the job, but will not feel happy about the way in which it had to be secured.
      If, later, such a person seeks to opt out of Sunday working, he or she may be dismissed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) explained, that person may have thrown away the possibility of protection, because a tribunal may deem that, by lying, the employee had behaved in a way that justified the employer's lack of confidence in him or her. That is an outrageous gap to leave in the law, so I hope that the Minister will not resist the amendment. I consider it to be crucial if there is to be anything like fair play for people who work, or seek work, in retailing.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: The Opposition are entitled to a wry smile when the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) berates us for failing to beguile other Conservative Members into voting for the new clause.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boateng: If I may first finish what I was saying, I shall happily give way.
      We are entitled to a wry smile when the hon. Lady makes that allegation against us, because we are entitled to look to her to use her handbag effectively to ensure that other Conservative Members go through the Lobby with her in support of the new clause. She could begin with her handbag on the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—a man who needs handbagging if any man ever did.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was objecting to the way in which the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) put her argument. If I may say so again, if the shopworkers had not ratted on us at the previous vote we should not have been in this position—and they were on the Opposition side.
      Mr. Boateng: We can be forgiven for pulling the hon. Lady's leg a little, because tonight we shall find ourselves in the unusual position of being in the Lobby together. For a moment—the briefest of moments—that makes one rethink one's position, but having done so one continues to be determined to support the amendment, because it goes to the heart of the Bill.
      The response of the hon. Member for Hendon, South, the champion of the deregulators, was interesting. He believes that there should be no regulation whatever of the retail or any other trade and last night he went through the Lobby with enthusiasm to vote for deregulating trading on every other day of the week. When the amendment smokes such people out, the real agenda of all too many proponents of the Bill becomes clear. It is to enable those who control the retail trade to be able to pick and choose who they employ.
      It has been amazing to watch the Minister throughout the debate and to read what he and his officials have had to say over many months in relation to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness. It is intriguing that the Government, so wedded to the market, can be so blind to its reality. The reality of the labour market is that people are desperate for work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) pointed out, the reality of the labour market in the retail sector especially is that job applicants are many and there is a constant turnover of staff. At any one time, there is a great pool of applicants looking for work in that sector. Unless we pass the amendment and give those people some protection at least, everything else that we do will count for nothing.
      In any event, employment protection in the Bill is fraught with difficulties and hazards. Anyone seeking to bring any case before an industrial tribunal for whatever reason suffers a number of hurdles which they must overcome—not least the hurdles of representation, of having to pay for the tribunal in the absence of legal aid and of the burden of proof stacked against the applicant. To deny a whole sector of people who are applying for jobs and who are desperate for protection is a shame and undermines the whole basis of what our deliberations should be concerned with—enshrining and protecting the voluntary element.
      What prevents an employer from asking the following question among a number of others on an application form:
      "Have you a conscientious objection to working on Sunday?"
      Under the present Bill, as unamended, there is nothing to stop an employer asking that. If a person answers that question in the affirmative, do those who support the Bill as unamended believe that that person would be employed? It beggars belief.
      In response to the explanation by the hon. Member for Hendon, South of his opposition to the amendment, one has to say "get real". Out there, the reality is that there is no way in a million years that one would get the job if one answered affirmatively. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those persons who discriminate against an applicant because that applicant has answered in the
      318
      affirmative are brought to book. We must ensure that there is a genuine remedy if the people who have determined their right—it should be a right not to work on Sunday—are discriminated against. If they are discriminated against, those responsible for the discrimination must be made to pay.
      If we cannot accept the amendment, all the fine words, pious utterances, hopes and aspirations that we shall hear from Conservative Members will count for nothing.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Bayley: The Bill was given a Second Reading on the clear understanding that no shopworker would face discrimination if he or she refused to work on a Sunday. That anti-discrimination commitment was not what the Government wanted. They wanted protection for existing shop workers, but no protection for future shop workers. The Government's consultation document in July said:
      "The Keep Sunday Special Campaign, the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform have each made their own separate proposals about the new employment rights which they believe should accompany reform of Sunday trading. All have proposed that both existing and future workers in the retail sector should be protected against victimisation for refusing to work on Sundays. The Government does not believe this is the right approach."
      That was the Government's view last summer. They hoped that shopworkers' rights to decline to work on Sundays would wither on the vine as a result of the turnover of jobs. For tactical reasons, the Government sought to make a commitment to people who already worked in shops, but hoped that that commitment would soon disappear.
      Of course, I acknowledge that the Government have been forced, because of the views expressed in the House and because of the desire expressed by their own Back Benchers, to provide more protection. However, the Government did not want to extend protection to future employees. They did not have their heart in it, but they felt obliged to provide it to enable the passage of partial deregulation through the House.
      The point raised by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is crucial. If we do not protect job applicants from discrimination if they do not want to work on Sunday, the protection of shopworkers who have a conscientious objection to working on a Sunday will not be worth the paper on which it is printed. Any person with a conscientious objection to working on Sunday will simply not be employed.
      The extension of protection which the Government have offered and which they have used to convince hon. Members—largely Conservative Members—to give the Bill a Second Reading and a fair wind through Parliament will not provide the protection expected. More protection needs to be given—to job applicants, which the amendment seeks to do.
      The case put forward by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was incredible. He asserted that if an employee told an employer that he or she was not prepared to work on Sunday in the full knowledge that making that statement would put him or her at some disadvantage, he would be employed regardless because the consideration of whether the employer would have flexibility to employ him on a Sunday would pale into insignificance beside the fact that the individual had answered the question honestly. One could apply the same argument to an employer asking

      319
      whether somebody had the technical qualifications, or GCSEs or A-levels or the degree for the job. If an employee said that he would like a job as a doctor but did not have the qualifications, would the employer employ him or her on the strength of their honesty? Of course not. That applies to other jobs too. If a shop employer sought somebody who was numerate to count the money in the till and required the employee to have a GCSE in mathematics and the employee said that he did not have that qualification, would the employer consider that it did not matter because, although that person was not the ideal employee, he was honest and he would give him the benefit of the doubt? Of course not.
      The hon. Member for Hendon, South suggested that there would never be cases in which people would decline to work on Sunday and, as a result of declining, would be refused a job in retailing. I have received numerous letters from people in my constituency suggesting that that is quite simply not the case. I shall give one example. Rev. Ian Souter of Acomb Methodist church told me:
      "I heard of two cases where people applying for jobs in retail outlets in the York area were asked at interview whether they were willing to work on Sundays and when both refused they did not get the job."
      The normal expectation of people who honestly tell an employer that they have other things that they would like to do on Sunday will be that they will not get the job.
      Conservative Members have said that an amendment that would give protection to potential employees is unworkable. But the people who will have to make it work are the shop owners and the shop owners do not think that it is unworkable. The Government's consultation document states that Keep Sunday Special, the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which represents big multiple chain stores such as Woolworth, Tesco, Sainsbury, B and Q and Comet, and Retailers for Shops Act Reform, which represents the clothes shops, Marks and Spencer and so on, all argued for protection for existing and future employees. Paragraph 20 of the consultation document says:
      "The Shopping Hours Reform Council have suggested that people who choose not to do retail work on Sundays should not be discriminated against in recruitment."
      Even the people who want deregulation—the Shopping Hours Reform Council—say that they can work such provision. As they are the people who would have to work it, there is no reason whatever why the Government cannot give them the opportunity of making it work. It will not be an obligation on them: if they feel that it is workable. they will make it work. I hope that the Government will give the shop owners the opportunity to let that happen.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: The amendment and the new clause would prevent a retailer who is seeking to fill a job that involves some Sunday work from ruling out an otherwise qualified applicant simply on the ground that that applicant objected to working on Sunday.
      I strongly sympathise with a number of the amendments on the amendment paper and I can see that there is something to be said for most of the amendments that we shall be discussing today—even where I disagree with them. I hope that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who spoke with great clarity and had obviously put a considerable amount of thought into the proposal, will not take it amiss if I say that the present amendment and new clause fall into neither category.
      The hon. Members who have spoken and I have a very different perception of the problem that the proposals seek
      320
      to tackle. We differ both over whether it is a problem and over what might reasonably be done about it. It seems to me unreasonable and impracticable to oblige an employer to recruit someone knowing that he is not willing to do the job or part of the job. It is the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who has to get real here: it is quite reasonable for an employer to recruit people who want to do the whole job.
      The amendment and new clause would require the retailer to ignore the needs of his business, and that is not an obligation that the law should place on an employer. It would mean that an employer would have to choose between his duty to his business—if that involved Sunday working and he wished to employ people who would work on a Sunday—and trying to obey the letter of the law.
      Not all retail shops will open on a Sunday and shops that do not will not be particularly interested in whether an applicant wants to work on a Sunday—indeed, they may have to disappoint a prospective shop worker by saying that there is no opportunity for Sunday work, in which case the applicant will either have to choose to do the job without Sunday work or go elsewhere. Moreover, sorne retailers will open on a Sunday but will not want their staff to work on Sunday: they may want to strike a different balance, or they may already have enough people who are willing to work on Sunday. Where an employer needs to staff his shop for a Sunday, however, it seems to me wholly unreasonable and wholly impracticable to ask him to pass over an applicant who will work on Sunday in order to take one who will not.
      Mr. Hutton: The Minister has not understood the impact of the amendment, whose purpose is not to oblige an employer to take someone on but to prevent an employer from using an objection to Sunday working as a reason for not taking someone on. An opt-out from Sunday working is available in respect of existing and prospective employees, but if the Minister does not accept the amendment he will be driving a coach and horses through it because the employer will in effect be able to make Sunday working mandatory in respect of all new and further recruitment. Is not that the reality?
      Mr. Lloyd: That is one reason why I am somewhat sceptical about the protections in the schedule—although I have never been unsympathetic to the idea. 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 be 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, circumstances of obligation to other relations or the arrival of children. That is what the protections are intended to achieve. They are not intended to convey to retailers the message that they may open on a Sunday but that they may not open their eyes to the question whether the applicant in front of them is interested in working on Sunday or not.
      What the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness asks for is absurd. I understand why he asks for it, however, because what is behind the amendment and his concern is that, if more shops open on Sunday than do at present, more retailers will want to ensure that they can staff their shops on Sunday, so there will be a tendency to look for

      321
      more recruits who will be willing to work on a Sunday. The hon Gentleman and I do not Know how far that tendency will go because none of us can tell how the retail trade will evolve. I am quite certain that all retailers will not want all their employees to be ready to work on Sunday. As I said, I think that some applicants will be disappointed that there will be no Sunday work.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's apprenhension, which is that the retail trade will become a little more like the catering trade, the police, the transport industry, journalism and television—all those other occupations where some Sunday work has to be carried on if those services are to be provided. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can honestly write such protections into the law because they would place quite unreasonable obligations on employers. Indeed, from the way in which he described the amendment in his intervention, I am not even sure whether he fully supports its meaning. I will not provoke the hon. Gentleman into intervening again. I suspect that we will not reach a joint view of the problem—if it is a problem—or of the solution to it.
      The parallels that the hon. Gentleman and others draw with the law outlawing race and sex discrimination are quite spurious. Those laws prevent an employer from rejecting on irrelevant grounds of sex or ethnicity an applicant who can and would do a job perfectly well. The amendment would require an employer to take on an employee who manifestly could not or would not do an essential part of the job. That is why I must ask my hon. Friends to reject it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 274, Noes 302.

      Division No. 113]

      [6.00pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Caborn, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Alton, David

      Canavan, Dennis

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cann, Jamie

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clelland, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bell, Stuart

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benton, Joe

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cousins, Jim

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Cox, Tom

      Betts, Clive

      Cryer, Bob

      Blair, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Boateng, Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Boyes, Roland

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bradley, Keith

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davidson, Ian

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

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Burden, Richard

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

      Byers, Stephen

      Denham, John

      322

      Dewar, Donald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dixon, Don

      Leighton, Ron

      Dobson, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Lewis, Terry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Litherland, Robert

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Livingstone, Ken

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Eastham, Ken

      Loyden, Eddie

      Enright, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McCartney, Ian

      Fatchett, Derek

      Macdonald, Calum

      Faulds, Andrew

      McFall, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McKelvey, William

      Fisher, Mark

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McLeish, Henry

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McMaster, Gordon

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      McWilliam, John

      Fraser, John

      Madden, Max

      Fyfe, Maria

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Galloway, George

      Mahon, Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mandelson, Peter

      Garrett, John

      Marek, Dr John

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Martlew, Eric

      Godsiff, Roger

      Maxton, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Meacher, Michael

      Gordon, Mildred

      Meale, Alan

      Graham, Thomas

      Michael, Alun

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Milburn, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hain, Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hall, Mike

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hanson, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hardy, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Harvey, Nick

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Henderson, Doug

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hoey, Kate

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Olner, William

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hutton, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Ingram, Adam

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jowell, Tessa

      Redmond, Martin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Reid, Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Rogers, Allan

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rooney, Terry

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      323

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dennis

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tyler, Paul

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Short, Clare

      Wallace, James

      Simpson, Alan

      Walley, Joan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wareing, Robert N

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

      Watson, Mike

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

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wise, Audrey

      Spellar, John

      Wray, Jimmy

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Straw, Jack

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Churchill, Mr

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clappison, James

      Alexander, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Congdon, David

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Ashby, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Atkins, Robert

      Couchman, James

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Cran, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Day, Stephen

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bates, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dicks, Terry

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dover, Den

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Duncan, Alan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Booth, Hartley

      Dunn, Bob

      Boswell, Tim

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, Andrew

      Elletson, Harold

      Bowis, John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bright, Graham

      Evennett, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Faber, David

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Burns, Simon

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Burl, Alistair

      Forman, Nigel

      Butcher, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Butler, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Butterfill, John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      French, Douglas

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Cash, William

      Gallie, Phil

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Chapman, Sydney

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      324

      Garnier, Edward

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gorst, John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham, Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heald, Oliver

      Norris, Steve

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hendry, Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Paice, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Pawsey, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pickles, Eric

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

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Richards, Rod

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knapman, Roger

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knox, Sir David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Legg, Barry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lightbown, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Spring, Richard

      Lord, Michael

      Sproat, Iain

      Luff, Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Maclean, David

      Stephen, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Madel, Sir David

      Streeter, Gary

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sumberg, David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Malone, Gerald

      Sykes, John

      Mans, Keith

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      325

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Thomason, Roy

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wells, Bowen

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Whitney, Ray

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Trend, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Wolfson, Mark

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wood, Timothy

      Viggers, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Walden, George

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Derek Conway.

      Ward, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 17, line 17, after 'etc.)' insert 'or
      (aa) the reasons the relations ceased to be so governed was that the employee was dismissed and the dismissal was unfair within the meaning of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.
      As published, the Bill does not expressly cover those who may be unlawfully dismissed before the date of enactment and subsequently reinstated or re-engaged. In the case of people who are unlawfully dismissed, such reinstatement does not happen very often. Nevertheless, the Bill as printed puts question marks over whether it would cover such people, through the rules of reinstatement and re-engagement. We have tabled the amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us whether that is the case.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can understand why the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and his hon. Friends have tabled the amendment. If I follow what the hon. Gentleman said and what the amendment appears to do, the fear is that a ruthless employer could deprive employees of their right to protective status by dismissing them the day before, or shortly before, the schedule comes into effect, and re-employing them afterwards.
      I doubt very much whether there is any prospect of that. However ruthless an employer is, he will know that his technically new employees will be able to opt out lawfully in three months. He will have gained very little, except to put himself at risk of having to pay compensation for the earlier unfair dismissals, should they be taken to a tribunal.
      The employee has further protection in that, whatever was agreed verbally or in writing before the schedule, the employee will enjoy the protected right not to work on Sunday from day one. That reminds me of a case to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred a couple of debates back.
      I do not believe that there is any need for the amendment, but I can imagine the hon. Gentleman asking why the Government do not simply accept it. My reply would be that, apart from the legislator's normal and sensible instinct not to overload Acts with unnecessary provisions, I believe that the amendment, as currently phrased, would extend the status of protected shopworker to anyone who had been unfairly dismissed from shop work for anything connected with Sunday working. That
      326
      would be the case even if the dismissal had occurred years ago, and compensation had been paid to an individual who might have embarked on a different form of livelihood.
      I do not think that there are any loopholes, but I will look at the matter again. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley or any of his hon. Friends want to come and discuss the point or any specific worry that I have not covered, I shall be happy to talk to them. Like them, I want the protections provided in schedule 4 to be real and effective, without any loopholes.
      Mr. Barron: On that basis, I shall not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 17, line 28, after 'states' insert
      'that he wishes to work on Sunday or'.
      This is a small change, but it is worth remarking upon. Amendment No. 67 is designed to remove the possibility of a doubt arising from the wording of the opting-in notice. It does not affect the rights and protections in the schedule, but it should help to avoid possible confusion in future and make it clear that the individual who opts into Sunday work wants to work.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 17, line 35, after 'time' insert
      '(whether or not he has previously given an opting-in notice).'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 38, page 17, line 37, at end insert
      '(2A) It shall be the duty of an employer to give any person to whom this paragraph applies written notice of his right to object to Sunday working before requiring him or seeking to require him to work on Sunday at any time after the commencement date.'.
      No. 45, in page 17, line 37, at end insert—
      '(2B) The statement of employment particulars given to any shop worker to whom this paragraph applies shall include a statement of the right under this Act to refuse to work on Sunday.'
      No. 46, in page 17, line 39, at end insert
      'and "statement of employment particulars" means the statement required by section 1 of the 1978 Act'.
      No. 47, in page 17, line 39, at end insert—
      '4A. It shall be a duty of an employer of any shop worker to keep displayed at all times in a place to which the shop worker has reasonable access a statement of the rights of shop workers under this Act to object to Sunday working and the means by which they may do so,'
      No. 48, in page 18, line 27, at end insert
      'and (c) no subsequent opting-out notice has been given'.
      No. 49, in page 18, line 27, at end insert—
      '5A. An employer who receives an opting-in notice from a shop worker shall, within five days of receipt of that notice or before asking him to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, whichever is the earlier, give to that shop worker a statement of his right to object to Sunday working and how to exercise that right, and a summary, in plain language, of the provisions of this Schedule as they relate to protected shop workers and opted-out shop workers.'
      Mr. Barron: Amendment No. 44 is a probing amendment. We should like to know exactly how far people can go in opting in or out of Sunday working. There seems to be little flexibility in the Bill. Someone who agreed to start working on a Sunday might change his mind at some later stage in his life, perhaps for religious or family reasons, and want to opt out of his obligation under the Bill.

      327
      The subsequent amendments in the group would give people the right to know their status and what they can and cannot do under the legislation. It is interesting that the two bodies that have argued over many months, if not years, about how Sunday trading should operate—that is, the Shopping Hours Reform Council and Keep Sunday Special—are like-minded in that they believe that those who are in Sunday employment should have the right to know exactly what it entails.
      Some of the amendments in the group require that employees be given written notice of their right to object. One amendment would put that right in their contract of employment under the 1978 legislation. Another would require—alternatively or perhaps even concurrently—that employees' rights should be displayed in their workplace. Many people at work are ignorant of their rights if those rights are not put in front of them. It seems that employers on both sides of the argument do not disagree with the purpose of the amendments.
      I should be interested to know what the Minister has to say and whether he believes that some form of right to know could be included in the Bill so that people who work on Sundays can exercise their right to opt out if they want to do so at some stage.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: Amendments Nos. 44 and 48 make explicit what the schedule is designed to deliver—a shopworker will be free to opt out of Sunday working, even if he has previously stated his willingness to work on Sundays by signing an opting-in notice. That can happen over a period in a person's shops career according to changes in his home needs, circumstances, conscience or other matter.
      I do not believe that the amendments are strictly necessary because the schedule already provides for what they would achieve. However, like the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I am keen that there should be no shadow of doubt that the rights are complete and cannot be encumbered. For once, exceptionally, I believe that it would be desirable to make the Bill so explicit that it ensures that there is no doubt in anyone's mind from the start.
      I cannot accept the wording of the amendments. The hon. Gentleman will understand that draftsmen have slightly different ways of doing these things. However, I want to reach the objective that the hon. Gentleman wants to reach and to put it on the face of the Bill that the opportunity exists, as the hon. Gentleman believes that it should, and as the schedule certainly delivers, to opt out after once opting in and then to opt in again and opt out. A person's rights are not taken away if they are used once. I want that to be clearly understood.
      Amendments Nos. 38, 45, 46, 47, and 49 are designed to ensure that retail employees are aware of their new rights. I share that objective. The right to opt out is radical and comprehensive but unusual and it will not always be fully taken on board by workers, even after the Bill has been on the statute book for some time. I do not guarantee, as I did for amendments Nos. 44 and 48, to adopt the intention of the amendments. I should like to study them more fully. I have not had long to study them. I should like to consider how best, and at what point, employers should be required to inform their staff of their rights under the schedule.
      I aim to introduce a new amendment or set of amendments on Report. I want to meet the gist of what the
      328
      hon. Member for Rother Valley wants to do. As he said, there are various amendments in the group. I should like to look at them more closely. I hope that I have satisfied hi m that my aim is not dissimilar from his. I hope that that is sufficient to persuade the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for his reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I share the sentiments expressed by the Minister and by the hon. Gentleman and those expressed in the amendments. The basic right of workers to know their entitlements and their right to protection is an obvious one. The Minister has been reasonable in his response to the amendments. I hope that he will ask his officials to draft amendments that concur with the spirit of what is sought in the amendments—the basic right to know—and that he will come back on Report or in another place determined to do that. The amendments are a much-needed improvement to the Bill. I am grateful for the tone that the Minister has adopted in answering the debate.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I share hon. Members' welcome of the Minister's statement, but I wish to press him on the issue. It is not enough to have a provision in the schedule. We are all aware of the difficulties of reading the small print. The average worker would not be in a position to read it. The employer may do so. It is important that, whatever happens, the employees' rights should be displayed in a public place so that the worker may know his or her rights, just as those of us who employ staff have to display in a public place a certificate of insurance to assure workers of their rights.
      Mr. Barron: I thank the Minister for his words about the amendments, which I take in the spirit that he said them. I am aware of the intricacies of drafting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 18, line 30, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one month'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 51, in page 18, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
      Mr. Barron: I said earlier that there was common agreement between the two competing campaigns—Keep Sunday Special and the Shopping Hours Reform Council—on the purpose of the previous group of amendments. My hon. Friends and I take the problem of notification seriously. The Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Shopping Hours Reform Council agree with the amendments and I hope that we can also get some agreement between Government and Opposition.
      I shall not go into detail about the reasons for the amendments, except to quote a notice that other hon. Members will have received from the Shopping Hours Reform Council which states:
      "We believe that three months is too long a period. It opens the door to the occasional rogue employer to threaten an occasional Sunday worker with having to work every Sunday for three months if they opt out."
      Under the circumstances, it seems that that could happen and I have no doubt that some people will say that it will happen if the Bill is enacted in its present form.

      329
      One month's notice is not unreasonable. In my experience—before I came to the House—Sunday work is normally done by agreement. If it is reasonable and practicable in most cases to shorten the amount of notice from three months to one month, that would allow us to prevent employers from forcing people to work every Sunday for three months.
      Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take the amendments seriously. I hope that both sides of the Committee will agree to accept the amendments, or something broadly similar, so that we can ensure that employers are not allowed that opportunity.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Alton: As the Bill stands, shopworkers engaged to work on Sundays may give three months' written notice to their employers that they no longer wish to do so. At the end of that time, an employee who has given such notice would no longer be obliged to work on Sundays and would acquire protected employee status under the Bill.
      As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, we must ask ourselves why the Government set a three-month notification period. Their reason is unclear. At best, it is random, irrational and has no real justification. At worst, such a long period—far longer than is necessary to serve the stated purpose—would give too great an opportunity to employers to coerce employees to work on Sundays, or even to dismiss them for refusing to do so.
      The amendment would reduce the statutory period of notice from three months to one month. A one-month period represents a better balance between the interests of shop owners and shopworkers and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would be well advised to accept it.
      From the shop owners' point of view, one month is more than enough time for them to reorder their staffing schedules. From the shopworkers' point of view, one month is a far more reasonable period to have to wait to stop working on Sundays. The inconvenience of a one-month period is minimal for employers, but the inconvenience to employees of a three-month period would be considerable.
      There are many valid and important reasons why an employee may suddenly no longer want to work on Sundays. An employee's child, spouse or elderly relative may fall sick and need extra care at the weekends, or he or she may wish to join a sports team or social club which has its main event on a Sunday.
      I am sure that hon. Members can think of many other legitimate reasons why employees may wish to stop working on Sundays as quickly as possible when their circumstances change. Putting that inconvenience to one side, a three-month wait may have more serious implications for an employee. Three months is a long time to have to resist the pressure and thinly veiled threats that will inevitably come from employers who will want all their staff to co-operate with their new Sunday opening patterns. A one-month period would mean that far fewer employees would cave in to that sort of improper pressure.
      It is only right and fair that employees wishing to exercise their right not to have to work on Sundays should have to wait only as long as is necessary for their employer to rework the staffing schedule. One month is as long as is necessary. A one-month period of notice will protect the
      330
      rights of employees without harming the interests of employers. The amendment is good and sensible for all concerned and it ought to commend itself to the Committee.
      In conclusion, I shall give some evidence for the need for employee protection. A survey of the growth of Sunday trading in Scotland, called "Scotland's Sunday under Pressure", was carried out by R. P. Lang in March 1989. It found that employees in one in four shops had no choice about Sunday working.
      We also have evidence from New Zealand, where Sunday trading was legalised in 1990. The New Zealand legislation contained—as does the Bill—several employ-ment protection guarantees, including the provision that workers could not be forced to work on Sundays and that dismissal on such grounds could be the subject of an unfair dismissal action.
      Professor Peter Brosnan, formerly reader in labour economics at the Victoria university of Wellington, has reviewed the outcome in a paper called "Liberalising Shop Trading Hours, the New Zealand Experience, 1990". He says:
      "The protections in the Act do not amount to much. Sunday trading has not become a matter of choice for workers. When a worker applies for a job in the retail industry, they are asked whether they will be prepared to work on weekends. Workers know they will only be offered the job if they say they are prepared to work … There are subtle pressures on established workers to work on weekends, too. Employers make appeals to company loyalty; not being prepared to work on weekends is a sign of 'disloyalty' … There is also the strong feeling of letting down one's co-workers. If the others do not want to work on Sundays, it seems selfish to refuse and increase the number of Sundays that others are forced to work."
      There are pressures in the workplace and there will be greater pressures as a result of the Bill becoming an Act. It is therefore incumbent on us to do all that we can to protect those people who do not wish to work on a Sunday.
      The amendment is reasonable and I hope that the Minister—in the same spirit that he showed when dealing with the last group—will accept it or will be prepared, if necessary, to return with his revised version on Report or in another place.
      Mrs. Wise: I want to reinforce the remarks that have already been made. I am curious to know why a three-month time scale has been chosen. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, it seems to be a random choice and it does not link with the timing of other things at work. For example, it is far longer than the notice that most people have to give if they want to leave a job. Most people have to give no more than one month's notice if they want to leave. Opting out of Sunday work is a much less dramatic change and it would be wrong to have that long period for no apparent reason.
      Workers are in jeopardy. We have already heard about the first sacking—or what is believed to be the first—of a shopworker for refusing to work on Sundays. I entirely agree that three months allows too much time for pressure to be exerted on a worker.
      The worker who has already been sacked is Mrs. Freda Love from the Gloucester area. It is instructive that her employer—unfortunately, the Co-op, which I deeply regret—has resolutely denied that she has been dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays. Her employer says that she has been dismissed for refusing to move to another store.

      331
      However, the proposed move would involve a journey of 20 miles for a lady who would have to use public transport, and we all know what that is like now.
      I am reluctant to give employers more time in which to devise ways of increasing coercion. It seems to me that the period of three months has no validity whatsoever and that hon. Members should vote for the amendment if the Minister does not accept it. Like other hon. Members, I hope that he will.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: Despite the remarkably unpacked Chamber, the amendments arouse particularly strong interest here, as elsewhere. I have listened carefully to the three speeches about them. It is plain to me that, despite the way in which this issue has been talked about elsewhere, it is a matter not of principle but of practicality. The principle is whether, in the special circumstances of Sunday shop work, the universal rule that a contract willingly entered into by both sides must be observed until both agree to change it. That issue was decided before publication of the Bill, which gives shopworkers the right to choose at any point in the future whether to opt in or to opt out.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) invited me to reveal the Government's thinking on the practical question of the length of notice, and the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was curious about how the Government justified the period of three months. As I said during the discussion on earlier amendments, it was plain that there was a strong desire on both sides of the Committee and among the supporters of all the options—those who want shops largely to remain shut and those who want them to be entirely free to open—that shopworkers should have a continuing choice that they do not have in respect of weekday work. There is clearly a desire that, in the case of shopworkers, Sunday should be regarded as special and that normal contract rules should not apply.
      The Government responded with schedule 4, which gives all shopworkers, present and future, the right to opt out of Sunday work at three months' notice without a detrimental effect on their weekday work. During the period of notice, no employer may pile on extra Sunday work unless the employee previously agreed to Sunday work and that is what he is resigning from. There is no way in which an employer can change previously agreed arrangements for Sunday working. Of course, an existing shopworker is able to opt out—that is not the technically correct expression—from day one.
      Mr. Ray Powell: Am I to understand it that an employer can expect an employee to work every Sunday if that person opted in, or will the employee have a right to do only occasional Sunday work?
      Mr. Lloyd: An existing shopworker will be entirely at liberty to continue to work on any Sundays that fall into the previous pattern, if he finds that acceptable. However, if he does not want to do any Sunday work at all, or if he wants to change the existing pattern, he may make the change straight away. A new employee agreeing to do some Sunday working opts in. The opting-in process involves his saying that he has no objection to Sunday work—following the debate on an earlier amendment, I intend to make the provision more positive—but that does not mean that he agrees to work on a particular Sunday or a particular series of Sundays. There must be a second agreement specifying the working Sundays or how the pattern will be
      332
      established. That is what. becomes enforceable until the employee decides to opt out. However, he must work as agreed for up to three months.
      Mr. Boateng: Does the Minister envisage that it will be possible for an employer to insert a contract clause stating that an employee must work on Sunday at the discretion of management? If so, will there be any means of preventing the management from requiring the employee to work every Sunday?
      Mr. Lloyd: That is an interesting point. If an agreement contained such a provision in the case of an opted-in worker, it might well be enforceable for at least the three months. The hon. Gentleman smiles as if to show that he has achieved an enormously effective breakthrough in argument. In the case of an existing shopworker, anything signed before the entry into force of these provisions would not be enforceable by the employer. However, the provision is much narrower than is implied by the hon. Gentleman's question and by his smile.
      6.45 pm
      Ms Eagle: I should like to raise a slightly different point. It concerns future employees, who, under this legislation, will have the right to give notice of their intention to opt out of Sunday work. My concern—I should appreciate guidance on whether my interpretation of the law is correct—is that, although, in theory, a worker could give his employer notice of his intention to opt out of Sunday work and would therefore be an opted-out worker, a relatively new employee, under current legislation, has no employment rights or protection against unfair dismissal unless he has worked for two years or five years, depending on whether he is full time or part time. What worries me is that it might be possible for an employer to dismiss a worker during the three-month period and claim that there were redundancies or fail to give a reason at all.
      Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Lady's point, on which some amendments will be discussed later tonight. The protections apply from day one. They are not like the other employment legislation, under which there must be a two-year qualifying period. Here, protection starts on the first day of employment. Of course, the notice period of three months applies. However, unfair dismissal arising from refusal to do Sunday work or from notice of intention to opt out is covered.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Many weekend jobs are done by casual workers, although some are permanent. Several of us are old enough to remember the bad old days when people could be dismissed at a moment's notice. Is the Minister satisfied that an employer could not find reasons other than unwillingness to work on Sundays for discharging a person? If an ordinary worker is required to give one month's notice, why is it necessary to introduce a period of three months for Sunday work? I find it strange that an employer can get away with one month's notice from an employee to terminate employment but the employee is required to give three months' notice to stop working on Sundays.
      Mr. Lloyd: That is part of the argument through which I am moving logically. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's second point when I come to it. On his first point, I am certain that protections exist for employees who have been dismissed or otherwise detrimentally affected in

      333
      their work because of their refusal to work on Sundays and the dismissal has been dressed up as being for some other reason. If such a case is taken to a tribunal, it can uncover whether that has happened. It is for the employee not to prove why he was proceeded against unfairly but only to show the tribunal that he was dismissed. It is then up to the employer to show the reasons for the dismissal and prove that those were appropriate to his decision to dismiss. That is how it works.
      I realise that some cases are difficult for tribunals to determine and that some employees will not always want to go to a tribunal, but I am confident that the machinery is in place to resolve those matters in that way.
      What has not been said in the debate so far, and has been largely omitted from the critical amendments that we have been discussing, is that the rights and protections in schedule 4 are radical, special and sweeping. The House should acknowledge that. The rights and protections provided by the schedule mean that shopworkers will have a continuing choice as to whether to make themselves available for Sunday work. It will be entirely up to them, so long as they give reasonable notice to their employers that, having been available, they no longer wish to be so. The matter of principle is therefore settled and is wholly in favour of employees.
      This debate is about practicalities and the schedule sets three months' notice. I now come to the point in which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was interested. Amendment No. 9 suggests that one month's notice would be sufficient. The effect of amendment No. 51 would be to require no notice at all. I am not sure whether that was its intention, but that is what it would achieve, so amendment No. 51 would not be reasonable. It would clearly be impossible for an employer to operate if he had no advance knowledge of which of his staff would turn up when he opened his shop on a Sunday. I hope that the Committee will reject that amendment, as it is not a seriously arguable proposition.
      I can see, however, the force of amendment No. 9 and the arguments used to promote it. They were buttressed in each of the speeches by Opposition Members by undertakings and quotations from major retailers in the Shopping Hours Reform Council who said that they would have no problem with one month's notice. I hope that my comments do not raise false expectations that I can accept amendment No. 9. I must make it clear that I cannot. But I accept the fact that many large shops with a lot of staff and a well-understood product range will be able to manage perfectly well with one month's notice. I suspect that some could manage with only a week's notice, but plenty of other shops, particularly small ones and those with specialised product ranges, are convinced that they could not.
      If a shop has a staff of 30 or 40 people, it can manage if four or five of them give a month's notice that they will no longer come in on a Sunday in four or five weeks' time. But if a shop employs only one or two people who need considerable experience or training, it will sometimes be impossible to make adequate replacement arrangements in a month and induct new staff properly and fully into the business.
      Opposition Members have waxed fairly eloquent on behalf of employees and, by extension, of large shops, but
      334
      they have forgotten the small specialist shops, which also have a right to have their interests taken into account. Customers of hi-fi shops expect knowledgeable advice from shop staff, as do customers buying carpets from specialist carpet shops. By contrast, customers buying groceries at a supermarket seldom need to know the answers to questions of greater technical profundity than on which shelf the baked beans are stacked.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I have tried to follow the Minister's argument. How much easier is it for small shopkeepers to replace staff who give one month's notice? It sometimes means that they are finished. If they can cope with that, why does the Minister say that they will have extreme difficulty coping with one month's notice to replace somebody for casual Sunday work?
      Mr. Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a good intervention. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill gave the answer when he described why people may want to change their arrangements for Sunday working. It must be remembered that, if they work during the week, their livelihood does not depend on Sunday working; some of their income depends on it, but they can manage perfectly well without it. The hon. Gentleman explained that they might want to join a sports club that operates on Sundays or change their pattern of activity. We all know that there are many reasons why Sunday working may become unattractive.
      When employees leave employment altogether, they are making a big decision to vacate a job that provides their livelihood. If they cease to work on one or two Sundays in a month, having worked on Sundays for the past two or three years because it suited them as they were saving for a mortgage or for some other purpose, and they now join a rugby club or some other organisation that operates on a Sunday, that is a small decision for them. The inevitable and perfectly acceptable outcome of the changes which the schedule makes is that people will make such choices at different times in their lives because of different pressures. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has given one of the major reasons why the notice period must be three months. It will be a right of which employees can take advantage when circumstances in their lives change.
      Mr. Alton: I am dumbfounded by the Minister's argument. The point that I was making was that, for all the reasons that he has adumbrated, three months is too long. One month's notice is all that is needed to achieve all the objectives that he has described. How can the Minister deduce as a logical argument the concept of hanging on for a further two months after an employee has given notice to his employer that he wants to change his working practices?
      Mr. Lloyd: There are problems for employers when employees give one month's notice, but it happens a little less often and a little less unexpectedly because an employee is making a large decision which is taken carefully. To opt in or out of Sunday working is a much smaller decision that could be taken much more frequently and possibly by many employees in a particular store at the same time. Small shops especially need the extra protection, as do specialist shops where a newcomer to the staff needs to be trained. It does not eliminate the problem for small shops, but it certainly reduces it.
      Mrs. Wise: Does the Minister realise that what he has just said amounts to an admission that choice for shopworkers is all very well so long as they do not really want to exercise it?
      Mr. Lloyd: No, I have not said that. As the hon. Lady knows, if employees want to exercise choice, they must give three months' notice. There is no question but that choice exists. At issue is the practical question of how much notice it is reasonable to give. I am sure that large shops and chains that say that one month is enough will want to be as good as their word and still seek only one month's notice from their employees. But the law must be a universal minimum with as many of those who are covered being able to manage under it. Good employers will always want to improve on that minimum. I hope that the leading employers of the SHRC who say that they can manage with less will do so. There is no compulsion for them to take three months, but if we are making a law that should suit everybody, three months is probably the most sensible and fair balance.
      7 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The Minister was speaking about specialist shops that require specific training. If I remember correctly, he spoke of shops that sold carpets. In many of those specialist shops, as well as a basic wage there is also a commission on sales achieved. The Minister is suggesting that someone must give three months' notice. When an employee is leaving, it is human nature that it will be in the shop owner's best interest to revert to the staff who are remaining or to those who are being trained possible sales that will produce a sizeable amount of commission. The Minister is advocating that, for three months, a shopworker will see his or her income reduced. A month is manageable, three months is not.
      Mr. Lloyd: Of course, it is perfectly manageable for the employee in that situation. Different shops, stores and relationships between the employer and employee may make different agreements between the employer and employee desirable or possible. We are talking about the minimum requirement of the law. The minimum requirement should have a universal validity and practicality. I do not think that one month will be sufficient for all retail outlets. As I have said, many will do better than that if better is to accept a shorter notice. That is wholly admirable. It is wholly admirable that the retail trade is thinking in terms of good practice guidelines. We are talking about the minimum. The minimum is three months, otherwise some retailers could find particular difficulties. I have already mentioned the types that could.
      I do not think that three months is a great hardship on most employees, because if they had entered a job after the changes in the law, when it was clear that there would be Sunday working, they would have known full well that it was expected of them. If they were existing workers, they would have agreed to do such time anyway; they would have agreed with the specification of how much they were to work on Sunday.
      When an employee wants to opt out, he or she often has good reasons for so doing. Those reasons are usually predictable. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, when those reasons are, for example, a sick relative or a crisis in the family, one month is far too long. What one needs is a reasonable employer, with a
      336
      reasonable agreement. I would expect all employers, particularly those with valued employees who have given them good service, to show such flexibility, which they do now and would still have to do when the notice is only one month. For the reasons that I have given, it is clear that we are not asking for the period of notice always to be three months. The law should specify that that should be the minimum demanded. If an employer and employee can arrange something less, particularly in a time of crisis, I applaud them in so doing.
      Mr. Barron: The Minister is quite right to say that existing workers will have already agreed to three months. That is because it is in the Bill. If one month were in the Bill, they would have agreed to that.
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. They do not have to agree to three months. After the measure comes into force, there is no agreement. They may stop at any time they like. It is only three months if they formally enter into an arrangement with their employer.
      Mr. Barron: The Minister started by saying in effect that a contract is usually drawn up willingly between an employer and employee, although he did not say it in exactly that way. He has spent the past five minutes reminding the Committee how the contract of employment is usually loaded against the employee, as is the Bill. I am not talking about rugby clubs in particular. I said that somebody might change to the Christian religion and suddenly want to get out of having to commit himself to continuing to work on Sunday for three months. Given that the lobbyists, who have been lobbying to change the present legislation over many years, would agree to one month, I see no justification for leaving the schedule as it stands. On that basis, the Opposition do not agree with the Minister.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 298.

      Division No. 114]

      [7.06 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

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

      Ainger, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Byers, Stephen

      Alton, David

      Caborn, Richard

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Austin-Walker, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cann, Jamie

      Barnes, Harry

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Barron, Kevin

      Clapham, Michael

      Battle, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Beggs, Roy

      Clelland, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Coffey, Ann

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Cohen, Harry

      Benton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Berts, Clive

      Corbett, Robin

      Blair, Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blunkett, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Boateng, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Boyes, Roland

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Keith

      Cryer, Bob

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      337

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Darling, Alistair

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

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

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Denham, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dewar, Donald

      Leighton, Ron

      Dixon, Don

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dobson, Frank

      Lewis, Terry

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Litherland, Robert

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Loyden, Eddie

      Eastham, Ken

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Enright, Derek

      McAllion, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McCartney, Ian

      Fatchett, Derek

      Macdonald, Calum

      Faulds, Andrew

      McFall, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McKelvey, William

      Fisher, Mark

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McLeish, Henry

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McMaster, Gordon

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      McWilliam, John

      Fraser, John

      Madden, Max

      Fyfe, Maria

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Galloway, George

      Mahon, Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mandelson, Peter

      Garrett, John

      Marek, Dr John

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Martlew, Eric

      Godsiff, Roger

      Maxton, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Meacher, Michael

      Gordon, Mildred

      Meale, Alan

      Graham, Thomas

      Michael, Alun

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Milburn, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hain, Peter

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hall, Mike

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hanson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Harvey, Nick

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Henderson, Doug

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hoey, Kate

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Olner, William

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Simon (Southward)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hutton, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ingram, Adam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jowell, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      338

      Redmond, Martin

      Stott, Roger

      Reid, Dr John

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Rendel, David

      Straw, Jack

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Rogers, Allan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dennis

      Rooney, Terry

      Tyler, Paul

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Vaz, Keith

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wallace, James

      Shearman, Barry

      Walley, Joan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wareing, Robert N

      Short, Clare

      Watson, Mike

      Simpson, Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

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

      Wilson, Brian

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

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wise, Audrey

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Cash, William

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amess, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clappison, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Ashby, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkins, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Congdon, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Couchman, James

      Bates, Michael

      Cran, James

      Batiste, Spencer

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

      Bellingham, Henry

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Body, Sir Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Booth, Hartley

      Dicks, Terry

      Boswell, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Duncan, Alan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bowis, John

      Dunn, Bob

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brazier, Julian

      Eggar, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Elletson, Harold

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burns, Simon

      Evennett, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Butler, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Butterfill, John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Forman, Nigel

      339

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forth, Eric

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Madel, Sir David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gale, Roger

      Malone, Gerald

      Gallie, Phil

      Mans, Keith

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marland, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Marlow, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mates, Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Merchant, Piers

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mills, Iain

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Harris, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Norris, Steve

      Hawksley, Warren

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hayes, Jerry

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heald, Oliver

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Page, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Paice, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Pawsey, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Richards, Rod

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jessel, Toby

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville, Tom

      Key, Robert

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Birm E'st'n)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knox, Sir David

      Sims, Roger

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Soames, Nicholas

      Legg, Barry

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Leigh, Edward

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lightbown, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lord, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      340

      Stern, Michael

      Walden, George

      Stewart, Allan

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Streeter, Gary

      Waller, Gary

      Sumberg, David

      Ward, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sykes, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Watts, John

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Whitney, Ray

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Thomason, Roy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wilkinson, John

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Willetts, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wolfson, Mark

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

      Wood, Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Trend, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Brown.

      Viggers, Peter

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Ms Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 18, line 31, at end insert—

      'Limitation on working hours on Sunday
      6A. No shop worker shall be employed on Sunday for more than eight hours and any provision in any shop worker's contract of employment or in any agreement which requires, or may have the effect of requiring, that worker to be so employed for more than eight hours is unenforceable to the extent that it so requires or may so require.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 60, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—

      'Minimum Hourly Rate of Pay
      Whether employed full or part-time including Sunday only employees, the minimum hourly rate payable to such employees for Sunday shop work before any enhancement is calculated, shall be calculated by reference to the prevailing income support benefit rate or its nearest approximate successor rate applicable to those in receipt of such benefit aged 25 years and over multiplied by three and divided by thirty-seven.'.
      No. 65, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—

      'Right to double-time payments
      9A.—(1) A shop worker working on a Sunday shall be remunerated at twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the employer of a shop worker working on a Sunday to give him a written statement of the hourly rate applicable for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above and of how that rate has been determined.
      (3) A complaint by a shop worker that he has not been remunerated as required by sub-paragraph (1) above, that he has not been given any statement required by sub-paragraph (2) above or that he is aggrieved by anything in or by any omission from such a statement may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
      (4) An individual tribunal shall not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done.
      (5) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under sub-paragraph (3) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—

      (a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and

      (b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.'.

      No. 56, in page 21, line 47, at end insert—
      '14A The extent of any failure by an employer to remunerate a shop worker as required under paragraph 9A above shall be regarded as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of that shop worker and the relevant provisions of Part I of the Wages Act 1986 shall accordingly apply in respect of that failure.'.
      No. 66, in page 22, line 10, at end insert—
      '17A. In section 136 of the 1978 Act (appeals from industrial tribunals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g), there shall be inserted the words—
      "(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".'.
      Ms Ruddock: I think that there has been some confusion in people's minds about the Bill. The option voted for by a majority of the House was six-hour trading. Many people have equated that with the idea of six-hour working, perhaps believing that those who go to work in shops on a Sunday will, if the Bill becomes law, be required to work for only six hours. Nothing could be further from the truth.
      In the larger shops, with an eight-hour trading period, it is likely that shopworkers will be in the stores serving customers for the six-hour period; but, as became clear in the Standing Committee, there would also be a need for what is termed "shopping up" at the end of the day. That could take up an extra half hour. In addition, shelves and tills will have to be prepared before the shops open to the public. Hence we can assume that the shopworkers in the larger stores, dealt with under the registration scheme in the Bill, may be working at least seven hours, and possibly longer.
      When it comes to the smaller shops, hon. Members may not have observed that there is no limit on the number of hours that they can open once the Bill becomes law. The representatives of the small shops' pressure groups have not sought to amend the Bill to impose a limit on the number of hours that they can open. It is my view that we shall have to attend to that on Report, especially in the light of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, will open the door to 24-hour trading from Monday to Saturday. There will therefore be an obvious need to put some limit on opening hours for the smaller shops on Sundays.
      This, however, is not an option in the schedule that we are considering. Our option is to amend the Bill so that there is a restriction on the number of hours that shopworkers in any sort of retail outlet can work. We have chosen a limit of eight hours, which seems to us a reasonable time for people to work. They should certainly not work longer than that. If the limit were lower, that would disadvantage workers, in that other provisions of employment protection—mean and miserable though they are under this Government—start with the basic unit of the eight-hour day. That is why we chose eight hours.
      We believe that, if hon. Members have any intention of maintaining the special nature of Sunday, they cannot possibly endorse the view that shopworkers should be at work for more than eight hours. I suggest that it will be ideological dogma on the part of the Government if the Minister cannot accept this modest, reasonable amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 65, 56 and 66 are all concerned with double-time payments. We believe it right to link double-time payments with the limit on hours that I have already discussed, for the purposes of debate. We shall,
      342
      however, decide whether to press these amendments to a vote after hearing what the Minister has to say. With your indulgence, Mr. Lofthouse, we will press for a separate Division on the amendment dealing with double-time payments—amendment No. 65.
      The First Deputy Chairman indicated assent.
      Ms Ruddock: I assume from your nod that my request will be granted, for which I am grateful.
      It is extremely important that those who go to work on a Sunday receive double-time payments. According to the spring 1992 labour force survey, about 2·3 million employees usually work on Sundays—a very large number of people, whose lives are greatly affected by their need to work on Sundays. They are, however, only 11 per cent. of all employees; 89 per cent. of employees do not work on Sundays. So for the vast majority of working people Sunday remains a special day, set apart for social, recreational and leisure purposes.
      Many of the public who support extended Sunday opening regard shopping as a leisure and recreational pursuit—a family-based option that they want on a Sunday. I am not one of those people—I can manage to do my shopping between Monday and Saturday—but I am aware of changing public attitudes, and, as responsible representatives, we must take account of them. Not only do the majority of workers not work on a Sunday: they would not choose to work on a Sunday, either. For that very reason the public are more than sympathetic to the idea that those who give up their leisure pursuits on a Sunday in order to go to work should be rewarded.
      Most people regard Sunday as a special day, which is why it seems to them, as it does to my hon. Friends and me, that it is only just that those who forgo their vital opportunities to share social pursuits with friends and family on a Sunday should get double-time payments.
      Some Conservative Members have argued that Sunday is a special day, and claim that they have voted only for partial deregulation, congratulating themselves on the employment protections in the Bill. Surely they must acknowledge that all that underlines the thesis that Sunday is a special day, and that those who go to work on it should have some recompense for the fact that they are at work.
      For a long time, Sunday has been recognised in many industries as a day of unsocial hours. When I spoke of the millions of employees who work on Sundays, I was not thinking of those who have been working illegally; I was thinking of people who legally work on Sundays. Through their trade unions, they have negotiated wages and conditions that reflect these unsocial hours. I remind the Committee that double-time payments are still extensively paid in many sectors of the economy. I understand that about 3 million local authority workers receive double-time payments, as do 500,000 NHS workers and more than 250,000 civil servants—I could add to that list.
      So there are clear precedents; double-time payments for unsocial hours, which certainly cover Sunday working, have been the norm in the past. A number of major retail employers have also paid double time. Some of them have been making those payments to workers who work perfectly legally in Scotland. Many of them have also been paying double-time wages to employees who are exempt under current law. But a considerable number—hundreds

      343
      of thousands—are working illegally on a Sunday, for whom double-time or other premium payments have been made by their employers.
      7.30 pm
      It would not be stretching the imagination too far to believe that many of those employers have cynically coerced their workers into Sunday working illegally on the basis of premium pay. They have given that inducement, and one can well understand why their employees have been willing to work on a Sunday and receive double the hourly rate of a weekday. Doubtless some employers have acted on the basis of cynical coercion. I suspect that other employers genuinely believe in rewarding workers appropriately.
      The performance of some companies is important to the debate and the way in which Ministers respond to it. Double-time payments have been made to Sunday workers by Allied Maples, Owen Owen, Victoria Wine, Presto and Lo-cost, Littlewoods, the retail co-operative societies, William Low, Safeway, and Tesco. Some of those companies, notably Safeway and Tesco, have made it clear in advance of the debate that they intend to pay the same double-time payments regardless of the debate's outcome. They are to be commended. But from the list that I have given, it will be clear that those companies are in the minority, and we want the provision to cover all companies.
      I understand from the shopworkers' union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, that other companies were once prepared to agree such arrangements but, over the years—recently, in some cases—they have reduced the premiums that they have made available to Sunday workers.
      Some companies that employ Sunday-only staff have given a worse rate of pay to those staff than to employees who work on other days of the week and voluntarily work on Sundays in addition to their normal working week. Asda, B&Q, Budgens, Gateway, Woolworth and Sainsbury all have forms of premium pay that fall short of double-time payments. That is most regrettable, as there can be little doubt that those companies are all profitable and able to reward their workers accordingly.
      We are most worried, not about the voluntary agreements already entered into, which may or may not be kept once the Bill becomes law, but about the way in which some companies have reversed their policies. In doing so, they may have begun a trend that others will follow.
      If Parliament does not intervene and legislate, the sort of action that has occurred at the Morrison supermarket group based in the north of England and the midlands may happen on a wider scale. Again, my information comes from USDAW.
      That group employs 16,000 people, about half of whom are vulnerable, part-time and casual workers. Until recently, the company refused on principle to trade illegally on Sundays. It ensured that its workers who could legally work on Sundays received double-time payments. I am sorry to say that, in recent months, that company, like others, has begun to break the law regularly and openly, and to trade illegally on Sundays.
      I have been told that, in the past few weeks, the company has given notice that it intends to roster Sundays as a normal working day for all new recruits so that Sunday working will no longer be voluntary. It also intends to abandon its commitment to double-time payments and pay
      344
      only time-and-a-fifth. It is expected to abandon that commitment as it foresees Sunday becoming just another working day.
      Those policies go against the spirit of the Bill, and against the many assurances that Ministers have given us. They are clear evidence that at least one company, in anticipating the legalisation of Sunday trading, has not been prepared to continue treating its workers properly or to recognise the voluntary principle. It is turning its back on agreements on wages and other conditions.
      Although the Minister has not jumped to his feet as I thought he would, I am sure that he will say later that, if and when the Bill becomes law, the company will be breaking the law in respect of some of the practices that I have described. The Minister will no doubt say that the company cannot avoid the voluntary principle, and will have to allow its workers to opt out if they choose to do so. He will say that, if the company puts pressure on its workers to work on a Sunday against their will, they will, under the legislation, be able to seek redress.
      I agree with the Minister on all those points, but if workers are to have real choice and can decide whether or not to work on a Sunday, the company must seek to gather a significant pool of volunteers. How can a company do that if it is only prepared to make plain-time payments on Sunday, not premium payments?
      Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the distinction between statutory premium payments and voluntary premium payments is important, not only because it ensures that the market does not drive down wage rates to unacceptable levels, but because of the new structure of employment law? That structure ensures that, if someone is sacked for asserting a statutory right, he or she has the right to go to a tribunal to seek compensation.
      That compensation would be significantly higher than would be expected if someone went to a tribunal for any other reason. Statutory premium payments would increase workers' protection against unfair and arbitrary treatment.
      Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for her most valuable and clear contribution. Everything she has said is a clear endorsement of the amendment.
      The history of the one company that I have described shows the slippery slope down which others might follow. If the Government want the Bill to reach the statute book, they should follow the example of those employers who have said that premium payments and double-time payments are acceptable and necessary to gain a pool of volunteers, and only just and fair to those who give up their time to work on a Sunday to benefit the rest of us.
      In saying in advance that they will resist the amendment, the Government fail to recognise the way in which payments and the voluntary principle are interlinked. One Sunday, I paid a private visit to the workers in one of the supermarket stores in my constituency to discuss why they were working. The majority answer was that they were working for the money. Their answer is an indictment of the society in which we live, the recession, and the fact that people are so desperate for money that they are willing to work on a Sunday.
      The workers in that Tesco store were receiving on Sunday twice the wage that they would receive on any other day of the week. For some employees, that wage is the only one they take home; for others, it represents a critical supplement to the family budget. Those people

      345
      work on Sundays because they need the money, not because they choose to spend time serving behind the checkout counters in our supermarkets.
      The Minister may say that many people work on a Sunday, that they do so freely and that it has historically been so, but they work in industries and professions where it is necessary, a duty to society and part of the public service to work on Sundays. Those who work in the caring or emergency services have always accepted that they should be prepared to work, in a sense, a seven-day week. That is not true of retailing. Shops do not need to open on Sundays.
      The House has voted for shops to open on Sundays, although it may not endorse that decision at a later stage. If shops are to open on Sundays, their workers should receive as of right twice the weekly rate of pay for working on any other day.
      Mr. Ray Powell: I support amendment No. 65 on double-time payments for shopworkers. After leaving Pentre grammar school, my first job, at the age of 16, was behind the counter of the Co-operative Society shop in Treherbert. It was just after the war. There was a sugar supply depot underneath the shop and we were asked to work on Sunday to load the shop's vans with extra sugar supplies. Even then, and I am going back a few years, we were paid double time for working on Sunday.
      We are now to decide whether shopworkers should be paid double time for Sunday work, so what has changed? My wages at the Co-operative Society were not high enough, and at the age of 17 I went to work on the railways as a fireman. At that time, almost 50 years ago, British Rail paid its firemen, drivers, porters and guards double time for working on Sunday, yet tonight we are debating whether double time should be paid. The responsibility for that lies with the Government because they presented the Bill on deregulation. At first, they wanted total deregulation, but to appease their friends and others, they decided to support partial deregulation whereby all shops could open and the big shops could open for only six hours on a Sunday. A lot of my hon. Friends fell into the trap, but 90 of the Government's supporters voted for the Keep Sunday Special option.
      The debate on keeping Sunday special was about employment protection and double time pay for shopworkers, which is what Keep Sunday Special has advocated since 1986. We have not changed our minds—we are determined that workers should have minimum double time pay if they are expected to work.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the argument go further than that? Is not my hon. Friend, robustly as always, giving the Minister the chance to enhance his promotion prospects by going "back to basics"?
      Mr. Powell: Quite. I do not know where it will lead if we start to debate "back to basics", but surely that policy should mean allowing double pay and maintaining tranquillity on Sundays, as enjoyed by my generation and that of my father and grandfather, and should not lead to the pollution of the environment. Sunday shopping will increase pollution. Last Friday, we had a tremendous debate in the Chamber about the amount of environmental
      346
      pollution that will be created by Sunday opening. Traffic and energy consumption in shops will increase by seven-days-a-week opening.
      7.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will have a marvellous time shopping from Monday to Saturday, with shops open 24 hours a day, six days a week—144 hours a week in total. I am sure, therefore, that she will not want to shop on Sunday. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who boasts that he always shops on Sunday, will not want to do so now that shops are open 144 hours a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford referred to unsocial hours. We worked unsocial hours on the railway. We went to work at 2am or 3am, but we were paid well compared with other people for working unsocial hours. Have the Government considered extra pay for shopworkers who must work unsocial hours and must man shops for 24 hours a day?
      Mr. Grocott: Is not it worthy of note that the Government are clearly treating the important amendments with contempt because, on the Government Benches, there is a Whip, who looks rather sleepy and is obliged to be here, a Minister, who is obliged to be here—both of them are paid additional salaries for being here—and a Parliamentary Private Secretary, who hopes to earn an additional salary in the future for his loyal attendance today? That shows the Government's contempt for the issues that we are debating.
      Mr. Powell: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that intervention. The lack of Conservative Members is very noticeable. Indeed, during the previous debate, the Minister referred to the empty Benches and, within a matter of minutes, they started to fill, mostly on the Opposition side. The attendance of Conservative Members is deplorable. My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. The previous amendment, which proposed protection for workers, was voted down by 298 to 280—a majority of 18. That is one vote more than their majority in the Keep Sunday Special vote on 6 December.
      I do not know whether the Minister is pleased with the result tonight and with the fact that he has a sufficient majority to vote down every reasoned amendment that the Opposition have tabled. My hon. Friends were deluded into voting for the Government's proposal by promises about employment protection. Those promises were made only four days before the vital vote, but during the two years that I fought for my private Member's Bill on Sunday trading, the Government constantly told me that they would not give concessions on employment protection and would not consider double time for Sunday work. It was not Government policy. During that period, they abolished the wages councils, the only protection on which shopworkers could depend. They now pretend that they will ensure employment protection for shopworkers.
      Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government continually vote against amendments that seek employment protection, those of us who voted for partial deregulation on a wait-and-see basis—we said that we would wait and see what employment protection would amount to when the Bill left Committee—will have no option but to vote against the Bill on Third Reading?
      Mr. Powell: I am very glad that my hon. Friend raised that important point. On Report we shall highlight the fact that the Government clearly promised employment protection and, in so doing, denied us the right to amend the Bill by turning down all our amendments. We tabled 23 amendments and four new clauses and I should not be surprised if, at the end of tonight's debate, we find that we have been defeated on them all. We should bear that in mind on Report and Third Reading. I am confident that unless the Minister promises to support double-time payments now he will find that some Conservative Members will join us in voting against the Bill. What would happen then?
      If the Bill were defeated, we should be left with the Shops Act 1950. We should not be afraid of that. It would give my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who is the president of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers, the satisfaction of knowing that her members would be protected to a certain extent. Shopworkers have some protection under the Act but the Bill would take it away.
      I am not aware of all the information distributed by USDAW—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Preston or my party's Front-Bench spokesmen have it. For some unknown reason, my sources of information from USDAW have dried up since USDAW changed its mind about supporting Keep Sunday Special and decided to support the Shopping Hours Reform Council. I do not know why I no longer receive information. I do not seek a confrontation with USDAW and I accept its decision.
      I was talking about the promises that the Tories made when the Bill was first debated. When I read the Second Reading debate, I believed that the Government would be reasonable and offer three options but, in fact, there were four. I cannot blame the Government for the fourth but I know their strategy. The first option was total deregulation; the second was the Keep Sunday Special option; and the third was that supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. The Government tried their best to confuse us by allowing a fourth option to be introduced but Keep Sunday Special was prepared to do everything possible to reduce the complexity of the vote on 8 December, unlike the Government.
      It is passing strange to say the least that the press did not highlight the Government's defeat on 8 December which was far worse than the defeat in 1986 when I was proud to be able to announce that the Government were beaten by 14 votes despite having a majority of 140. This time, the Government received 174 votes for total deregulation but there were 404 against. That clearly shows the feelings of hon. Members at the time.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman was right and the Government's option was total deregulation—which it was not—the voting should tell him that the Government allowed a completely free vote so the result was a true decision of the House. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not muddy the water by pretending that the Government had a secret agenda—they did not.
      Mr. Powell: The Minister made the same comment to me in Committee on 8 December. However, in the week before the vote on 8 December the Evening Standard carried one big headline which said that Major supported total deregulation. It was also reported on the inside pages that the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the
      348
      Exchequer supported total deregulation. It stated that 90 per cent. of the Cabinet and a number of hon. Members supported that option, so the Minister cannot argue that total deregulation was not the Government's preference when all his senior Cabinet colleagues supported it. He said that there was a free vote on 8 December; why is there not a free vote tonight on employment protection? Why is there not a free vote on double-time payments? If there were a free vote, I am sure that 298 hon. Members would not have voted against the previous amendment.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: Is there a free vote for Labour Members tonight? I ask only out of interest.
      Mr. Powell: Of course we have a three-line Whip. The Government used a three-line Whip to get the partial deregulation option passed. If we examine the chapter and verse of what they were offering in terms of employment protection, it is clear that some of my colleagues were conned. We tried to explain where they have been conned and criticised them for it but some Conservative Members have also been conned.
      This group of amendments contains some reasonable and realistic proposals. I refer in particular to amendment No. 60 which deals with the hourly rate of pay and amendment No. 65 which deals with double time. I ask the Committee to ensure that they are carried with a good majority.
      Mr. Alton: I am happy to support the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and I congratulate him on his impassioned plea to the Committee to accept the amendments which go to the very heart of the Bill. No one who values the right of employees and workers to receive a decent remuneration for their labours can be ambivalent about them.
      It is clear that the so-called compromise is nothing but a deregulatory option and was simply second best for those who favour total deregulation. Some people believed that there would be employment protection but the Government must have seen them coming.
      Let us consider the Government's record since 1986. They have abolished the wages councils and we all know their attitude to the social chapter, to the rights of workers in general and to trade unions. If one considers the Government's approach only this week to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which covers every day—not only Sunday—it is clear that they did not intend to provide employment protection in this Bill. They will never ensure a proper rate for the job.
      In the debate on schedule 2 in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said in an intervention that people must have the choice of being allowed to work on Sundays. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman revealed that that would enable people who could work on a Sunday to earn £16 for their efforts. That is the sort of sum that we are talking about. Double time? Double what? People will be forced to work on Sundays; they will have no choice. They will lose their jobs, or not get jobs in the first place, if they will not work on Sundays, so we are right to be passionate about the amendments, which go to the heart of the Bill.
      8 pm
      I say to hon. Members who are reconsidering the question, and are looking intelligently at what is on the agenda, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has

      349
      done, that there will be another opportunity before Third Reading to undo the damage that the Bill seeks to do. We can do that on Report. The hon. Member for Ogmore told us that on an earlier vote this evening the majority was 18. In other words, if eight or nine Members changed their votes on Report we could narrow and restrict the Bill. The same was true of the Government's three-card trick when we first considered the options. The majority then was 19.
      The only genuine employment protection will be to restrict the number of shops that can open on Sundays to those that meet the reasonable needs of most people. By and large, that will distinguish between the big hypermarket stores and the small convenience shops that serve our communities. We should support the protection of the jobs in those small corner shops, and the people whose livelihoods are based on their being able to stay in business. That, too, is employment protection.
      We should do well to consider the evidence from elsewhere, and unregulated countries provide some evidence of what may happen. During an earlier debate I mentioned a survey in Scotland. One in five of the shops that replied to that survey admitted that they did not give any premium pay whatever for working on a Sunday, and more than one in three did not give a day off in lieu. That is what will happen if we have purely voluntary arrangements here. There will be a continued erosion and continued downward pressure on rates of pay.
      In a study of 900 small retailers in Cambridge, Coventry, York, Wales and London surveyed in 1993 by the department of applied economics at Cambridge university, two thirds of the staff working on Sunday received no premium payments whatever. In New Zealand, where legislation almost identical to that in the Bill was recently introduced, the Second Sweating Commission, set up in 1990 to consider the conditions of employment of shop workers, concluded:
      "The extension of shop trading hours has gone hand in hand with the deterioration of employee rates of pay and conditions. Extensions to shop trading hours strengthen the position of the employers … while … weakening and handicapping the … ability to improve [employees'] wages and conditions".
      That is the main reason for the amendment, and the reason why we must build in proper remuneration for people already being required to sacrifice the time that they want to spend at home with their families on Sunday.
      The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) rightly asked for two votes at the end of the debate, because there is another issue associated with the group of amendments—the number of hours that people work. When hon. Members voted for the semi-deregulatory option last year, they believed that people would work for a total of six hours. That is not the case. The time when the shop is being prepared beforehand and cleared up afterwards is an extension of the six hours, so that we already have the eight hours that many in the Shopping Hours Reform Council and others have on their agenda. We know where that is leading—down what the hon. Member for Deptford called the slippery slope.
      If the amendments are not accepted, no one in his right mind will be able to carry on supporting the Bill. Anyone who gave it the benefit of the doubt on previous votes must surely change his or her vote on Report, and reduce the number of premises that will be allowed to open on Sunday. I hope that we shall be able to return to that debate in the context of whatever we decide today. We should not rely on a vote on Third Reading. It is all very well for some
      350
      to say we shall go back to the 1950 position if we proceed to a Third Reading vote that simply negatives the whole Bill, but most of us do not want to go back to that position. We want proper employee protection and reasonable remuneration, and we want to tighten the categories of shops that can open on Sundays—the very provisions that the hon. Member for Ogmore proposed in his private Member's Bill last year.
      Mr. Ken Purchase: I shall speak to amendment No. 60, but I also support the other amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and all that has been said about them. I ask hon. Members to consider a minimum hourly rate because, although there is an amendment on double pay, it has already been said that double nothing is still nothing. There is a minimum level of pay that should apply in any society that regards itself as having any semblance of decency. The suggested formula linked to social security payments would not give a fortune to people who turn out to work on Sunday, but it would provide a reasonable return for a proper day's work, especially for a Sunday-only worker.
      The old-fashioned idea of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work was a good one. It is still good, but regrettably people are working for less than £1 an hour these days. Indeed, this morning I heard of someone working for 80p an hour. Hon. Members may ask why on earth people agree to work for so little, but the answer is clear. Hon. Members who take the time to visit their constituencies and move among the people who live there know that there is considerable pressure on people to earn a few more bob to look after themselves and their families. Unemployment appears to be endemic in this society. The idea that people can come to a voluntary agreement about how much they will sell their labour for is nonsense. The truth is that with unemployment so high—notwithstanding the small but welcome decreases, it looks as though it will stay high and we do not know the true level—it is not possible for an individual worker to be in a position of equality with an employer which would enable him or her to negotiate a proper rate of pay.
      Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members who trust the market to preserve premium payments, and who therefore oppose statutory premium payments for Sunday working, are being naive about the dynamics of how the market works? Does he also agree that proof positive of the downward pressure on wages is provided by what has happened in former wages council industries since wages councils were abolished? Wages in those industries have plummeted from what were already low enough levels to rates such as he has just mentioned.
      Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend is right. Her experience in the trade union movement has shown her clearly the dynamics of the market as they affect supply of and demand for labour. Unfortunately, thousands of people who work for a pittance on Sundays, and on other days, have no real knowledge or experience of how to maximise their position within the market. Inevitably such people have to fall back on the Houses of Parliament to offer them some kind of protection consistent with decency in a decent society. That is certain.
      I turn briefly to the question of those employees who are covered by trade union agreements and who have good representation. The calculation that I offer, which is based

      351
      on social security levels, would produce an hourly rate of £3·57. That does not seem much, I agree. However, compared to what is currently paid, at least it makes sense for people to work on Sunday in the belief that they will make a real contribution to, usually, their children.
      We have read recently about child poverty in the United Kingdom. I am ashamed as a citizen of the country to learn—I thought that I knew about child poverty—that our children are in such poverty and that we are in the bottom quartile of any league table. I know that those people who will work on Sundays will be mainly women, single parents and married women. The sole purpose will be to give a little extra to those children. I make an impassioned plea on behalf of children because more than ever they need the benefit of a little more coming into the home. If we as parliamentarians cannot make a law that enables people to look after their children under difficult circumstances, we must ask ourselves whether there is any moral basis on which we can gather as parties and agree that there are certain levels of pay below which no one should be paid.
      It is regrettable that the Government have already stated that they will resist double-time working. If that proposal is lost, it would be a disgrace. If they fail to recognise the justice of the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), at least we should provide some kind of fallback of a modest, hourly rate of £3·57, which would be indexed to social security payments year on year, or whenever they were changed to take account of increases in the cost of living. The overwhelming fraction of people who work in the retail industry and who are not covered by trade union agreements have a right to look to us to offer some minimum protection.
      Of course, to offer protection would fly in the face of everything that the Government have been saying. The Government have said that we should get rid of the wages councils, and the International Labour Organisation conventions. The Government have asked why they matter and have said that everybody is free to sell their labour for what they can. However, only under conditions when markets are clearly in demand for labour can workers assert themselves and claim what is rightfully theirs. Those conditions do not apply.
      If we cannot guarantee double-time working as my hon. Friend has suggested, we should have a minimum rate of pay. That would still mean that people would earn less than £30 for eight hours' work on a Sunday. We have decided that Sunday is special and that shops are to open only for six hours. Yet we know that that day will run into eight hours, and if one adds the travelling time of possibly half an hour each way, people will be away from home on a Sunday for nine hours. All that I am proposing is that: they receive a reward of, probably, less than £30.
      In the past month, Conservative Members and, I suspect, Opposition Members, too, have paid £30 just for a bit of dinner in one of the restaurants in London. I have seen them. Yet, when it comes to the vote tonight, I wonder whether they will have the decency to recognise that people working on that special day have a right to a decent level of remuneration.
      If we do not establish a minimum rate for Sunday work, there will be Sunday-only workers, working for low wages, which are probably less than the rates for which they work the rest of the week. The people who have to go to work for extra money will be taken on as Sunday-only workers
      352
      and employers will not be quick to pay the same rate as they pay in the week if there is a reserve army of labour which is ready, forced and with no option but to work for less. Those people will be employed and we will discover scandalous rates of pay.
      Soon after, the gaffer would sidle up to them, tell them that they did a good job for him on a Sunday, ask them if they would like to work on a Saturday afternoon and pay them the same rate. Before you can say "Jack Robinson", Dame Janet, you can be absolutely sure that the rates of pay in the retail industry will be pushed down and they shall be not only in the lowest quartile, but right at the bottom of the pay league for people who labour in difficult and, on occasions, dangerous circumstances. In some of the shopping queues in the sales, people need protection.
      8.15 pm
      I am absolutely serious in saying that it will not be long before the general rate of pay in the retail industry becomes smaller and smaller. Recently, we have witnessed a new phenomenon of large, decent, proper and fair employers buying out trade union representations. Under constraints, the workers may be prepared to take a fistful of dollars or 30 pieces of silver to sell their trade unions rights. In the longer term, with the lack of proper, reasonable and fair employers, we know that they are on to the game and that they intend to come out the winners. By opening on a Sunday, they know that there will be no more sales made, but that the sales will be merely transferred from one day to another.
      Our duty is to press the Government as we have never pressed them before and to tell them that they will be accused and be seen as being unfair to people who give up their Sunday for the convenience of those who wish to shop on a Sunday. The people who shop are, in almost every circumstance, better paid than those labouring in the shops. The Government will be seen as unfair and unreasonable in not accepting a minimum rate of pay on Sundays, which is tied to the pathetic levels of social security that we presently endure. I ask the Committee to support the group of amendments.
      Ms Jackson: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). I heartily endorse every argument that he made, but I shall speak to the amendment on premium pay for Sunday workers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred to the fact that there is no choice or freedom for millions of people over the decision whether they will work on Sunday. We should consider not only that unemployment has risen to intolerable levels, but that one in four of the poorest people in the entire European Community lives in these islands. Concomitant with unemployment are increasing and deeper levels of poverty throughout Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East pointed out, those who suffer most are invariably the most vulnerable—children.
      In my constituency I know of women who are desperate to work on Sunday, even though the rates of pay are shamefully low in a country as rich as ours and when we are so close to the 21st century. Those women want to work for two essential reasons. Sunday is probably the only day on which they are free of their domestic responsibilities, their children, to be able to work to bring home that little bit extra which may mean that their

      353
      children have, for example, a new pair of shoes. Women work on Sunday not because they have empty hours to fill and want to make a little pin money but for the basic essentials of life with which to provide their children. We know that 1·5 million families in which the breadwinner is in full-time employment are eligible to claim family credit. Thus, low rates of pay are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
      Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), I was not at all in two minds over how to vote on the issue of Sunday trading. I have never believed, and I do not believe now, that a Government who have brought in their train the reduction of workers' rights as exercised by trade unions, who have abolished wages councils and who advertise the British work force to our European competitors as the cheapest in Europe will defend workers and workers' wages.
      Many women who work on Sundays give up time with their children and time with their partners. One of the arguments advanced on Second Reading was that Sunday shopping was a leisure activity that families should be able to enjoy together. We should bear in mind the fact that women who work on Sundays to provide the basics for their families have given up that possibility, as have their children and partners. They are being asked to subsidise families whose economic circumstances are much better than their own. That is something for which the House should not legislate. The House should legislate for the entire population who will be affected by the Bill.
      The House spoke comparatively clearly on the issue of Sunday trading: it did not want total deregulation and it definitely felt that Sunday should still be regarded as something of a special day. One of the easy ways of preserving that special element is to ensure that those who work in the retail industry receive premium payments—that they get double pay.
      There was never any doubt in my mind: I knew that the Government would never allow worker protection and would whip against the possibility of double pay on Sunday. But I know that some Conservative Members were prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and went through the Lobby thinking that they would give the Government the opportunity to show that they were concerned for workers in the transmogrification—if that is the correct word—of Sunday from a special day into a partially special day. Regrettably, none of them is present at the moment, but I would say to them that they can make the difference in the vote tonight. We have an absolute duty to our people to ensure that, in this instance, the Government truly mean what they say. They should not whip for total deregulation and they should allow everyone to exercise his or her conscience in respect of partial deregulation on the understanding that the Bill would afford sufficient protection to those who, for a variety of reasons, have to work on Sundays. I say to those Conservative Members that they should make their Government—for the first time in my experience of this Administration—deliver their promise.
      Mrs. Wise: I do not think that the Government are naive in wanting to leave wages, including wages on Sunday, to market forces. They are under no illusions: they know that the process will result in lower and lower wages. They want to make true their statement that low pay is
      354
      better than no pay. They are driving social security rates down as near to no pay as they can manage, compelling people to feel that low pay is better. That is absolutely deplorable. It is deplorable from Monday to Saturday and it is deplorable on Sunday. The Minister himself said that Sunday has always been treated differently. Are we not therefore entitled to expect that difference to be followed through, especially in these times when wages are being driven down?
      It is deplorable that the number of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches has varied between two and five. Of course, we do not expect them to be interested in this matter. What we expect and what we get are crocodile tears and pseudo-concern for the work force. They say that people want to work on Sunday. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that the reason why people volunteer to work on Sunday is straightforward and simple: it is not just that they want the money; it is that they need the money. Those of my hon. Friends who have talked about desperation hit the nail on the head. People are desperate to earn the money.
      At the moment, for many people, going to work on Sunday is more remunerative than going to work on any other day. I suggest that there are three reasons why many large companies are willing to pay double time or significant premium payments short of double time. The first reason is trade union organisation, which long ago produced a better rate for Sunday—buttressed in the past by the fact that there was a legal minimum rate for Sunday working. Until 1986, the wages councils could deal with, for example, premium pay for unsocial hours, holidays and Sunday work. There has always been some Sunday work in shops and the legal minimum was double time.
      The trade unions built on that and secured voluntary agreements with the better employers to pay double time, which outlived the abolition of the power of the wages councils to fix Sunday rates. Double time is not a new idea on the part of the trade unions or of Labour Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said, it has a long tradition—it is the norm and the custom and it should be the absolute minimum.
      Another reason why some employers still pay double time is that, until now, workers have had other choices and have had to be attracted into working on a Sunday. Until very recently, most shops did not open on a Sunday and workers had other choices. If retailers wanted to attract workers to work on Sunday, they had to do something special, and double time was the answer.
      The third reason is that many employers have been trying to induce people to work illegally. Given that they were trying to persuade workers to break the law, it is not surprising that they had to have something substantial on offer to those workers.
      Once this Bill and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill have gone through, at least two of those conditions will no longer apply: more and more shops will be opening and it will be harder for people to find alternatives. There will not need to be inducements for illegal work because Sunday working will be legal.
      Until a short time ago, it was hard to persuade people to work on Sunday. I shall tell the House about workers who picketed against Sunday work two years ago—they stood outside their shops with placards protesting against Sunday work. Some of those workers now work on Sunday because conditions have deteriorated in the past two years

      355
      and they feel more driven into Sunday work. With this situation of workers being driven into such work, we need legal protection as we have never needed it before.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree fully with the line of my hon. Friend's argument about Sunday shop work. Is she aware that if the Government's proposal goes through, the next thing is that deregulated street sweepers, refuse collectors and all those other grades will suffer in exactly the same way? It does not stop at shop work; it goes on. There will be virtually a compulsion for workers in the public cleansing sector to clean shopping centres because they will be so busy on Sundays.
      8.30 pm
      Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, this goes far beyond those who will be immediately affected by the Bill. That point has been made several times this evening. There is a danger for all workers if Sunday becomes simply another working day, and that is exactly the road down which we are headed.
      Some of those employers who are most vociferously in favour of Sunday trading were against it not long ago. Tesco and Sainsburys have not always been in the Sunday trading lobby. What changed the minds of many large retailers was the chill wind of competition. Some retailers were willing to break the law. They stole a march on those who traded legally, made a killing and forced retailers who wanted to trade legally into the same shabby route of illegal trading. That is what happened. Competition has been an engine for more and more illegal trading. That is exactly what will happen with wage rates.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is going rather wide of the group of amendments relating to a limitation on hours and rates of pay.
      Mrs. Wise: I am sorry if that is how it seemed, Dame Janet. I was simply explaining the force of competition. The force of competition will be felt, especially with regard to wage rates.
      Many of the firms which now negotiate with trade unions, and which seek to be better and fairer employers, will find that unless they as well as their workers are buttressed by legal provision, they will be driven even against their will to cut wages and make it harder to enter into reasonable voluntary agreements. Better employers need worker protection to be written into the Bill, especially with regard to wage rates, or they will suffer the pressure of competition and their workers will suffer the consequences.
      Those who say that they want to work because they need the money and they are getting double time, and think that this will continue indefinitely, will find that they have been living in a fool's paradise because of the relentless driving down of wages as a result of the relentless chill wind of competition. It is imperative for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, who have regard for the needs of workers and better employers to be protected against unfair competition, to vote for double time and protection against excessive hours being worked on Sundays. Without such protection, we will be on a slippery slope. Many workers who now say that they want to work will in
      356
      the not-too-distant future say to hon. Members, "How could you let this happen?" They will have undercut their conditions and those of shopworkers in general.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: In a series of powerful speeches, my hon. Friends have shown that the amendments relating to hours of work and premium payments should be at the heart of the Bill. They relate to dilution, the wretched effect on other sectors of workers and the increasing pressure on families. In spite of that, it is saddening but perhaps not surprising that throughout this debate we have heard from only three Tory Members. That shows how little significance the Government attach to the provisions relating to the protection of vulnerable sections of our society.
      From the start, many of us argued that, essentially, there were not three options but two options before the House—deregulation and the attempt at an orderly regulation of what happens on Sunday. Effectively, the Shopping Hours Reform Council option was the most that those who truly wanted total deregulation could get at that time. They realised that there would be slippage. If we allowed six hours, why not allow seven or eight hours? That was the most that they would get.
      Is not removal of all protection on wages wholly consistent with the philosophy of deregulation? It is sad that a number of my hon. Friends naively placed faith in the Government and were prepared to give them the benefit of their judgment. The Government have now proved that it was highly misplaced faith. They do not want to include forms of protection for workers. Indeed, the way in which they are reacting to the amendment suggests that they had a hidden agenda from the start: to remove all premium payments. The Bill is a means to do that.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, perhaps about 11 per cent. of the work force work on Sunday at present, but the more people who work on Sunday, the more who will be forced to work in ancillary trades and the more Sunday will become just like any other day. If Sunday becomes just like any other day, as the Government would like, with all the attendant social disadvantages that we foresee, what possible argument can there be for having premium payments on that day? This is what the Government want; it is consistent with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. Indeed, if that Bill had been before the House earlier, that would have fundamentally altered the basis on which this Bill has been debated. Why would we need freedom to shop on Sunday if there were freedom to shop every hour of the day on the other six days?
      There will be slippage. That is why we say that there must be statutory protection as set out in the amendment. Voluntary protection is good only at the time that it is entered into. It is absolutely clear that the army of distressed people—Tesco workers and others—who were dragooned by their employers to lobby us during earlier debates were put up to that by their employers. We know that they had draft letters to send to us. Those same shop troops—the poor, bloody infantry of Tesco—will be dropped as soon as it suits Tesco to do so. Indeed, any premium payments that are now paid will be dropped when it is convenient for employers to do so. They were useful at the time, and when they are no longer useful and have served their purpose, they will be dropped.
      I promised the Whips that I would be brief, so I shall end on this note. For the Government, there is a basic

      357
      question. Do they acknowledge in any way that Sunday should be different? The workers will have to give up their family life and leisure pursuits on a Sunday, and will have the hassle of going into work. The travelling time and so on will mean that it will be not just for six hours, but for much more. Do the Government accept that those workers should in some way be compensated, because Sunday is special?
      We cannot rely on the employers to compensate workers. We know jolly well that there will be dilution as soon as it becomes practicable. The only way to compensate and protect those workers is by statute. That is why I, and my hon. Friends, support the amendment.
      Mr. Bayley: I regret that the House voted at Second Reading to give the public the right to shop in any shop whose owners wished it to open for a six-hour period on Sunday. The House voted to allow the big chain stores to obtain a greater market share and to make bigger profits, at the expense of smaller businesses, some of which will go out of business if the Bill is passed.
      I shall speak briefly on the matter. This amendment is, in fact, the crunch. The Commitee must decide whether to balance the right of big firms to make bigger profits against the right for their workers to get an enhanced payment on the day when the firms are making those bigger profits. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has talked about "back to basics", and I have not been surprised at the number of people who, in letters to me, used that phrase in relation to Sunday trading.
      For example, my constituent Mr. Blakeborough wrote:
      "The PM talks about 'back to basics'. For many people like myself Sunday is very real 'basic"; it is God's day, and by the way Tories MPs voted they have shown that materialism is all."
      I hope that those Conservatives who have put their faith in that slogan will vote on a "back to basics" basis this evening. That would make sure that higher profits for the big chain stores are balanced by a decent enhanced rate of pay for shopworkers who work on Sunday.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that 50 years ago when he worked on the railways and in retailing he got double pay for working on Sundays. Are we saying that we are now abandoning the basic double pay rate for Sundays that applied 50 years ago? If the Government want shops to open on Sunday—clearly they do—the Committee must consider at what cost that will be. If at the end of the 20th century it is sweated labour of the work force, the cost will be too high.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall start by referring to amendment No. 50, which would keep Sunday working to the equivalent of a normal eight-hour day. I doubt whether the large stores, which are confined to six hours opening by the Bill, would want to employ staff on Sunday for anywhere near as long as eight hours, whatever the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) might think. It would not be particularly good business to keep workers in a shop when it was not open and trading.
      The difficulty with the amendments is how they apply to small shops. The hours of small shops are unrestricted under all of the choices that have been put before the House. A small shop could reasonably decide to open from 9 am to 6 pm. That would be nine hours, and the amendment would cut across any such decision and result in the shop having the trouble and expense of having to
      358
      shut earlier than it wished. The shop would otherwise have to employ another Sunday worker for the latter part of day, and probably for a length of time for which nobody would be interested in working.
      The principal reason why I must say no to the amendment is that employers and employees in retailing, as in virtually every other occupation, should be and are free to decide between them what arrangements they enter into. Having entered into them, they should keep them. The schedule creates a massive exception to the rule, so that any employee who also works on a weekday for the same employer will have the enormous additional leverage over the terms of his Sunday work by being able to opt out. The Sunday-only worker can leave the job only if he does not like the terms but, equally, they are terms that he found acceptable when he took the job.
      That is the same as in every other industry. Why should hours be limited in that way just for shop work? Why should hours be restricted in shops when they are not in factories, in the leisure industry and in catering? Indeed, hours are only limited across the board when safety is the issue.
      I suspect that there will be as many Sunday workers who regret the shortness of working time available in large shops as there are those who find that the working day in small shops is too long. I do not believe that Opposition Members have made out a case for a restriction on working hours in the retail trade that does not exist elsewhere.
      8.45 pm
      At the heart of the group of amendments is the fact that it would bring double pay for Sunday work. Hon. Members have spoken passionately in support of double time, and they will have been expecting that I would not be able to give them encouragement on the amendments. We are at one on the general principle that shopworkers should be able to choose whether to work on Sunday. Again, I am sure that the freedom of choice—this is directly relevant to pay—will give Sunday workers an effective lever in their negotiations with employers about their rates of pay for Sunday work.
      It would not be right for the law to step in and set those rates that the amendments would. It is not the Government's job to do that. Having established that employees have the freedom to choose whether to work on Sunday, it is up to employers and employees to make their own terms.
      Mr. Purchase: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not because I know that the Committee wants to come to a decision. I am sorry, because I would love to debate with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will understand.
      Employees and employers must make their own terms depending on individual businesses. The situation may vary sharply. Some large and profitable retailers will be able to afford double time pay. They pay it now, and they will go on doing so. Often, however, smaller shops will not be able to do so. The amendments would simply have the effect of driving them out of business or preventing them from opening on Sundays. Either way, there would be fewer jobs and, once again, wage fixing would have proven to be the enemy of employment. It would inevitably reduce the range and quality of retail services that are available to the public.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry, but I do not think that I can give way. The Committee wants to reach a conclusion.
      For the reasons that I have given, I must ask the Committee to reject all the amendments in the group.
      Ms Ruddock: The Minister just asked why hours should be limited in shops when they are not elsewhere. It is the Opposition's view that hours should be limited and that workers should not have to work unsocial and unlimited hours, especially for poverty wages. For that reason, we shall seek to return to the issue at a later stage. With the leave of the House, I shall not put amendment No. 50 and its group to the vote. It is my understanding that it will be possible after we have moved the next group of amendments for us to have a separate Division on amendment No. 65.
      On amendment No. 65, if the Government's view was that some small shops would have a problem with paying double-time payments, Ministers could have tabled an amendment to cover that. I remind the Minister, however, that those small shops are frequently paying pitiable amounts in wages. If the worker is getting but £1 an hour for six or eight hours on Sunday, double that amount is still a small amount for the employer to pay. It is essential, however, for the employee to have that double payment. I remind the Minister that, from all our experience., it is premium paying that creates the volunteers. If the voluntary principle in the Bill is to be meaningful, it needs to be coupled with double-time payments.
      The Minister has failed completely to recognise that linkage. For that reason, we shall seek to have a separate vote on this important issue after discussing the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 18, line 45, at end insert—
      'or refused or proposed to refuse to give an opting-in notice, or having given such a notice refused or proposed to refuse to agree to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, as required under paragraph 3(1)(b) above'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 61, in page 18, line 49, at end insert—
      '(5) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the dismissal of a shop worker was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show that the reason (or, if there was more than one the principal reason) for the dismissal was not a reason falling within sub-paragaraph (1) or (3) above.'.
      No. 62, in page 19, line 23, at end insert—
      '(4) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the dismissal of a shop worker was fair or unfair, it shall be for the employer to show that the reason (or, if there was more than one the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was not a reason falling within sub-paragaraph (1) or (3) above.'.
      No. 54, in page 19, line 43, at end insert—
      'or refused or proposed to refuse to give an option-in-notice, or having given such a notice refused or proposed to refuse to agree to do shop work on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, as required under paragraph 3(1)(b) above'.
      No. 59, page 22, line 27, at end insert—

      'Enforcement
      20.—(1) An employee who presents a complaint of unfair dismissal alleging that the dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraphs 7 or 8 above may apply to the industrial tribunal for interim relief.
      (2) The tribunal shall not entertain an application for interim relief unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of seven days immediately following the effective date of termination (whether before, on or after that date).
      21.—(1) An industrial tribunal shall determine an application for interim relief as soon as practicable after receiving the application.
      (2) The tribunal shall give to the employer, not later than seven days before the hearing, a copy of the application, together with notice of the date, time and place of hearing.
      (3) The tribunal shall not exercise any power it has of postponing the hearing of an application for interim relief except where it is satisfied that special circumstances exist which justify it in doing so.
      22.—(1) If on hearing an application for interim relief it appears to the tribunal that it is likely that on determining the complaint to which the application relates that it will find that, by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above, the complainant has been unfairly dismissed, the following provisions apply.
      (2) The tribunal shall announce its findings and explain to both parties (if present) what powers the tribunal may exercise on the application and in what circumstances it will exercise them, and shall ask the employer (if present) whether he is willing, pending the determination or settlement of the complaint—

      (a) to reinstate the employee, that is to say, to treat him in all respects as if he had not been dismissed, or

      (b) if not, to re-engage him in another job on terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have been applicable to him if he had not been dismissed.

      (3) For this purpose "terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have been applicable to him if he had not been dismissed" means as regards seniority, pension rights and other similar rights that the period prior to the dismissal shall be regarded as continuous with his employment following the dismissal.
      (4) If the employer states that he is willing to reinstate the employee, the tribunal shall make an order to that effect.
      (5) If the employer states that he is willing to re-engage the employee in another job, and specifies the terms and conditions on which he is willing to do so, the tribunal shall ask the employee whether he is willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions; and

      (a) if the employee is willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions, the tribunal shall make an order to that effect, and

      (b) if he is not, then, if the tribunal is of the opinion that the refusal is reasonable, the tribunal shall make an order for the continuation of his contract of employment, and otherwise the tribunal shall make no order.

      (6) If on the hearing of an application for interim relief the employer fails to attend before the tribunal, or states that he is unwilling either to reinstate the employee or re-engage him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the tribunal shall make an order for the continuation of the employee's contract of employment.
      23.—(1) An order for the continuation of a contract of employment is an order that the contract of employment continue in force—

      (a) for the purposes of pay or any other benefit derived from the employment, seniority, pension rights and other similar matters, and

      (b) for the purpose of determining for any purpose the period for which the employee has been continuously employed,

      from the date of its termination (whether before or after the making of the order) until the determination or settlement of the complaint.
      (2) Where the tribunal makes such an order it shall specify in the order the amount which is to be paid by the employer to the employee by way of pay in respect of each normal pay period, or part of any such period, falling between the date of dismissal and the determination or settlement of the complaint.
      (3) Subject as follows, the amount so specified shall be that which the employee could reasonably have been expected to earn during that period, or part, and shall be paid—

      (a) in the case of payment for any such period falling wholly or partly after the making of the order, on the normal pay day for that period, and

      (b) in the case of a payment for any past period, within such time as may be specified in the order.

      (4) If an amount is payable in respect of part of a normal pay period, the amount shall be calculated by reference to the whole period and reduced proportionately.
      (5) Any payment made to an employee by an employer under his contract of employment, or by way of damages for breach of that contract, in respect of a normal pay period or part of any such period shall go towards discharging the employer's liability in respect of that period under sub-paragraph (2), and conversely any payment under that sub-paragraph in respect of a period shall go towards discharging any liability of the employer under, or in respect of the breach of, the contract of employment in respect of that period.
      (6) If an employee, on or after being dismissed by his employer, receives a lump sum which, or part of which, is in lieu of wages but is not referrable to any normal pay period, the tribunal shall take the payment into account in determining the amount of pay to be payable in pursuance of any such order.
      (7) For the purposes of this paragraph the amount which an employee could reasonably have been expected to earn, his normal pay period and the normal pay day for each such period shall be determined as if he had not been dismissed.
      24.—(1) If on the application of an employee an industrial tribunal is satisfied that the employer has not complied with the terms of an order for the reinstatement or re-engagement of the employee, the tribunal shall-

      (a) make an order for the continuation of the employee's contract of employment, and

      (b) order the employer to pay the employee such compensation as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard-

      (i) to the infringement of the employee's right to to be reinstated or re-engaged in pursuance of the order, and

      (ii) to any loss suffered by the employee in consequence of the non-compliance.

      (2) Paragraph 23 applies to an order under sub-paragraph (1)(a) as in relation to an order under paragraph 22.
      (3) If on the application of an employee an industrial tribunal is satisfied that the employer has not complied with the terms of an order for the continuation of a contract of employment, the following provisions apply.
      (4) If the non-compliance consists of a failure to pay an amount of pay specified in the order, the tribunal shall determine the amount owed by the employer on the date of the determination.
      25.—Where a dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8 above, the amount of the basic award of compensation shall be not less that £2,700.
      26.—(1) Where an industrial tribunal makes an award of compensation for unfair dismissal in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraphs 7 or 8 above then, unless

      (a) the complainant does not request the tribunal to make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement, or

      (b) the case falls within section 73(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (cases where employer takes requisite steps to renew employment or re-engage employee),

      the award shall include a special award calculated in accordance with paragraph 27 below.
      (2) Section 71(2)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (additional award of compensation in case of failure to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement) does not apply in a case where the dismissal is unfair by virtue of paragraphs 7 or 8 above.
      27.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the amount of the special award shall be one week's pay multiplied by 104, or £13,400, whichever is the greater, but shall not exceed £26,800.
      (2) Where the award of compensation is made under section 71(2)(a) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (compensation where employee not reinstated or re-engaged in accordance with order) then, 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.
      (3) Where the employer has engaged another worker who has agreed to do work on Sunday, the tribunal shall not take that fact into account in determining practicability nor shall the tribunal take into account the employee's refusal to work on Sunday.
      (4) Where the employer has engaged a permanent replacement for the complainant, the tribunal shall not take that fact into account in determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) whether it was practicable to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement unless the employer shows that it was not practicable for him to arrange for the complainant's work to be done without engaging a permanent replacement.'.
      Mr. Barron: As the Committee wants to come to a conclusion quickly on the subject of the previous debate, I shall be brief.
      The Minister will be well aware by now that amendment No. 52 is a probing amendment. We wish to find out exactly how the protection of people who refuse to work on Sundays will be policed under the schedule, particularly under paragraph 7. Paragraph 7(3) clearly states that workers are protected from unfair dismissal
      "if the reason for it … was that the shop worker gave, or proposed to give, an opting-out notice to the employer."
      In the amendment we also want to insert
      "or refused or proposed to refuse to give an opting-in notice".
      Amendment No. 61 proposes to insert into the policing arrangements in paragraph 7 the provisions in the Employment Act 1978 under which an employer has to prove that an employee was not unfairly dismissed as opposed to an employee having to prove that he was unfairly dismissed. The Minister may think that the schedule places the burden of proof on one group in a dispute under the Sunday Trading Bill as opposed to another—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. There are far too many private conversations going on. They are making it difficult for me to hear the hon. Gentleman, and that I wish to do.
      Mr. Barron: I hope that the Minister understands why we tabled amendment No. 61 and that he will respond. Is the test within the policing provisions of the Sunday Trading Bill that the employer—as in normal circumstances—has to prove that the employee has not been unfairly dismissed rather than the employee proving that he has been unfairly dismissed?
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I said, the probe—if I had time to respond to it—would be satisfied in that the matters that worry those who tabled the amendment are taken care of by the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman particularly referred me to amendment No. 61. I understand his worry. I know that the Deakin Ewing report asserts that the burden will fall on the employee to prove that he has been dismissed. Paragraph 7 of schedule 4 provides protection by means of a cross-reference to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which requires the employee to show that he has been dismissed. It is then for the employer to show the cause and that he acted reasonably in making it a ground for dismissal. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman. If he would like, I will write to him on the matter so that he can discuss my reply with his hon. Friends well before Report stage and take counsel on whether to pursue the matter further.
      Mr. Barron: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 65, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—

      'Right to double-time payments
      9A.—(1) A shop worker working on a Sunday shall be remunerated at twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.
      (2) It shall be the duty of the employer of a shop worker working on a Sunday to give him a written statement of the hourly rate applicable for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above and of how that rate has been determined.
      (3) A complaint by a shop worker that he has not been remunerated as required by sub-paragraph (1) above, that he has not been given any statement required by sub-paragraph (2) above or that he is aggrieved by anything in or by any omission from such a statement may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
      (4) An individual tribunal shall not consider a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning when the act complained of was done.
      (5) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under sub-paragraph (3) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—

      (a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and

      (b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.'.—[Ms. Ruddock]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 269, Noes 299.

      Division No. 115]

      [8.54 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clelland, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coffey, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Alton, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin-Walker, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cox, Tom

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cryer, Bob

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cummings, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe

      Darling, Alistair

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blair, Tony

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

      Blunkett, David

      Denham, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dewar, Donald

      Boyes, Roland

      Dixon, Don

      Bradley, Keith

      Dobson, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Dowd, Jim

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

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Burden, Richard

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Byers, Stephen

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Enright, Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fatchett, Derek

      Cann, Jamie

      Faulds, Andrew

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Clapham, Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Flynn, Paul

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      364

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Fraser, John

      Maginnis, Ken

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mahon, Alice

      Galloway, George

      Mandelson, Peter

      Gapes, Mike

      Marek, Dr John

      Garrett, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      George, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Martlew, Eric

      Godsiff, Roger

      Meacher, Michael

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Meale, Alan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Michael, Alun

      Graham, Thomas

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Milburn, Alan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Miller, Andrew

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Gunnell, John

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Hain, Peter

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hall, Mike

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hanson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Henderson, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Heppell, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mudie, George

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Paul

      Home Robertson, John

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Olner, William

      Hoyle, Doug

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parry, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Patchett, Terry

      Hutton, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ingram, Adam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Prescott, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jowell, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Redmond, Martin

      Keen, Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Rendel, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rogers, Allan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Leighton, Ron

      Rooney, Terry

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAllion, John

      Short, Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simpson, Alan

      McCartney, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McFall, John

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

      McKelvey, William

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

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McLeish, Henry

      Soley, Clive

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      McMaster, Gordon

      Spellar, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McWilliam, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Madden, Max

      Stevenson, George

      365

      Stott, Roger

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Straw, Jack

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Fit Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Winnick, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wise, Audrey

      Tyler, Paul

      Wray, Jimmy

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Walley, Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watson, Mike

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Couchman, James

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cran, James

      Alexander, Richard

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

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Amess, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Devlin, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Atkins, Robert

      Dicks, Terry

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Duncan, Alan

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bates, Michael

      Dykes, Hugh

      Batiste, Spencer

      Elletson, Harold

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Evennett, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Faber, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bowis, John

      Forman, Nigel

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Forth, Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Gallie, Phil

      Burt, Alistair

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butcher, John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Butler, Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gorst, John

      Cash, William

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Churchill, Mr

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clappison, James

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hague, William

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Congdon, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Conway, Derek

      Hannam, Sir John

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Harris, David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      366

      Hawkins, Nick

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawksley, Warren

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Page, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Paice, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hendry, Charles

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Powell, William (Corby)

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

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunter, Andrew

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jessel, Toby

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville, Tom

      Key, Robert

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

      Sims, Roger

      Knox, Sir David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Legg, Barry

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Lightbown, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lord, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stern, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      Madel, Sir David

      Sykes, John

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Marland, Paul

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Thomason, Roy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

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

      Merchant, Piers

      Tracey, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Trend, Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wallace, James

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Ward, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Waterson, Nigel

      367

      Watts, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Whitney, Ray

      Yeo, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Willetts, David

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.

      Wilshire, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Ms Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 21, leave out lines 15 to 29 and insert—
      '13—(1) Where under the contract of employment of a shop worker who is either a protected shop worker or an opted-out shop worker—

      (a) the employer is, or may be, required to provide him with shop work for a specified number of hours each week,

      (b) the shop worker has done shop work on Sunday (whether before or after the commencement date), and

      (c) the shop worker gives the employer written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker to the effect that this paragraph is to apply,

      the employer shall be under a duty as far as reasonably practicable to provide him with shop work on weekdays in excess of the hours normally so worked by the shop worker on weekdays before he ceased to do shop work on Sundays to the extent that his earnings from the shop work so provided are equivalent to the earnings of the shop worker from working on Sunday on the last occasion when he so worked.
      (2) Any failure of the employer to offer alternative hours of work or to remunerate the shop worker as required by sub-paragraph (1) above shall be regarded for the purposes of paragraph 10 above as a detriment.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 39, in page 21, line 52, at end insert—

      Right to Additional Hours
      '15a. Where an employer has available alternative work, an employee who has regularly worked on Sunday and subsequently gives notice of opting out has the right to be offered additional weekday hours.'.
      Ms Ruddock: In putting these matters before the Committee, we are concerned specifically about endeavouring to maintain the vital voluntary principle that is attached to Sunday working, despite the way in which Conservative Members have just voted, because we believe that this principle is important and that premium payment is inherent in it. We seek, through the amendment, to ensure that where established employees who have been working on a Sunday and who, in many cases, have been in receipt of a premium payment seek to forgo Sunday work, they should not suffer any detriment in making that choice.
      We believe that it is impossible freely to choose to give up Sunday working if, as a consequence, an employee will lose a substantial amount of income. We believe that, in many cases, an employer will have scope to enable the worker to make up his or her hours on other days of the week.
      Threats to the voluntary principle result not just from employer pressure and employee intimidation—although we are all familiar with both and know that they are real and, sadly, could be widespread—but from sheer economic compulsion. More than three quarters of shopworkers—especially part-time employees—are women, and they are among the lowest-paid workers in the country. It is the pressure to gain some income that drives many people to work on Sunday.
      If retail employees doing additional work on Sunday seek to give up that work, it is essential that the voluntary principle be underpinned through recognition of the need of the workers to maintain a certain standard of living.
      Mr. Pike: I know of people who work voluntarily on Sunday but have been told clearly that, as the work pattern in their trade now involves a seven-day week, they will not have a full week's work if they do not work on Sunday. I assume that that is the type of vision that my hon. Friend is getting at in the amendment.
      Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes an important point.
      If a worker has been engaged and is working on a Sunday, that worker is obviously benefiting from wages for Sundays, whether double or plain-time. If the voluntary principle enshrined in the Bill is to be meaningful, it is obvious to us that many workers will not feel able voluntarily to opt out of Sunday working unless they can find some other means of getting the additional income. Many employers will have the scope to offer workers alternative hours during weekdays.
      Most people who have been working on Sundays will be valued workers. The amendment seeks to persuade employers that they deserve such consideration. We should, therefore, adopt the amendment so that they can have a real choice as to whether to work on Sundays.
      In an earlier debate, the Minister suggested that there was no real comparison between the mechanism for opting in or out and a worker giving up his or her work. He said that opting, in or out of Sunday working was a much smaller decision. I do not wholly agree with him because, for most Sunday workers, opting out will be a major decision. Even with the voluntary principle, most shopworkers will not easily opt out, for the reason that we have expressed again and again in this debate—they are there for the money. That is why they will work and will not easily give up that work.
      If employees are not to be put in the position where they have no choice, they must be able to seek alternative hours. That is the thrust of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.
      Mr. Pike: This is an important issue concerning the protection of workers' rights. I spoke at length on this issue in a previous debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House.
      We all know that there are volunteers and volunteers. When I did my national service, on the first day after we reported at the Royal Marines training centre in Lympstone we were asked to step forward as volunteers. We all did so because we felt that we had to. Workers feel the same way.
      Many workers will volunteer to work on Sundays because they desperately need the money and know that they will not be employed if they do not take that option. Some workers have come to me saying that, although they originally chose to work on a Sunday as a part of their working pattern, they no longer wished to do so but had been clearly told by their employers that they could not be provided with a full working week within the other six days without doing a number of hours on a Sunday. They were told that, unless they wished to reduce their working week—they were receiving premium payments, so there was no argument about that being paid—they could not change to working on a different day because the working pattern was already established for those days. At that stage, Sunday working no longer remains voluntary but becomes compulsory. The only way that employees can get out of it is to opt out and reduce the number of hours that they work.

      369
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was right to move the amendment, because it seeks to protect people who want to work Sundays now but may want to change in future. They want genuine protection for their working hours and earnings. We all know that, unless such assurance, as in the amendment, is written in the Bill, it will be meaningless and workers will not get the protection to which I—like many others—believe they are entitled.
      Mr. Alton: I have some sympathy with the amendment. If it were passed in some form, perhaps not as it is written on the amendment paper, it would protect workers who opt not to work on Sundays. If the spirit of the amendment were accepted, it would mean that they could substitute another day instead and shift their working hours around.
      The problem is in amendment No. 55, which contains the words
      "as far as reasonably practicable"
      That clearly is a let-out measure. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view. I question how that could be enforced in law. It would allow an employer always to argue that it is not reasonably practicable for him to make such arrangements. Even if the amendment were accepted, it would not achieve what the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) have argued for.
      I hope that the Minister will assure us that, if the amendment does not achieve its objectives, he will at least accept the arguments that are being put tonight and look again at the principle, either on Report or in another place.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is an optimist. I am afraid that, although I agree with some of his comments, I will not be able to give any encouragement that a similar amendment could meet those objections or that it would be right to do so. The amendments would ensure that shopworkers who have worked on Sundays but cease to do so are provided with additional weekday work to compensate them for the earnings that they would have made on Sunday or, in the case of amendment No. 39, if I follow it, for just the additional hours.
      I do not see how that could be done without being unfair to employees who worked only on weekdays but who would also like to work some extra hours during the week. They would find ex-Sunday workers getting preference for any extra hours going and, if amendment No. 55 had been carried, getting those hours at double time, too. There would be no justice in ex-Sunday workers getting priority over weekday workers. I believe that it would be unfair to employers as well, who would have to pay for the extra hours worked during the week and employ somebody else to do the Sunday work that had been vacated. That would be a very large extra burden, pushing up costs sharply and reducing efficiency.
      The hon. Members who put their names to amendment No. 55 have, like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), at least partly recognised how unreasonable it is.
      Ms Ruddock rose—
      Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady wants to tell me again that the amendment is reasonable.
      Ms Ruddock: The Minister correctly anticipates what I am about to say. We introduced reasonableness to the amendment because we have recognised some of the things that he is saying. In promoting the amendment, we seek to encourage best practice among employers. We believe that there is scope for that and that many employers might voluntarily make such arrangements, recognising the worth of their workers. We are attempting to give a little strength to that idea.
      Mr. Lloyd: Like the hon. Lady, I am always in favour of best practice. It is a question of what we should write into the law.
      There is another difficulty, however, and here I return to what was said by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. What does "reasonably practicable" mean? The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) has formed an idea that is very satisfactory in terms of guidance and codes of practice, but it is not necessarily satisfactory in terms of law. It is hard for an employer to know what is "reasonably practicable" in legal terms. That would be extremely difficult for an employee—who would have to take the matter to an industrial tribunal—to assess and it would be impossible for the tribunal to judge, unless it engaged in a management audit of a shop's manning arrangements and adjudicated accordingly.
      I believe that, if amendment No. 55 is passed, no one will know where he or she is. People will not know whether a shop is acting within the law if it fails to find extra weekday hours for ex-Sunday workers. If amendment No. 39 is passed, an unfair and, in some cases, insupportable burden will be placed on employers, to the especial detriment of weekday workers who would like extra hours during the week.
      Mr. Pike: I have often heard Ministers defend the words "reasonably practicable" in other contexts. It seems strange that the Minister of State is not prepared to accept that wording now.
      Does the Minister not think it reasonable for an employee who now accepts Sunday working as a voluntary part of his working week to be given a first option to return to a working week involving the other six days if his circumstances change at some future date? Would not that constitute a fair extension of the voluntary principle involved in the legislation?
      Mr. Lloyd: First, I am in favour of the use of the phrase "reasonably practicable" in legislation when it is "reasonably practicable" to use it. In these circumstances, I do not consider it practicable. Secondly, the question for most shopworkers who work full time during the week is whether, now that it is lawful to work on Sundays, they will do additional work on that day. I accept that the circumstances cited by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) could arise, but, under schedule 4, they would arise only if an individual shopworker chose to accept terms of that nature. An existing shopworker will start from scratch—that is, whatever was the agreement made on day one; a new worker will have to opt into not just the idea of Sunday work but the particular arrangements proposed by the employer.
      Mr. Pike: Is the Minister saying that the existing shopworker has that option only once and cannot reverse his choice later?
      Mr. Lloyd: Like anyone else, he will have the choice of reversing on three months' notice. Indeed, if the existing shopworker has not formally opted into Sunday work, he can continue to work on Sundays and stop at any time without notice. It is a complicated point but, if the hon. Gentleman reads the schedule carefully, he will find that the protections extend further than he seems to think.
      The right to opt out is there for Sunday workers to use if their consciences or circumstances change. Employers should be under no obligation to make up the time that employees have freely chosen to give up. Of course, many employers will want, if they can, to find extra weekday time for valued Sunday workers who can no longer continue to work on Sundays. The larger employers will be better placed in that regard. I applaud such efforts and hope that they will be widespread, but I do not think it right to compel all employers to do the same in all circumstances. Although I see much merit in such action, I can envisage the legal difficulties correctly identified by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
      Ms Ruddock: The Minister has completely missed the point. He says that a shopworker can freely choose to give up Sunday working. Our point is that many shopworkers may find themselves with critical problems that necessitate their giving up Sunday working, perhaps for the sake of family obligations. They may not be able to do so, however, for economic reasons. We therefore believe it right that when a worker has been working Sundays and is forced by circumstances to try to opt out, he should be able to go to his employer with a reasonable request to be given alternative weekday hours.
      The Minister suggests that that is unfair to weekday workers, who may themselves want additional hours. We, however, are talking about workers who already have the hours and are possibly receiving premium payments for them. They may have to lose income, and that is why we propose the substitution of other hours. It is not an unfair principle: these people may incur financial loss—hence the reason for the amendment.
      Arbitrary changes in hours of work, duties and even places of work are now commonplace. The employers certainly have the upper hand. They have even instituted zero-hours contracts, and various forms of casual and unprotected work are increasingly prevalent. We have heard plenty of testimony to that in these debates.
      This was but a small attempt to give shopworkers a degree of control over their hours of work and how they are arranged. It was an attempt to redress the balance, which my colleagues and I believe has been tilting increasingly in favour of the employers. I regret the fact that the Minister has been unable to make a more positive response, but I hope that the employers will take note of what he has said about best practice and how it might be encouraged. That is very little for shopworkers to hope for, but it is clearly all they are going to get from the Government.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 22, line 12, leave out from `employment)' to 'For' in line 18 and insert
      'in subsection (3) (keeping of records)'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 58.
      Mr. Lloyd: These are technical amendments, reflecting the outcome of the vote on the choices held on the first day
      372
      of the Committee of the whole House, before Christmas. They ensure that appropriate references in the Shops Act 1950 refer to the Bill rather than to the parts of that Act that this Bill repeals.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 22, leave out line 21.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
      Schedule 4 agreed to.

    New clause 2

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SUNDAY-ONLY WORKERS
      '(1) Where a Sunday-only worker is employed on work substantially the same as work performed on a weekday by a shop worker in the same employment, if any term or condition of the contract of employment of the Sunday-only worker is or becomes less favourable than it would be if the worker was no, a Sunday-only worker, the relevant term or condition shall be treated as so modified as to be not less favourable.
      (2) A complaint by a Sunday-only worker that his contract of employment had not been treated by his employer as modified, as required by subsection (1) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
      (3) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under subsection (2) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date when the complainant became aware of the failure of his employer to treat the contract of employment as modified as required by subsection (1) above.
      (4) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (2) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—

      (a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and

      (b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

      (5) In section 136 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals from industrial tribunals to Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the words—
      "(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".
      (6) In this section—
      "shop worker" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 below and
      "Sunday-only worker" means a person who is employed as a shop worker to work only on a Sunday.'—[Ms Ruddock.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      There are two objectives to the new clause. We seek to give rights to Sunday-only workers and to underpin the general worker protections in the Bill.
      At present the majority of Sunday-only workers in the retail trade work illegally. If the House does not pass this Bill, we must assume that their retail outlets will be closed, and these workers will not work at all. It follows that those who would be covered by the Bill and who might become legitimate Sunday-only workers constitute a new group of workers—workers who, even under this Bill, would have virtually no rights. That seems inappropriate.
      9.30 pm
      We are used to the Government removing various employment protection provisions for workers. But, through the legislation, the Government propose to create a new pool of workers. The Opposition regard it as their

      373
      duty to try to amend the Bill to make some provision for those workers. We seek to afford them rights on sick pay, pensions, holidays and other contractural benefits that are comparable with those of week-day workers. We are aware that those are contractual matters. It would be difficult for us or any other amenders of legislation to propose measures that interfered with those contracts. I am sure that the Minister would be quick to tell us that we could not do so. It is reasonable to seek to make some comparision between those who work for one day only, Sunday, and those who work for the same enterprise on a week day.
      Effective worker protection under the Bill will depend on a number of factors. There are two key elements—first, a common culture of respect for the provisions across the board among employers and employees and, secondly, retail employers' commercial incentive to comply and/or disincentive for non-compliance. Sunday-only workers, by their very nature, fall outside the normal provisions of worker protection, and of the Sunday Trading Bill and existing legislation, principally, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 because of their insufficient service time. That period is two years for those who are essentially full-time workers and five years for those working as few as eight hours.
      Some Sunday-only workers may fall within the scope of existing employment protection. They will have to accrue the appropriate number of years of work before such protection becomes effective. At present, very few legal Sunday workers have worked the length of service required for their protection. Where workers have no protection, it is almost impossible for them, especially if they are without the benefit of trade union representation, to secure decent conditions and terms of employment.
      Sunday-only workers form one of the most vulnerable groups of workers in our society. They are casual workers who are open to commercial exploitation. Not only might they be exploited on Sunday, but they might be pressed into employment on an ad hoc basis at other times. We believe that it is essential for their protection, and for the protection of week-day workers, that the terms and conditions of the Sunday-only workers are comparable with those of week-day workers.
      As some of my hon. Friends said in an earlier debate, we do not want Sunday workers' wages and conditions to become depressed as Sunday trading increases, with a knock-on effect for the week-day worker. If the legislation is passed, Sunday workers will become a newly legitimised group. We seek to protect them and to ensure that they do not develop into a ghetto of casual workers on inferior terms.
      Mr. Purchase: I support new clause 2. It is reasonable that people employed on a Sunday-only basis should enjoy protection on a pro-rata basis with colleagues in the same establishment who are full or part-time employees. I hope that hon. Members will be able to support the new clause.
      Let us consider someone who has been employed on the basis that he or she will work only on Sundays with no prospect of remission with pay from that work. Although the clause keeps referring to "him", it really deals with "her" because it is almost inevitable that Sunday-only workers will be females. Their children will sometimes confound them by being sick the day after they have been in robust health. After spending a night looking after an ill child, or waking up to find their child is not well, there is
      374
      no way that they can go to work. It is reasonable that a person in that position should receive, on a pro rata basis, sickness pay for the day when she is unavoidably absent from work.
      People take on such employment to improve their household income. The word "pin money" was used earlier, but I suspect that not too many people work for pin money in the old-fashioned sense, but, rather, to supplement their income, which is inadequate for a decent standard of living.
      A holiday entitlement should be given to those who are fortunate enough to work for a decent employer who—notwithstanding the comments of Conservative Members—pays double time and at sensible rates. It is wrong that we should even consider allowing someone to work 52 Sundays every year without a pro rata holiday entitlement.
      It is commonplace for workers to enjoy, after a period of time, 20 days or four weeks holiday per annum. Four Sundays off is all that the new clause seeks to provide. It would be just enough for Sunday-only workers to enjoy an Easter Sunday, a couple of weeks off in the summer or a week with the children during their Whitsun break. Those are eminently reasonably arguments.
      I understand that the new clause has to be so long because it sets out new provisions for people who would not otherwise be covered. It is a plea on behalf of Sunday-only workers, who overwhelmingly are women, to enjoy the sensible pro rata arrangements that apply at their workplace. Those arrangements include sickness pay and allowing workers time off if their family, including relatives for whom they are responsible, unexpectedly fall ill. It is not unreasonable to expect a good employer to allow for that contingency and to allow sickness pay and holiday entitlement.
      A Sunday-only woman worker may become used to an income of perhaps £15 a week, which may not seem much but is a lot for a family that is otherwise totally dependent on social security. She is the sort of worker who arrives for work 15 minutes before the shop opens and stays half an hour after it closes. It would be unfair not to pay her the income to which she has become accustomed and with the help of which she has elevated her family's status. She may have worked in that shop for three or four years and not had a day off or missed a beat.
      Unless we include provisions in the Bill, the majority of employers, and certainly those who do not recognise trade unions, will not concede such workers' rights. It is reasonable for the House to provide pro rata benefits in sickness and holiday pay for women who will give up their time to enable us to shop on Sundays. Every hon. Member should support what is, after all, a very modest proposal.
      Mrs. Wise: It would be intolerable if the Bill were passed without the new clause being added. It is an essential recognition of the fact that people who work only on Sundays are human beings with the same rights and needs as other workers. Without the new clause, there will be no guarantee that Sunday-only workers will have sick pay or holidays. Indeed, the probability is that they will not and that any time taken off work for whatever reason will be unpaid. Such arrangements are intolerable for Sunday-only workers and extremely dangerous for workers in general.
      I am probably arguing my case in a way that will lose me any potential support from Conservative Members

      375
      who, I am sure, would like nothing better than to find yet another mechanism to undercut and drive down wages and conditions. Nevertheless, I appeal to the Committee to accept the amendment.
      The retail industry is a major employer and it would be extremely dangerous to allow casual work to become so prevalent that it undermines the conditions of those who work more regularly at other times. In this instance, the interests of all shopworkers are the same—they need protecting. I hope that the Committee will accept the
      Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) pointed out that, for a variety of reason, the majority of workers who work exclusively on Sundays are undoubtedly women. He also dealt eloquently with the problem of women who might be unable to go to work because their children have fallen ill. As he rightly said, children have a habit of suddenly becoming ill. However, women are responsible not only for family members at the younger end of the age range but, increasingly, for elderly relatives.
      It has been estimated that women carers save the country in the region of £6 billion a year, which is a sizeable sum. Quite rightly, the country is moving towards the idea that as our life expectancy increases we should be cared for in our own homes as long as humanly possible. That is what care in the community is all about.
      Many women desperately need the additional sums that Sunday working provides, no matter how small they might be. However, they are caught in the trap of human values which I should have thought the Committee would be eager to preserve. Those values have to do with care and affection for members of the family, especially as they grow older. As a nation, we are living longer and the quality of our life is increasingly dependent on family members who are willing to care for us. The Committee should consider the issue seriously.
      When we discussed the possibility of reducing the length of notice that must be given from three months to one month, the Minister said that that would strike especially hard at shops selling particular specialities to the consuming public. In the case under consideration that would undoubtedly be so, and it would strike against the very employers who take the time and trouble to train their Sunday-only employees, to make it incumbent on them that if, for a variety of reasons, one of the newly-trained Sunday-only employees could not work on that one day, that person would automatically have to be dismissed. The employer would again be on the treadmill of having to train workers and losing them once they were trained.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Pike: Is not there a danger that if the shopworker falls ill but does not get sick pay he or she will turn up to work anyway? If such people are dealing with food, would not that be highly dangerous? In the interests of hygiene and of food safety we should ensure that sick pay is given, to enable workers to stay at home in such circumstances.
      Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. In recent years there has been a marked increase in all forms of food poisoning, traced back to a reduction in standards of hygiene, especially where food is prepared. One of the growing trends is for large supermarkets to provide food for consumption, if not on the premises, within easy walking distance, so my hon.
      376
      Friend makes a valid point. People would not think twice about turning up for work with a cold if they would otherwise lose money. Moreover, it is well documented both scientifically and medically that it is sometimes possible for people to be carriers of diseases from which they do not themselves suffer. The possibility of diseases spreading throughout the community becomes stronger if people who are desperate for the regrettably small sums that they earn on a Sunday have to calculate whether they will lose that money.
      It is important for the Committee, especially Conservative Members, to readjust their thinking about what it means to be employed, and what the exchange of skills for wages means. There should be an equal contract, but among Conservatives there seems to be a prevailing view that it is a privilege to have a job. Given the shamefully high unemployment that the Government's economic policies and incompetence have heaped upon the country, that is not surprising, but as a House representing all the people of our country, we should not allow such ideas to sway us when we make decisions on such important amendments.
      My hon. Friends and I have already said that most Sunday-only workers will be women. Those women sacrifice a great deal to enable their fellow citizens to shop on a Sunday, and the House should acknowledge those sacrifices. If the House is unwilling to acknowledge them in cash terms, in the money that people take home in their pay packets at the end of the working day, we should argue fiercely and strongly that what they cannot have in cash they should have in kind. They should be able to enjoy the benefits of other workers, although those are few in comparison with those of our European competitors—sick pay, holiday pay and the ability to participate as equal partners in a job that I sometimes think that Conservative Members do not regard as real work.
      Conservative Members may consider it a doddle, to use a popular phrase, for a woman to sit at a check-out. They think that all she has to do is to pass the items that customers buy across a computerised machine. As I have said as someone who had her first experience of the working world as a shop assistant, it was an extremely draining job. One was constantly meeting members of the general public and on occasions they could be extremely bloody-minded.
      Mrs. Wise: Is my hon. Friend aware that passing goods through the check-out is designed to be performed to targets and that the operator is expected to process anything up to 25 items a minute? Does she agree that, hour after hour, that is enormously fatiguing?
      Ms Jackson: I entirely agree. I have no doubt that given the commercial pressures which retailers are under, the number of goods which will be required to pass through the check-out will increase and the amount of time given to the assistant sitting there will decrease. That is invariably the case.
      The Committee must acknowledge that we are talking about real work. There is great sacrifice, in the main, on the part of women employees, who will be the majority of Sunday-only workers. The Committee should ensure, as far as it is humanly possible, that the sacrifices and skills of those women are acknowledged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, the service that those women have provided for their fellow citizens

      377
      should also be acknowledged. If it is not the will of the Committee that those skills, sacrifices and services are acknowledged in hard cash, I strongly urge Conservative Members to support them being acknowledged in kind.
      It is a difficult job to deal with the general public, especially when there is a marked stress on output. We have heard in previous debates that many retailers allow long queues to gather at check-outs because they are always conscious of overhead costs. Those at the sharp end in all such circumstances are the women sitting at the check-outs. The House should as far as possible—that possibility is infinitely wider than preceding votes have shown—support those women.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am once again constrained by the clock, so I shall sum up the Government's view of the new clause as quickly as I can. If I have followed what it means correctly, or certainly what it is intended to mean, the new clause would require that all the terms and conditions which are made available by an employer to his full-time, weekly staff would have to be available to Sunday-only staff.
      I have considerable sympathy for the general idea, although we are talking more about part-time workers, not only about Sunday-only workers. Again I am dubious about whether it is fair and practical that workers who work one day or a limited time during the week should automatically receive all the benefits enjoyed by those who have earned those benefits, who have devoted far longer hours or years to their work. Those full-time workers rely on their jobs for their pensions, bonus rights, maternity benefits and career breaks. The new clause makes it clear that the employer is obliged to make available similar terms.
      For example, an employer would have to make arrangements for Sunday-only workers to join the company pension scheme. That would certainly create problems for a properly managed pension scheme. I suspect that it would also be unwelcome to many, if not all, Sunday workers, who would not want to see stoppages taken out of their pay for the pension fund, especially if they were building a pension with another employer, or were students who had not yet entered into full-time work, or were wives who wanted to build up some income to pay for a mortgage or for a particular occasion, as has been said before.
      Of course, the Government want to see good pay and conditions, but the trade-off between the two is best left to the employers and the employees, or the unions on their behalf, to negotiate. I do not believe that the new clause would do Sunday workers a good turn. It would certainly impose a rigidity that would diminish the amount of Sunday work available and the level of straight remuneration in the form of take-home pay for Sunday-only workers. It would probably dilute some benefits for full-time workers. It would certainly cut the unions out of helping Sunday workers to secure the best deal available for them as part-timers.
      The interests and needs of part-timers are not always the same as those of full-time staff, and the benefits can be quite different. On benefits, certainly, the matter is much more complicated than the amendment recognises and it would be in everyone's interest for the provisions in this Bill to be left unchanged—although I accept that the House
      378
      may wish to return to the position of part-time workers in a different Bill and on another occasion. That is a matter for the House and for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who was sitting next to me a few moments ago and who will no doubt read with enormous interest what I have said.
      Mr. Alton: This is a good new clause because it recognises that people who are employed on a Sunday should receive treatment commensurate with that accorded to those employed during the rest of the week, on a pro rata basis. It recognises that those who work on a Sunday should have the same dignity and rights as anyone else.
      We should not underestimate the Bill's scope. The Shops Act 1950 has led to about 300,000 people being employed. The Keep Sunday Special option would have led to about 100,000 extra people being employed. The deregulatory option to which the House agreed—the so-called compromise—will lead to about 1 million extra people being employed on a Sunday. Unless we build in safeguards such as that proposed in the new clause, those people will be exploited on rack rates of pay and we shall have a charter for the downgrading of the retail trade. Jobs that were once permanent full-time jobs will be replaced by part-time work, with people being exploited as a consequence. That is why it is important that the Committee should accept the new clause.
      Ms Ruddock: I regret to say that the Minister has once again missed the point. I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: if the Bill is enacted, the Government will be creating a new group of workers—workers who go to work on Sunday because it has become legal to trade on Sunday. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has given us the figures, which are very substantial.
      Those new workers will go to work without any form of employment protection. The new clause seeks to give them not different or wonderful conditions but decent conditions commensurate with those enjoyed by workers working for the same employer in the same retail outlet on a weekday. That is very little to ask and it is typical of the Government that they should refuse that most modest of requests.
      We are talking about a pool of the most vulnerable and poorly paid workers. As my hon. Friends have so eloquently said, many women go to work for very little money. Difficult family circumstances often render their wages vital. They go to work out of economic necessity. They should not go to work to line other people's pockets and provide profits for companies and services for the public without any recognition of the sacrifices that they make and of the fact that their responsibilities often go beyond the workplace and include care of the young and the elderly and other family responsibilities.
      That group of workers clearly needs protection. Our new clause offers the most modest provision to ensure that such workers are given the terms and conditions developed for weekday workers, often as a result of trade union pressure in the workplace. Those who will work on Sundays under the Bill are a new pool of workers who are not protected. This new clause seeks to protect them and give them some reasonable conditions. We will take the new clause to a vote because we believe that this new pool of workers must gain some recognition for their service to

      379
      the community if the Bill is passed. We urge Tory Members to join us in voting for this modest proposal and for the protection of Sunday-only workers.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 273, Noes 305.

      Division No. 116]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dowd, Jim

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Ainger, Nick

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Allen, Graham

      Eastham, Ken

      Alton, David

      Enright, Derek

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Etherington, Bill

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fatchett, Derek

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Austin-Walker, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fisher, Mark

      Barnes, Harry

      Flynn, Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Battle, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bayley, Hugh

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Foulkes, George

      Beggs, Roy

      Fraser, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Fyfe, Maria

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Galloway, George

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Gapes, Mike

      Benton, Joe

      Garrett, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      George, Bruce

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Blair, Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Blunkett, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Boateng, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boyes, Roland

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bradley, Keith

      Graham, Thomas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burden, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Byers, Stephen

      Gunnell, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hain, Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Mike

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hardy, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Cann, Jamie

      Henderson, Doug

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clelland, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Coffey, Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hutton, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Denham, John

      Jowell, Tessa

      Dewar, Donald

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dixon, Don

      Keen, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      380

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prescott, John

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Purchase, Ken

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Radice, Giles

      Leighton, Ron

      Randall, Stuart

      Lewis, Terry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Litherland, Robert

      Redmond, Martin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Reid, Dr John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rendel, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rogers, Allan

      McCartney, Ian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rooney, Terry

      McFall, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKelvey, William

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McLeish, Henry

      Ruddock, Joan

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McNamara, Kevin

      Short, Clare

      McWilliam, John

      Simpson, Alan

      Madden, Max

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maginnis, Ken

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

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Soley, Clive

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Martlew, Eric

      Spellar, John

      Maxton, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Meacher, Michael

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Michael, Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Stevenson, George

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Stott, Roger

      Milburn, Alan

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Miller, Andrew

      Straw, Jack

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Tyler, Paul

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Vaz, Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Mudie, George

      Wallace, James

      Mullin, Chris

      Walley, Joan

      Murphy, Paul

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wareing, Robert N

      O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

      Watson, Mike

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Hara, Edward

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Olner, William

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wilson, Brian

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Winnick, David

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Audrey

      Patchett, Terry

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pendry, Tom

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pickthall, Colin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Pope, Greg

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkins, Robert

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Ashby, David

      Bates, Michael

      381

      Batiste, Spencer

      French, Douglas

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gale, Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gallie, Phil

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Booth, Hartley

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowis, John

      Gorst, John

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hague, William

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Burns, Simon

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butcher, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butler, Peter

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butterfill, John

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cash, William

      Hayes, Jerry

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Churchill, Mr

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Key, Robert

      Dover, Den

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Duncan, Alan

      Knapman, Roger

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, Sir David

      Eggar, Tim

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Elletson, Harold

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evennett, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Faber, David

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      382

      Maclean, David

      Sims, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Madel, Sir David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Soames, Nicholas

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Malone, Gerald

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mans, Keith

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Martand, Paul

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mariow, Tony

      Spring, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sproat, Iain

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mates, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Steen, Anthony

      Merchant, Piers

      Stephen, Michael

      Mills, Iain

      Stern, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stewart, Allan

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Streeter, Gary

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Sumberg, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sweeney, Walter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sykes, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thomason, Roy

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Norris, Steve

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thurnham, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ottaway, Richard

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

      Page, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Trend, Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Trotter, Neville

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Pawsey, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Viggers, Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Walden, George

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Ward, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Watts, John

      Richards, Rod

      Wells, Bowen

      Riddick, Graham

      Whitney, Ray

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilkinson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Willetts, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wilshire, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wood, Timothy

      Sackville, Tom

      Yeo, Tim

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress leave to sit again.
      Committee reported progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Sunday Trading Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood]
      Question agreed to.
      Again considered in Committee.

    New clause 3

      NON-ABATEMENT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS
      `(1) Any provision in an agreement between a shop worker and his employer (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be unenforceable to the extent that it purports—

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

      (b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to or from bringing any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under any provision of this Act.

      (2) For the purposes of this section "shop worker" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 below.'.—[Mr. Purchase.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Purchase: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time—[interruption.] Conservative Members may wish this to be a mere formality, and I am anxious to oblige them so that they can rush away to their clubs, but they would only have to rush back again later. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not rich enough"] No, they are not.
      The new clause ensures that any worker protection in the Bill is underwritten and cannot be abated. Let me explain to hon. Members who may not have experienced the difficulties of employer-employee relationships. Let us suppose that the Government had been generous this evening and had accepted some of the modest amendments that we proposed—for example, double time for working on Sunday.
      Although we know that, in many instances, the basic rate of pay is low, and that twice times not a lot is still not a lot, it is clear that the employer may well cuddle up to the employee and suggest not only that he or she may work on Sunday, but that the employer could perhaps find them a couple of hours on a Saturday as well. Under the new, totally unregulated shopping proposals that will come before the House shortly, an employer might even suggest that the employee could work a couple of evenings as well, saying, "If you'll work without wanting double time on Sunday, I'm sure I can accommodate your additional needs," which will lead to more income in one way or another.
      The new clause will prevent that, because it is a sure bet that, once abatement of the measures in the Bill starts, it
      384
      will be a slippery slope. I understand that the Minister believes that there are few or no loopholes through which abatement could be practised, but it is for him to demonstrate that that is so. I must put on record that the Opposition want a non-abatement clause to ensure that any protections for workers are enacted in full and to the benefit of all concerned.
      Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) is seeking to ensure that no agreement or contract which an employer may persuade an employee to enter into can override or take away the rights provided to the employee by schedule 4 of the Bill.
      I am sure that none of the rights can be removed or curtailed by any such device, and certainly not by the devices that he adumbrated. However, as I want to be sure that there is absolutely no way in which an employee can lose those rights, and as the new clause has only recently been printed on the amendment paper, I shall take legal advice to ensure that there are no such loopholes to close. If there are, I shall table an amendment or a new clause on Report. I do not believe that there are any loopholes, but I am certain that, if there were, the wording of the hon. Gentleman's new clause would not be sufficient to cover them.
      The hon. Gentleman has my assurance that I shall look carefully into the matter. If he wants to come to see me at any time and tell me of any additional worries, I shall be very happy to meet him with my officials.
      Mr. Purchase: The Minister is generous. Following what the Government have done this evening, we were due a little generosity—and we have received very little indeed. None the less, I thank the Minister for his undertaking. If he finds difficulties or loopholes, he may well come back with his own amendments. Such amendments would be welcomed by the Opposition. The essence of our case is that we want reasonable and proper protection for workers while they serve the rest of us on Sundays.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed.

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill (Allocation of Time)
  10.21 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House [14th December] be supplemented as follows:

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill (Allocation of Time)

    Lords Amendments
    1. (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
    (2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

    (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

    (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and

    (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

    (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

    Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
    2.—

    (1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

    (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

    (3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

    (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

    386

    (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

    Supplemental
    3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
    (2) Such a Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    4.—(1) In this paragraph "The proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (3) Proceedings under paragraph 1(2) or 2(3) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    (5) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that shall have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings of the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
    (6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
    The motion provides that further consideration of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill should be concluded no later than two hours from now, and specifies the order in which the amendments are to be considered.
    This is not a long or complicated Bill, and the House has already had ample time to debate its main provisions. The House should bear in mind the fact that the Bill will take effect from 6 April this year. I believe that we owe it to industry and commerce to complete our consideration in good time to enable employers to introduce the changes as smoothly as possible.
    Against that background, I commend the motion to the House.
    10.22 pm
    Mr. Keith Bradley: It is extraordinary that we should be starting our consideration of Lords amendments by yet again debating a guillotine motion. The debacle of the handling of this Bill continues. It started on 16 December, when the Government failed to secure, through all reasonable channels, a means of dealing with this Bill and with the Social Security (Contributions) Bill.
    I believe that the Government now rue the day they chose to steamroller this measure through the House. They have shown utter contempt for proper scrutiny, and have caused outrage not only among Opposition Members but among the public. The legislation will affect businesses large and small throughout the country.
    Although it is barely eight weeks since the Government used their original guillotine motion, and despite their arrogance and contempt, we have no intention of delaying matters further. When the Government, with barely six hours of debate, rushed the original provisions through, we predicted that it would be examined in greater detail in another place, and that, in particular, the provisions as they affected small businesses would be gone into.

    387
    Under the new legislation, the arrangement is to remove the opportunity for large businesses to reclaim a rebate on statutory sick pay and reduce the amount that small businesses can claim to 80 per cent., but not until after the first four weeks. We predicted that the Government would come under great pressure from small businesses, which the Labour party now represents so effectively. Clearly, we are now the champions of small businesses. We knew that, as a result of the pressure that we placed on the Government, as well as the opportunity for enlightened debate in the other House, amendments would be brought forward.
    We pointed out clearly on Second Reading that the shift of the burden of some £750 million on to small businesses at a time when they were trying to recover from the Government's economic mismanagement was a burden against which they would rightly fight. Although the Government said that the 0·2 per cent. changes made to national insurance contributions would not lead to costs to small businesses, we had always questioned that, and will look carefully at the figures when the legislation comes in.
    Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bradley: No, time is short because of the guillotine motion.
    Mr. Sykes rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way.
    Mr. Bradley: We have important points to make in this debate, and although I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman when we debate the amendments, which I am sure he is interested in and will wish to contribute to, I cannot give way at this stage.
    We do not intend to delay the House at this stage, but we predicted that the Government would have to table an amendment at the Lords amendments stage to recognise the horror felt by small businesses at the provisions of the Bill. I shall delay the House no longer but simply put on record again the fact that the Government's shoddy contempt for the House has led us to this unfortunate position. That is why the Labour party will continue to harass the Government and effectively scrutinise this legislation at every turn throughout this Session of Parliament.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Statutory Sick Pay Bill
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Statutory Sick Pay Bill

    After Clause 2
    Lords amendment: No. 1.
    ("—(1) In part XI of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory sick pay), after section 159 insert—

    After Clause 2

      Power to provide for recovery by employers of sums paid by way of statutory sick pay.
      159A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the recovery by employers, in accordance with the order, of the amount (if any) by which their payments of, or liability incurred for, statutory sick pay in any period exceeds the specified percentage of the amount of their liability for contributions payments in respect of the corresponding period.
      (2) An order under subsection (1) above may include provision—

      (a) as to the periods by reference to which the calculation referred to above is to be made,

      (b) for amounts which would otherwise be recoverable but which do not exceed the specified minimum for recovery not to be recoverable,

      (c) for the rounding up or down of any fraction of a pound which would otherwise result from a calculation made in accordance with the order, and

      (d) for any deduction from contributions payments made in accordance with the order to be disregarded for such purposes as may be specified,

      and may repeal sections 158 and 159 above and make any amendments of other enactments which are consequential on the repeal of those sections.
      (3) In this section—
      "contributions payments" means payments which a person is required by or under any enactment to make in discharge of any liability of his as an employer in respect of primary or secondary Class 1 contributions; and
      "specified" means specified in or determined in accordance with an order under subsection (1).
      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provision, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for or in connection with the coming into force of any order under subsection (1) above.".
      (2) In section 176(1)(c) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (parliamentary control: orders subject to affirmative procedure), at the appropriate place insert "section 159A(1)".
      (3) the Secretary of State—

      (a) shall lay before each House of Parliament the draft of an order under section 159A(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (inserted by subsection (1) above) framed so as to come into force on or before 6th April 1995, and

      (b) if the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, shall make the order in the form of the draft,

      Unless before 1st December 1994 he lays before each House of Parliament a report explaining why he does not intend to make such an order.")
      The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take also Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, the last of which involves privilege.
      Mr. Scott: It is widely recognised that we are aware of the special needs of small employers faced with more lengthy absences due to sickness. That is why we have always intended to make generous improvements to the existing small employers' relief provisions by increasing the number of employers eligible to benefit from that

      389
      concession. We shall also reduce the period after which full reimbursement becomes available, from the present six weeks to four weeks.
      Those changes will be brought into effect from 6 April 1994 by means of affirmative regulations, a draft of which I propose to lay before Parliament tomorrow. Some 750,000 employers—almost two thirds of those eligible to pay statutory sick pay—will be eligible. The small employers' relief scheme will be of benefit to small firms when an employee goes sick for a long time. An alternative means of helping those employers has been proposed in another place.
      We have never been opposed in principle to a new reimbursement scheme. Our concerns have centred around the need to avoid possible abuse of the new scheme and the need to obtain the relevant statistical data from employers so as to set the reimbursement threshold at an appropriate level.
      10.30 pm
      The lack of time available to consult both sides of industry more widely on the details of the proposed scheme means that we are unable to move as fast as some Members of the other place would wish. We believe that more time is needed to consider the proposed scheme in more detail. The amendment accepted in another place acknowledges the strength of our concerns and is worded in such a way as to allow sufficient time for the collection of data on employers' monthly statutory sick pay and national insurance contributions. That information will be crucial in enabling us to set the new reimbursement threshold at a level that will cost no more than the planned costs of the proposed enhancements to the existing small employers' scheme.
      The new clause allows the Secretary of State to provide by order for employers to recover that amount of their statutory sick pay payments that exceeds a specified percentage of their national insurance contributions liability in a given period. If, following consultation, the Government decide that they do not wish to proceed with the new scheme proposed in another place, the amendment also requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament explaining his decision. That is a wise way to consider the future of the provision. The new clause also provides for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to repeal the existing small employers' relief provisions at sections 158 and 159 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. That would be a logical consequence of introducing a new SSP reimbursement scheme. It would be nonsensical to have both schemes running at the same time. The intention of the amendment is clearly to replace the existing system, not to augment it. The Government should accept the amendment, which I commend to the House.
      Mr. Keith Bradley: It is rich for the Minister to move the amendment and claim that the Government always had the interests of small businesses in mind, and that it was only a matter of time before the amendment appeared. We should pay tribute to the other place for debating the subject so effectively and putting pressure on the Government to recognise the factor that we
      390
      recognised on Second Reading—the great unhappiness among small businesses about the Bill's original provisions.
      We only have to look yet again at the comments made by the small business organisations at the time to recognise that, even then, the Government were in trouble over the provision. The Institute of Directors stated that it was worried about the damaging effects on business of the new burdens created by the changes in the statutory sick pay provisions. Surprisingly, the Confederation of British Industry stated:
      "It poses fundamental questions about who should bear the cost of social security provision."
      I shall not expand on that subject tonight as I would be straining the terms of the amendment. A marker has been put down to show us that we should keep a wary eye on the Government, otherwise other potential social security and social insurance provisions may be passed on to small businesses. Maternity pay may be the next provision that businesses have to fund in future. In the past it has been funded through the social security system.
      The Forum for Small Business—not an organisation that would normally defend the suggestions that we made at the time the problems arose—made the following statement:
      "Current proposals if implemented are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies."
      On Second Reading, we flagged up the potential problems for small businesses when the £750 million statutory sick pay burden was shifted to industry. We are debating a major change, and the time for us to do so is being limited. Any amount of time was given to ensuring proper debate of an earlier measure that merely—I use the word "merely" for purposes of comparison—reduced a 100 per cent. clawback to 80 per cent. I shall not repeat all the arguments that expressed our outrage at the guillotining of this Bill; we are all living with the consequences.
      As the Minister said, the amendment was prompted by widespread anxiety—first expressed by the Labour party in the House of Commons, but pursued more vigorously by the other place because of the extra time allowed there—about the way in which small businesses would be affected by not being able to claw back rebate for sick pay in the first four weeks.
      It was felt that—as the Opposition had made clear in this House—most illness leading to a requirement for sick pay occurred in those first four weeks; indeed, research had shown as much. The Government were placing a particular burden on small businesses; they were tackling the problem of long-term sickness, rather than considering the short-term sickness that potentially posed the biggest problem for small businesses. An epidemic, for instance, could cause enormous problems for the businesses that can least afford not only to pay sickness benefit to staff, but to provide replacement staff.
      Having heard the arguments advanced in the other place, the Government considered them carefully. They had two main objections.
      First, as the Minister said, the shift of burden might be open to abuse by employers who, the Government believed, might move their statutory sick pay payments from one month to another so as to reach the set level over a period. We therefore welcome the new mechanism to avoid that problem.
      The Government's second worry was that there would not be enough time to implement the scheme—the

      391
      necessary consultations could not be concluded in time to have the revamped arrangements in place by April. As we now know, the new proposals to meet the Government's objection to their Lordships' original plan decree that the revised scheme will come into force on 6 April 1995. This will give the Government not two but 14 months to prepare the scheme. Our chief reason for not opposing the Lords amendment is that it will allow for proper consultations to be held with the main organisations that will be affected by it.
      One of the merits of the proposed new scheme is that there will be some simplicity in its implementation. There is always the danger, however, now that more and more legislation is effected by regulation, that schemes will become much more complicated when translated into regulations. We want to ensure that the regulations, when they eventually appear, do not cause more bureaucratic and cost complications for small businesses. That would defeat the whole object of the exercise. The Opposition maintain that this is a time when small businesses can ill afford additional cost burdens. I therefore hope that the regulations will ensure that the simplicity of the new system is maintained.
      I hope to hear from the Under-Secretary this evening which bodies and organisations he proposes to consult. I hope that the Government will consult not just those who represent small businesses but others who will be affected by the changes. I am, for instance, especially worried about the effects on disabled people.
      On Second Reading, we expressed our anxiety lest the changes to SSP led to what might be termed a charter to sack the sick. We wanted to ensure that the fact that small businesses will be denied the chance to reclaim SSP forfour weeks did not lead to a reluctance on the part of employers to employ certain categories of people. We were thinking particularly of disabled people.
      There is grave concern about this in the Committee scrutinising the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill. We have yet to debate the medical test that the Government intend to introduce, but they seem to assume that about 70,000 people who are on invalidity benefit will become "employable". We have always feared that they may be too sick to be employable—employers may look at their sickness record and be reluctant to employ them given the possible burden that they represent following the changes in statutory sick pay—but not sick enough to be able to claim the new incapacity benefit.
      They will fall between two stools, because they will remain on the unemployment register, which the Government claim they are trying to reduce, but the Government are not aware of the difficulties that people with a sickness record experience in seeking employment.
      I very much hope that the Government's consultation will not only cover bodies that represent firms but will range wider and will consider how the changes that the Government propose will affect particular groups of people.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Government limited reimbursement of SSP to 80 per cent., the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said:
      "The employers say that, if the Bill is passed into law, they will be extremely careful about who they employ, and will make their decisions on the basis of an applicant's health record.
      392
      Anyone with a poor health record or a poor prognosis of good health for the future will be unlikely to get a job."—[Official Report, 26 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 652.]
      That is what was said last time. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has said it this time. Have the predictions that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made about the outcome of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 proved accurate?
      Mr. Bradley: It is clear from talking to disabled people or to their organisations that they feel a great impediment to employment generally because of their disabilities. I pay tribute to some of the work that the Minister has done to facilitate disabled people entering the employment market, but all the surveys that have been conducted by disabled groups show that great difficulties remain. We want to ensure that there are no further barriers to employers taking on disabled people.
      Extra costs and burdens are being placed on small businesses by their having to pay a greater proportion of sick pay. I should be amazed, therefore, if the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) does not recognise that small businesses will look even more carefully at the sickness records of people with disabilities.
      It would be in all our interests to ensure that there is no impediment to disabled people returning to employment. That is the purpose of our seeking assurances tonight that that point will be covered in the report that will be provided to the House.
      In the other place, amendments were proposed to the principal amendment that we are debating. Assurances were given, which I am sure will be repeated tonight, that we shall debate the report on the new scheme. If the Government's consultation reveals that there may be major difficulties in introducing a scheme, the amendment aims to ensure that it will not be quietly dropped. The details of introducing a scheme, or of not doing so, must be properly debated in the House.
      We should not want the issue to slip away, nor would small businesses. The Government have many tried and tested mechanisms which could enable the report to slip off the agenda despite promises having been made in all good faith. Such mechanisms could include the pressure of parliamentary business in which we might be engaged in 14 months' time.
      The Minister mentioned the costings of the amendment, which need to be made clear. There is still a debate about the cost of the changes, and the Government's belief that the extra burden of £750 million on businesses will be offset by alterations to the national insurance rate and that the reduction of 0·2 per cent will even out the effects needs careful consideration, as do any changes that result from the Lords amendments.
      We should also be grateful for further comments on how the Government regard the provisions concerning a percentage of national insurance being used as the criterion for repayment of statutory sick pay. We should be grateful for some preliminary estimates of how it will work in practice. As the amendment has only just come from another place, I shall be happy for the Minister to write to me with details of the costings, which would be useful in our future deliberations on the report.
      I look forward to obtaining the necessary information and assurances from the Government so that we can accept the amendment.
      10.54 pm
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I found my case on the remarks on the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who has covered the most important issues in this debate, which is important but nevertheless constrained in terms of time. The hon. Gentleman made a comprehensive speech and the Minister should pay proper attention to it.
      I was disappointed by the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). If he is looking for extreme statements made recently by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), he picked a mild one. The hon. Member for Oldham, West regularly used to anticipate, even encourage, Armageddon in every speech that he made from the Front Bench.
      The hon. Member for Stockton, South should not discourage Labour's new social security Front-Bench team, which is much better than before, and I do not mean to sound patronising. If he is interested, he can meet me outside later and I will show him some truly extreme statements made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.
      Mr. Devlin: I have no doubt that such statements will recur in the speeches of the new Front-Bench team, who seem to be recycling some material.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I part company with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but we are straying out of order.
      It is worth spending a moment considering how we allow the other place to make important changes, such as this amendment. I welcome the amendment, which is a great improvement as far as it goes. It has already been said that, if the proceedings in this place had been better ordered, we should have agreed something similar. That would have been the right way to proceed.
      I know that there were difficulties about the timetabling. I listened carefully to all the arguments about having time to organise ourselves, and I know that improvements have been made, but it is worth stressing that the Government have to ca' a bit canny in future, to use the vernacular, in order to ensure that the House has an opportunity to consider in good time the detailed improvements that can and should be made to Bills such as this.
      We should spend time on the process of consultation with small businesses, too. I am not making a party political point, because Governments of all kinds have difficulties with that. The mechanisms in place are perfectly adequate for big business—international companies and world leaders such as ICI and GEC. They have well established contacts with the Government machine, and with Departments at all levels, and they can look after themselves. It must therefore be reasonably easy, so long as one takes the time to go through the process, to collect sensible views from a range throughout industry, and arrive at some idea of what the options are.
      That is much more difficult when we are dealing with businesses employing two, 10 or 20 people. It is difficult for those businesses, too, because they are organised across all sorts of different interest groups, from tobacconists to knitwear manufacturers. They themselves find it difficult to arrive at a consensus.
      There have been developments and improvements in that direction, through the formation of the Federation of Small Businesses, but it is still difficult for the Department,
      394
      even using its best endeavours, to arrive at a consensus. The Government should work harder at trying to make contact with what they would call very small businesses.
      Their definition of a small business is probably one with 100 or 200 employees, but we must not forget that the regulations probably bear down most heavily on the firms that the hon. Member for Withington was talking about when he said that, if a company with 10 employees was hit by a flu epidemic and four of them were sick, it would have a real problem. I realise that it is difficult for Government to cope with such, small firms with so few employees, but we always have to work harder to do better in that respect.
      I understand the function of the report, but what is in the Government's and the Minister's minds about monitoring the process? Ministers will always say that everything is continuously under review, but there is a case for examining the effects on people with disabilities.
      It is wrong to over-dramatise the argument, but there is a fair point to be made about the potential and even subliminal discrimination that may take root if the regulations are not carefully monitored. I hope that the Department will set up some systematic monitoring over the next two or three years, so that the Minister can satisfy himself that he is taking all possible steps to examine how the principles work out in practice.
      An awful lot can go wrong with the implementation of detailed regulations. With the best will in the world, when simple concepts are put into the hands of the parliamentary draftsmen they can come out looking complicated and difficult to implement. Efforts have been made to simplify the process; I realise that, and I welcome it. But will the regulations spawned by the amendment be approved on an affirmative or a negative basis? If regulations are to be introduced, the House should know that.
      I hope that, by that time, the usual channels will have got back into kilter, so that we shall not have to debate every motion and statutory instrument on the Floor of the House. If that goes on much longer, we shall all end up in lunatic asylums [HON. MEMBERS: "You first."] Yes, perhaps I shall be one of the first inmates. It is important to know whether the orders will be affirmative or negative, so that we know what scrutiny of detailed regulations the House faces.
      The question of costings, on which the hon. Member for Withington ended his speech, is important too. There has not been time to do much detailed arithmetic, but there must be some ball park figure in the Government's mind. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister would say a word about that matter when he sums up.
      11 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): It seems that the proceedings on the Bill can end with some harmony at least. There seems to be all-party agreement on the Lords amendment, if perhaps a little marred by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who still talks about a shift of the burden to industry.
      In fact, industry is the net beneficiary of the changes to statutory sick pay and the consequent reductions in national insurance contributions. Since small companies tend to have a lower incidence of sickness and absence than large companies, small companies especially stand to gain from the changes that the Government are bringing about.

      395
      The hon. Member for Withington asked about the consultation process, and especially expressed the hope that great complications and administrative burdens would not arise as a result of any new measures which may arise from the Lords amendment. I agree that extra complications and administrative burdens would be a serious disadvantage. Of course, it is in the mind of the Government to keep such burdens and complications to a minimum.
      We intend to consult both sides of industry. We shall consult employers, unions, give especial weight to the opinions of small businesses and their organisations, and we shall also consult disability organisations.
      The hon. Member for Withington raised the point about disabled employees. I remind him, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), that no evidence has ever been proffered to justify the charge levelled against the SSP scheme ever since it was first introduced more than 10 years ago, that it would have an adverse effect on disabled employees.
      Research carried out by the Centre for Research in Social Policy shows that the reduction in SSP reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. three years ago had no impact whatever on the willingness of employers to recruit employees with disabilities. It confirmed earlier research findings that such employees tend to take less time off through sickness than able-bodied colleagues.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South was right to ask the hon. Member for Withington to recall the forecast of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) so rightly observed, the forecasts of the hon. Member for Oldham, West could be a most entertaining catalogue, which could keep us here for a long time.
      Mr. Bradley: On the question of forecasts, may I assume from the Under-Secretary's comments on the burden that will be placed on small businesses and the way
      396
      in which he says they will be net gainers from the scheme, that he has given a commitment not to increase national insurance contributions in the future?
      Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to pre-empt the decisions of all future Chancellors and Secretaries of State, any more than he would want to pre-empt those of any future Chancellors or Secretaries of State from his party, remote though that possibility may be. People can look to the record of what has happened to national insurance contributions during our time in office and how it compares with the 13·5 per cent. level reached for employers' national insurance contributions with the surcharge in the 1970s. The record tells it all.
      If there are great difficulties in the creation of the new scheme outlined in the Lords amendment, we will be able to consider them in the report to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred. He may also like to know that, assuming that there is not a report but a new scheme, the orders will be affirmative. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that.
      The Government will now proceed to consult industry on the proposal. Employers and their organisations will be able to compare the benefits of the new proposal with the existing help for small employers. They will be able to judge whether the loss to those employers who will not benefit under the new scheme is outweighed by the gains of those who will.
      We will proceed to collect data on employers' monthly SSP and national insurance contributions payments so that the reimbursement threshold can be set at the appropriate level. I do not yet have any preliminary estimate, but there will be no secret about the estimates when we have arrived at them. We will also—this is most important—consider the monitoring and policing requirements of the proposed scheme to reduce the risk of abuse.
      It is good to see that the measure has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and can proceed successfully.
      Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

  Assessment of Deficits (European Community)
  11.6 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in sections 2, 4 and 5 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
  It will be within the memory of many hon. Members that section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act, which put the Maastricht treaty into our own domestic law, contains a provision requiring the Government to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in article 2 of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht treaty. That is the occasion of the debate.
  When the Maastricht Bill was being discussed in the other place, having been passed by this House, the Lord Advocate gave an assurance that the Government believed that, as a result of the inclusion of that provision, a debate in this House would be required before the information was submitted to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the treaty as referred to in section 5 of the Act. That is the reason why the debate is taking place in the House this evening. It is a debate occasioned by section 5 of the Maastricht Act.
  That bears no direct relationship to the question that the House is now being asked to address, however. Although the occasion is the passing of the information to Brussels under the terms of the treaty, the question that the House is being asked to address—which those on the Opposition Front Bench clearly identify in their amendment—is whether the House approves the contents of chapters 2, 4 and 5 of the Red Book tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on Budget day. The Red Book has already, on more than one occasion, been considered by the House as part of the Budget debate. As the terms of the Budget have been carried repeatedly in votes in the House, I think it not unreasonable to assume that the contents of the Red Book have been approved by the House. None the less, the debate gives the House the opportunity yet again to endorse the contents of the Red Book.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: As this is a new procedure, it would be helpful to the House if the Minister could explain what happens under the provisions of article 103. If the Government's motion on these sections is approved and sent to Brussels, what happens to it thereafter? Under what circumstances will we get a report back, bearing in mind the amendment tabled by some Conservative Members?
  Mr. Dorrell: Information that is tabled and submitted to the Government following the debate and sent to Brussels to satisfy our treaty obligations is used by the Commission in preparing the reports that it is required to prepare under the multilateral surveillance procedures and under the assessment of excessive deficits. That is the purpose of the submission of the information; it is not, however, the question that is before the House this evening. The question before the House this evening is whether it will approve again, as it has on several
  398
  occasions, the contents of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on Budget day.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: While we appreciate that paragraphs 1, 9 and 11 of article 104c do not apply to Britain, does my hon. Friend appreciate that section 7 means that the Council could give instructions to member states, including Britain, and that the recommendations shall not be made public? Paragraph 7 states:
  "these recommendations shall not be made public".
  Therefore, we Could have a situation in which the Commission tells the Government to do something, keep it secret and the House will not be aware of it. Does the Minister agree that, if the Commission gives such an instruction under paragraph 7, the Government would tell Parliament what was going on?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is usually meticulous in his use of the language. However, he has elided the concept of a recommendation contained in paragraph 7 of article 104c with the concept of an instruction. Those two words are not synonyms. I repeat the point: the House is being asked to approve a document that it has approved on many previous occasions. I commend the Government's motion to the House.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Select Committee on European Legislation considered these documents today and a severe reprimand was given to the Department and the Ministers concerned regarding the failure to perform this—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Smith: Looking around the Chamber, I have to say that it is a bit like old times for all of us. The fact that we are debating the motion tonight and that the House has a right to vote on what the Government submit to Brussels is the result of Labour's ingenuity and determination in successfully forcing the Government to incorporate section 5 in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. It is entirely right that the House should have the opportunity to examine and vote on submissions before they are sent to Brussels under the convergence and multilateral surveillance provisions of articles 103 and 104C.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is priding himself on the heroic posture of the Labour party during the Maastricht debate. Perhaps he would be good enough to remind hon. Members of the benefits that the Labour party obtained for itself and the nation by its attitude to the Maastricht treaty, set off against the way in which it supported the Government and made possible the imposition of the treaty on our nation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not relate to the motion.
  Mr. Smith: I was wondering how to work within the surveillance procedures the gains that we made in terms of local authority representation on the Committee of the Regions, the democratic right of the House to scrutinise

  399
  business and, more importantly, the right to stretch the Government on the rack over their failure on the social chapter—denying the people of this country the rights that are taken for granted across the rest of Europe.
  The country has a right to expect that the Government, in presenting the motion to the House, would make some effort to address the requirements of section 5 and specifically relate their submission to the goals of article 2 of the Maastricht treaty, which refers to
  "harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life".
  Instead, what we have in front of us is the same tired and failed message that the Government have been trotting out since last year's Budgets.
  That is a message which the country does not believe and which has demoralised the Conservative party's constituency activists—where it has any left. The Budgets broke the Conservative party's election promises on taxation to the extent that fully 69 per cent. of the population say that they will never trust the Conservatives on taxation again.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Smith: On that point, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That does not have much to do with section 5. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Let us get back to section 5.
  Mr. Smith rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may reach for the Red Book, but he knows full well that there is nothing in it about opinion polls. I know my way around that book as well as he.
  Mr. Smith: There is a great deal in the Red Book about taxation, and the Government have broken their promises on that.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman assist the House by explaining what the Labour party's present position is on what has been described as the multilateral surveillance procedure? We would imagine that, as part of its support for getting as quickly as possible towards a single currency, it is in favour of the subordination of the British national interest to foreign economic surveillance. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain what the Labour party's attitude to that matter is?
  Mr. Smith: What the hon. Gentleman presumes to be the Labour party's policy is not. We believe that there is merit in the discussions involved in multilateral surveillance. They would provide co-operation with our European partners for the goals that the Opposition and the people of this country hold dear, which include getting back towards full employment.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman; I have already done so twice, and I want to make some progress.
  400
  The Budgets that we are invited in effect to approve as our submission to Europe are those that brought up the level of Tory tax increases to £12·50 extra on a typical family from April. Those tax increases, as the Chancellor and Ministers admit, will check the economic recovery, and that will do nothing to rescue the people and the economy from the damage that the Budget increases will inflict.
  The Budget policies failed to stimulate investment in the face of all of the representations that the Government received from industry. The Budgets leave manufacturing investment languishing at barely one-third of the level of that of Germany. Our manufacturing investment per employee is one of the lowest in the European Union. It is only one third of the level of the Netherlands, it is 46 per cent. lower than in France and 26 per cent. lower than in Germany. No wonder Britain's record on economic growth is so poor.
  Whatever comfort may be taken from the present relative growth rates in Europe, what counts is the long-term growth record cancelling out the differential effect of the timing of recession and recovery in each country.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated assent.
  Mr. Smith: On that important count, Britain lags badly. The Financial Secretary agrees that the long-term growth record is the important criterion. That shows that, between 1979 and 1993, the Japanese economy grew by 63 per cent. and the American economy by 35 per cent. In Europe, the Italian economy grew by 32 per cent., those of the German lander by 32 per cent., the French economy by 31 per cent. and the United Kingdom economy by only 25 per cent.
  Mr. Dorrell: The proposition with which I was agreeing was that which the hon. Gentleman advanced to the House and then proceeded to ignore. That proposition is that one compares growth rates by looking across a longer period and comparing performance from similar points in the cycle. The hon. Gentleman's comparison for the United Kingdom economy used 1979, which was the nearest thing to the peak of the cycle that the previous Government ever succeeded in creating, and 1993, which nobody could possibly regard as the peak of any economic cycle. The hon. Gentleman set out precisely the right basis for making long-term economic comparisons and proceeded immediately to ignore it.
  Mr. Smith: I fear that, however long a period we take, the Financial Secretary will be disappointed, because Britain has such a poor performance on long-term growth, as a direct result of the low figures on manufacturing investment per employee, which I have just pointed out.
  However, that is not the only difficulty that the Government face. We have a large balance of payments deficit for this stage of the economic cycle. The Financial Secretary made the important point that it is necessary to compare appropriate points of the economic cycle. He could not dispute that, for this stage of the economic cycle, the balance of payments deficit that Britain is running is depressingly large and, what is more, is set to get worse.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. He just asserted that the balance of payments deficit is getting worse. It is not. It is getting better.
  Mr. Smith: I said that it was set to get worse. Time will be the test of who is right on that. As I am sure that the Financial Secretary is well aware, many commentators predict, a few years down the road, a terrible problem with the balance of payments deficit as a result of the Government's failure to improve Britain's industrial competitiveness.
  Accompanying the balance of payments deficit is the most serious failure of all—the failure to tackle the mass unemployment which drains individuals of hope and the country of the wealth that their energies and talents would create if they were employed. Mass unemployment floods into the public sector borrowing requirement. The Government's record could not be presented to Brussels as one which promoted, in the words of article 2 of the treaty, "a high level of employment". Even as unemployment, on the Government's figures, has started to turn down, levels of employment have fallen even further.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred to western Germany, but did not refer to Germany as a whole. Does he agree that one of the reasons why it is necessary to refer to western Germany, rather than the whole of Germany, is that the whole of the report—every statistic in it—omits to include the whole of Germany? It leaves out the eastern part of Germany, which reduces the value of the report substantially. It means that we have nothing more than a shambles on our hands, and no means of judging whether the convergence criteria have been reached throughout Europe as a whole.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman said it. He can recognise a shambles over there when he sees one. I was referring to the western lander for the precise reason that, if one compares the period from 1979 to 1993, there is no meaningful comparison that one can make for that period that would include the eastern lander. Of course the statistics will have to reflect fully the position in eastern parts of Germany and include it with the whole. I only wish that the Government made the same determined effort to invest in worn-out infrastructure in depressed parts of Britain as the Germans have made in methodically setting about restoring the eastern part of Germany.
  I was saying how badly the Government's proposals failed to address the corrosive, serious effect of unemployment in our nation and that levels of employment had fallen even further. Under the social goals to which the Government are supposed to relate their report to the EC, article 2 refers, as I have said, to a high level of social protection.
  It is important to ask what social protection there is for those who have seen even basic employment rights taken away, wages councils abolished, sick pay, invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit cut and, tonight in the House, rights to premium pay defeated. This is not so much social protection as social intimidation. It is the exact opposite of the social partnership in the workplace between the community, employers and government at all levels that we need to see for sustained economic success and for the social solidarity referred to in article 2.
  In a report which purports, as section 5 and article 2 do, to deal with social solidarity, the Government might have been expected to say something about crime and fraud, both international and domestic. Their poor record has seen crime rocket by 124 per cent. since 1979. British people are the most likely in Europe to be the victims of burglary.
  402
  Even the Tories cannot pretend that that has nothing to do with the deepening social divisions in Britain and the fragmentation of social cohesion resulting from their free market theories, which leave far too many people looking after number one. That opens the way for the illicit drugs industry and allows far too many people to be tempted to make more in crime—as they can—than from legitimate employment, with far too little prospect of being caught and convicted.
  People are deeply worried about social fragmentation, unfairness and division. There can be little doubt that Britain is deeply divided. As Labour Members have been saying for a long time and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed yesterday, Conservative tax policies have thrown fairness out of the window. Middle and lower-income Britain is paying a high price for the failures of the 1980s. The Financial Secretary dubbed it the yuppie revolution but, as he said last year, it was "built on sand". As a result of the Government's tax policies, the top 1 per cent. of income earners have received 30 per cent. of the income tax cuts since 1979, but are paying only 4 per cent. of the tax rises being imposed.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman might also like to refer to the fact that the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers are now producing 45 per cent. of the yield of income tax, whereas when Dennis Healey left office they were producing Only 35 per cent.
  Mr. Smith: I notice that the Financial Secretary did not challenge my case, which concerned the fairness and the unfairness of the top I per cent. receiving 30 per cent. of income tax cuts but paying only 4 per cent. of the rises.
  In place of Conservative promises before the election not to extend value added tax and to achieve year-on-year cuts in taxation, people are faced with the unfairness of VAT on domestic fuel and the prospect of year-on-year tax increases. Page 23 of the Budget report that we are invited to approve tonight shows year-on-year increases in the share of national income going on taxation, rising to 38·5 per cent.—a higher tax take than in any year of any Labour government, which destroys once and for all Conservative claims to be a party of low taxation.
  The Conservatives have added to the indirect tax burden. A typical family on average earnings pays 13 per cent. of its earnings on indirect tax, compared to 11·3 per cent. in 1978–79. The Conservatives have also added to the direct tax burden so that that same family pays 21·9 per cent. of its earnings in direct tax, compared with 20·9 per cent. in 1978–79.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: The implication of the picture that the hon. Gentleman is painting is that mainland Europe's success in social cohesion, taxation policy and so forth has a direct, lasting and beneficial effect on unemployment. Will he confirm that the unemployment record of most of the countries of mainland Europe compares very unfavourably with the record in this country?
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman studies the period that I was examining—I think that the Financial Secretary believes that it is right to study a long period of time—works out how many periods of growth and recession there were during that time and their extent and compares them with the record of each of those other countries, he will

  403
  realise what an abysmal record the Government have. They have diminished the opportunities and prosperity of the people of this country.
  The tax burdens that I mentioned are the effects of the Government's incompetence at managing the economy, which is matched in scale only by the extent of their broken election promises. Their failures make Britain weaker, more demoralised and more divided.
  Conservative Members too are certainly demoralised, and no wonder. On 22 January the Financial Secretary gave a keynote speech, which was intended, I dare say, to propel left-wing Conservatism into the next century. So replete was it with references to social obligation, the importance of public service and the rejection of jingoism that it could not, by any stretch of the imagination, have been given at last year's flag-waving Conservative conference. It did not register so much as an attack upon the Labour party as, perhaps, a putative application for membership. [Interruption.] For the benefit of the Financial Secretary, I repeat: not so much an attack on the Labour party as a putative application for membership.
  It is quite clear that the people whom the Financial Secretary had in his sights when he made that speech were very much closer to home. Let me give an illustration. The Financial Secretary said:
  "Patriotism—like freedom—is a much-abused concept. The Conservative is well aware of the dangers and rejects the exaggerated histrionics of flag-waving nationalists. They offer symbols in place of substance—a cheap imitation of the real thing."
  I wonder to whom that could have been referring. [Interruption.] hear someone ask "Where is he?" Where indeed?
  But it gets better. Whom could the hon. Gentleman have had in mind when he said:
  "Furthermore, the Conservative will reject a narrow, inward-looking view of patriotism. Love of country does not imply hostility to foreigners."
  Let him tell that to the Chief Secretary and to the noble Lord Tebbit.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill behoves those of us with foreign names to make cheap jibes about foreigners?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has said it and, as usual, he is right.
  The Financial Secretary went on to say:
  "European institutions do not represent a threat to our national identity or our national interests."
  It is difficult to imagine those words escaping from the mouth of the Chief Secretary, even in an unguarded moment.
  It is abundantly clear that, in the House and in the country, there are real divisions between the right and the left of the Conservative party. The former says that, with the long-term weakness of the economy, we should cut public services further so that we may move towards a more balanced budget and return to cutting taxes on the very rich. The latter says that, with the economic failures we face, the Government need to raise taxes so that they may inflict a bit less damage on public services.
  The Financial Secretary and the Chancellor have referred to the quality of public services. They must mean that they want a bit less damage than their hon. Friends on the right want. Both groups contrast with the Labour party, which says, "Let's put in place the measures for economic
  404
  success so that we may help to make people better off and provide them with better public services and a fairer distribution of taxes."
  The sections of the Budget report that we are considering tonight offer no basis for sustainable success. They hold in prospect no means of getting Britain to pull together for jobs, no restoration of the social fabric, no end to decline. They are measures that the Government should be ashamed to send to Brussels, let alone put before the British people. They should be rejected, and we shall vote against them tonight.
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: When Labour Members forced the Government to accept the amendment that led to this debate, Conservative Members had the vague idea that they meant to do something constructive with the debate on the Government's convergence plans. But they obviously just wanted an insurance policy. They know that their procedural expertise is a little lacking from time to time, so they wanted an extra opportunity to have the same old familiar, boring rant that we have heard several times already on this subject.
  When one of the biggest issues in British politics—how Britain should conduct itself in the debate on European monetary union—is under discussion, it is disappointing that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) should studiously avoid saying anything of consequence on the subject. Moreover, we are united in our total perplexity at the fact that the Labour party has only just discovered that taxation can check economic recovery. It is a remarkable thing for Labour Members to learn. They obviously did not know it at the last general election.
  When the hon. Member for Oxford, East talks of social protection, he means his union friends in work, rather than those who are out of work. The best social protection that any economy can offer its people is a job. We are absolutely united on the fact that we now have falling unemployment, lower unemployment than the EC average and are leading the European Community in the jobs stakes.
  On social cohesion, let us look at some of the socialist Governments running other European countries. Prime Minister Balladur is having to cope with chaos and dislocation in France; Spain is suffering from more than 20 per cent. unemployment; and there is almost total chaos in Italy. If one is looking for social cohesion, one need look no further than this country as a good example of social protection, jobs and economic success.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Apart from the brilliance of Ministers, of which we are all aware, does not my hon. Friend think that Britain's splendid achievement within Europe may be because we were chucked out of the exchange rate mechanism, unlike the others?
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point. Part of the ingredient of our success in achieving falling unemployment is the fact that we were thrown out of the exchange rate mechanism. I use the words "thrown out" advisedly because they were used by the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). We were then able to pursue policies that were in this country's interests and to set the economic agenda according to our domestic monetary

  405
  conditions, not according to an external discipline that had become inappropriate for the circumstances in which we found ourselves. That important point is pertinent to this debate which, I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, East, is meant to be about convergence.
  Why do we want convergence? What is so axiomatically good about it? Our economy has improved markedly since we made a conscious decision to let it diverge from those of our European partners. The treaty on European union contains an obligation to converge, which has been put there for political rather than economic reasons. People have a political agenda that they want to achieve in Europe and the economy is the tool with which they want to achieve it.
  Amendment (a), tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, talks of many supposed failings in the Government's economic policies. But if the Opposition were ever in government and took us into a single currency—their espoused policy—and did away with the opt-out which the Prime Minister attempted to negotiate at Maastricht, they would abolish the very means to deal with the problems which they think they can cope with better.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an intelligent and helpful speech. Does he agree that, while there are manifest short-term economic advantages in our being divergent from the present state of Europe, in the long term, political differences throw all economic advance off course? That has been demonstrated at least twice this century—between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945. It makes a great deal of sense to have the twin track of a political and an economic agenda.
  Mr. Jenkin: I agree that we need a twin-track agenda to ensure that we have a strong defence policy, coupled with clear foreign, economic and trade policies that bind us together. But it is trade that binds the interests of our nations together. The causes of both the first and second world wars were as much about protectionism as anything else.
  To impose a single currency upon the diverse nations in Europe is a different proposition. In imposing a single currency, one imposes a uniform economic discipline, but the political characteristics of each of the member states are very different. They have their own priorities, geographical characteristics and trading partners. France tends to trade with French-speaking countries, Britain tends to trade with English-speaking countries. A single currency does not automatically lead to the cohesion of Europe.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend consider convergence in relation to a single currency? We do not necessarily have to pursue convergence. We could allow countries that naturally converge to do so and adopt a multi-speed approach to the concept of a single currency, rather than following the politically dominated, forced agenda, which is essentially part of the treaty.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right, and he directs me to the subject that I wanted to raise: the definition of convergence. Many of my hon. Friends think that convergence means having less than 3 per cent. public sector deficit and less than 60 per cent. public debt ratio,
  406
  low inflation and low long-term interest rates. Those are not articles of convergence, but four objectives that politicians have decided it would be interesting to achieve.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: A wish list.
  Mr. Jenkin: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a wish list.
  Convergence under a single currency would require imposing the same monetary policy and the same interest rates regardless of the circumstances in each of the member states. In the United States, where there is a single currency, there is a single interest rate, and a single financial, fiscal and monetary discipline. But that does not solve the problems of economic divergence in the United States. When the motor industry in Chicago and Detroit is booming, oil in Texas can be bust and silicon chips booming in California. One has to have massive fiscal transfers to pay for the discrepancies between the different parts of the economic unit.
  The United Kingdom has a single currecy, but a widely divergent economic performance. We must pay for wide disparities in public expenditure—which is 18 per cent. per head higher in Scotland and 41 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland—to maintain a cohesive economic unit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we care about our country, that's why. How much more would we have to pay in taxes to maintain cohesion and convergence between all the various member states of the Community, given all the economic differences between them?
  Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is becoming so obsessed with the prospect of a single currency—to which Maastricht does not commit this country—that he forgets that the Maastricht convergence criteria actually constitute rather good Tory principles of public finance management. In the event that other countries observe them better than we do, given that the European Community is a single capital market, there will be fairly massive transfers that will not benefit this country.
  Mr. Jenkin: First, the treaty on European union obliges us to converge in the run-up to a single currency. Secondly, if it is virtuous to have a 3 per cent. public sector deficit ratio, why have we not had one for the past few years? The Maastricht treaty was negotiated at the end of 1991.
  The answer is that this country decided that it was politically expedient—and, indeed, beneficial to its economy—to run rather a large deficit. We decided to make that political choice. We would like to run a balanced budget; we would like to run a surplus. But it is for the House and the Government—both accountable to the British people—to decide what is best; it is not for the European Commission, in its wisdom, to decide when and how we should apply the convergence criteria.
  If we are talking about convergence, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) to read the treaty. It is about multilateral surveillance; it is about being told off by the Commission, not when we in this House think action is inappropriate but when the Commission thinks it is. My hon. Friend is committed to the idea of convergence and a single currency for a political reason; his is a political objective. I am as internationalist as he is, but we choose to achieve our aims in different ways.
  Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has mentioned the public sector borrowing requirement. Does he agree that the current £50 billion is largely a result of the fact that,

  407
  because we remained in the exchange rate mechanism for an intolerably long time, the cost of social security payments and housing benefits, and a range of additional public expenditure, was heaped on the British people? Consequently, we are in the economic mess represented by the Red Book that we have before us.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I am not prepared to go over old ground that is accepted by a great many people in the country.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I think that I must press on.
  I have made my argument as clear as possible. The pursuit of convergence is a very expensive business: that is why there are structural and cohesion funds. We must pay for convergence, and it is the northern states that will have to slow down their economic growth to pay for disparities throughout the European Community.
  I shall vote for the report, because I voted for the Budget; but the fact of its submission proves that monetary union is still happening. The idea that it has been stopped in its tracks by the collapse of the initial strategy must be discounted. The documents are beginning to flood out of the Commission. The strict convergence criteria were meant by some to make sure that monetary union never took place, but now the criteria turn out to be a little more malleable than we had thought. The goalposts are being moved.
  The two documents about legislation on convergence—it is interesting to note that the treaty is giving rise to draft legislation on that already—try to define the 3 per cent. borrowing ratio and the 60 per cent. public debt ratio, because each country has a different definition of these elements. Goodness only knows how the Italians and Greeks define them. No figures for previous years' performance is offered in the documents.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The words have different meanings.
  Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. and learned Friend says. they do. The Commission has a clear agenda and is starting to manipulate these definitions for its own purposes so that it can move back towards economic and monetary union, with all the expense that convergence implies.
  Conservative Members can unite behind the agenda articulated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his article in The Economist of 20 September:
  "All over Europe, what are people worrying about? Not to reduce the number of currencies but to increase the number of jobs."
  I commend that comment to the Minister.
  11.51 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister is a superbly conscientious man when offering assurances to the House. I hope tonight that before he gives us any more reassurances he will reflect on some of the others that the House has been given recently.
  We were told in the debates on the exchange rate mechanism that it would bring growth and stability; we all know that it brought about a shambles. Last year, we were told that the general agreement on tariffs and trade round would lead to a great reform of the common agricultural policy; now we are throwing so much money at the farmers that they are positively embarrassed by it.
  408
  Something significant is happening tonight. For the first time in our history, we are going to submit our Budget plans and forecasts to the Commission, so that the Council can look at them and in turn tell us its thoughts on what we and others are doing. It will demand a great deal of information. It will monitor economic developments in each member state, carry out regular assessments and suggest detailed rules and recommendations.
  All these recommendations will be directed to what the Commission thinks is the answer to our problems—to aim at this 3 per cent. figure. I know that Britain is doing terribly well compared with the other member states, but that is because we were thrown out of the ERM. The Minister, I know, is sometimes a little suspicious of our figures, so I took the trouble to get some independent figures from the Library. The Library informs me that if Britain adopted the 3 per cent. rule here and now—the basis of the EC's proposals—income tax would be increased by 23p in the pound. If the Minister did not like that he could, alternatively, impose VAT on everything at 34 per cent.
  Mr. Dorrell: I thank my hon. Friend for that research. As he will know, however, because he is an assiduous reader of the documents, a proper reading of the excessive deficit provisions of the treaty shows that they do not require the United Kingdom or any other state to secure the 3 per cent. overnight. The treaty obliges us to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits, which it defines as 3 per cent. of GDP.
  The document before the House outlines how the Government, chiefly for our own domestic reasons, do intend to reduce our public sector borrowing requirement to below 3 per cent. The Red Book shows that we will achieve that objective in 1996–97. I am sure that my hon. Friend, for reasons on which we both agree, will support the Government in delivering that objective. No suggestion is made in the treaty or elsewhere that we should seek to do that overnight.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am terribly sorry, but I have read what article 104C says about 3 per cent. These are specific aims. In fairness, Britain can receive only recommendations, strong letters and instructions, but if other member states do not do what they are told they can be fined, asked to put unlimited sums on deposit at no interest and have the facilities of the European investment bank withdrawn.
  The Minister said that this does not have to be done overnight. That is perfectly true—as long as we can give a tale to the Commission and to the Council and can say, "We are terribly sorry that we are above 3 per cent. but here are our plans to reduce it."
  Mr. Budgen: Not only can we be subject to such criticism and blackmail from our foreign governors but we are also likely to have great difficulty in raising money on international markets if we have been subject to an adverse report from what many people regard as people who control large sums of foreign money.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. Reports will be published in which the Council arid Commission will say, "We think that the Government are making a mess of things." We would know that that is untrue. We know that we have brilliant Treasury Ministers who are doing a fantastic job. I am sure that the same would apply to all Governments, but if the Commission

  409
  says, "We think that the Government are heading for disaster because they are borrowing far too much money and their economic policies are crazy," what effect will that have on our stability as a nation and on how people regard us?
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to use the same pejorative words as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), but if the EC wishes Britain to converge, is it not reasonable to expect the Commission to assist Britain to do so? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Britain is so assisted if the Commission allows the continuation of the situation in my area, where there is enormous anxiety about the survival of probably the finest engineering steel works in Europe, if not the world?
  They are likely to be taken out because the Governments of Germany and Spain are determined to subsidise their industries to destroy British competition. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, if the Commission does not help us, the possibility of convergence is made more difficult, and the effect on public expenditure of the destruction of a successful British industry makes the situation that Britain, and presumably South Yorkshire, faces a bitter one?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of the terrible problems facing the steel industry in south Yorkshire. Everyone is aware of the problems facing Britain. I ask the hon. Gentleman please to go and look at what the Council and the Commission have done. They have given permission for extra subsidies and the expansion of steel works in other countries on condition that we clobber ourselves. Do not blame the Government. The fact is that Europe is killing our steel industry, and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) knows that. We have seen it happening and it is getting worse. For him to blame Tories, Labour or Liberals is a load of codswallop. Our steel industry is being deliberately killed because we are allowing extra subsidies and extra capacity in certain member states.
  The Minister said that we do not have to increase VAT to 30 per cent. immediately. He said that the Commission will be kind. It will say, "As long as you are going the right way we will go along with you." I ask him to look at other member states of the EC. Are they going the right way with their borrowing? Every single figure shows that the massive borrowing of EC countries, but not Britain, is getting worse almost every day.
  I ask the Minister to read today's edition of that splendid newspaper The Guardian, which reports that Germany now has more than 4 million unemployed and that the total went up by 340,000 last month. What will be the impact of that increase on Germany's overspending and borrowing? The same is happening in Spain and Italy. I mentioned our excessive problem, but in Greece the figure is 15·4 per cent. It is my calculation, not the Library's, that if we had to conform to the 3 per cent. target, we should be required to increase income tax to 23s 4d in the pound, which would be difficult to maintain.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recollect that in Spain, despite the vast amounts made available to it in the form of subsidies—including the £108 billion over the next few years that was agreed at Edinburgh in 1992 under our
  410
  presidency—37 per cent. of all people under the age of 25 are unemployed? That is why Spain has a general strike. It is an indictment of the way in which the Community is going, and what is happening in Germany will happen in this country.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Minister is a sensible chap and I appeal to him to consider what the EC is doing to its member states. He should not listen to the Foreign Office chaps but should examine the figures. Spain has mass unemployment despite mass aid. Costs to industry and commerce are increasing and Europe is unable to compete because of the crazy CAP and trade protection. Massive borrowing is also a factor in Europe's problems.
  The House is well aware that things are going well in Britain, but what about interest rates? When considering convergence, the Minister should examine the figures for borrowing among the European member states and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Dykes) should examine the European investment bank. The main sources of loans are the Arab countries which, sadly, do not have so much money now because of the price of oil—even the Saudis are paying their debts in instalments—and the Japanese, who are lending less. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing borrowing will soon meet non-available lending, which will have a pretty devastating effect on interest rates in Europe.
  Please, will the Minister let himself be told what is happening? We tabled an amendment asking that the House of Commons be told what instructions or advice is given to member states. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West cares to listen, I recommend that he read paragraph 9 on page 20 of the treaty which states that the Commission will tell the Government what it thinks they should do but that it will not tell anyone else. Communication will be secret and private. If Britain is to be told what to do, surely the Government should at least inform the House. Is that asking too much?
  If the Minister has to proceed with what I believe to be another lunatic Euro-plan which will create more unemployment, misery and problems, I hope that he will at least promise to inform the House of any instructions or advice given by the EC to the Treasury. If other member states are told that fines are to be imposed and that they have to deposit money, why should not the Government tell us that, too?
  Article 103 of the treaty states that economic policy is now of common concern. I therefore appreciate the fact that the control by the House of economic policy is being taken away, bit by bit. It is disappearing, as is our control of other matters that we used to decide for ourselves. We should at least have the right to be told what is happening. The Minister should reflect on the 250,000 people who lost their jobs because of the criminal decision to join the exchange rate mechanism and on the fact that the Government told us that the treaty would bring growth and stability. Despite the additional transfer of power and the mad 3 per cent. policy, which can never work across Europe, I hope that he will tell the House when he receives secret advice on a bit of paper from the Council or the Commission.
  Is it wrong to say that we should be told what is happening? That is all that the amendment asks. As the Foreign Secretary, who is someone who wants to tell everyone everything, is sitting on the Front Bench, I hope

  411
  that we shall be given the assurance that, when the private secret letters come he will tell the House, so that not only the Labour party and the Conservative party but, most important, the people of Britain know what is going on.
  12.4 am
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I had not intended to speak in the debate, because I did not want to intrude on the private grief of the Conservatives. However, having heard some of what Conservative Members have said, I felt that it might be helpful if someone made a contribution that at least drew attention to the reality of what is happening in Europe rather than to the peculiar obsession of the anti-European wing of the Conservative party.
  European economies are becoming more integrated every day. Multinational companies are buying plants in other countries, in some cases with the support of those countries' Governments and in other cases against their wishes. That integration will continue regardless of whether this country is in the exchange rate mechanism, and regardless of whether there is a single European currency.
  As that process continues, we in this country can be bystanders or we can be part of trying to shape the structures, organisations and institutions of the Europe that is being created. Unfortunately, our Government have chosen to be bystanders and to opt out of that process, but we shall still have the opportunity over the next decade to take our place in influencing those decisions. If we examine what the Maastricht treaty really says we realise that, regardless of whether the timetable is kept to, it is possible and even likely that by 1999 a substantial minority, perhaps even a majority, of the member countries will go forward to establish some kind of single currency.
  Many people will say, "That does not matter to us. We are not influenced by it, and they can do it if they want. We want a two-speed Europe." But if our economy is to be dominated by the largest country in the European Union, with its power, its strength and its deutschmark zone, which will influence the policies of BMW and the other companies that want to invest and to build export markets outside the European Union, and if we say that we do not want any influence on that process, we should have to be strong enough outside on our own.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
  Mr. Gapes: I shall give way in a minute.
  We should have to be strong enough to resist those pressures. Our economy is already very weak, which is why our Government seem prepared to accept investment from anywhere, regardless of its long-term technological and industrial consequences, even if it is used to purchase the last remnants of the British motor vehicle industry.
  The logic of the position of those who want to opt out and stay out is that we shall become, on the one hand, a kind of subcontractor, producing on the periphery of the European economy—the deutschmark economy—and, on the other, a kind of amusement park for American and Japanese tourists. That is the logic of the Government's policies, which will leave us with no manufacturing base or jobs and no industrial future. We must face that reality.
  Mr. Jenkin: Although our economy is substantially smaller than that of western Germany, let alone that of the
  412
  united Germany, we are not left behind by Germany. On the contrary, the Bundesbank does 60 per cent. of its bond trading and 90 per cent. of its foreign exchange dealing in London. We need be no more left behind if we stay outside the single currency than Hong Kong is left behind by China.
  Mr. Gapes: That is an interesting parallel. Hong Kong is about to be unified with China in 1997 and lose its unique position. Germany has just gone through the most traumatic process of unification. It has also taken huge numbers of German refugees from central and eastern Europe and refugees from the former Soviet Union. Also, it has been recently reported that the east German economy is growing. The east German employment rate is no longer the major problem. The major problem it faces is the adjustment to the west German economy and to the process of the west European economy.
  I suspect that in five or 10 years' time, the 80 million-strong Germany will be a powerful, united economy. No other former Warsaw pact or former COMECON country is in anywhere near the same shape, despite the fact that they have not had the serious problems with which the German economy has had to deal.
  The basic position of that German economy is far stronger than the British economy. If we had had to take 5 million or 6 million people from Hong Kong and had had to deal with unification with a backward economy which had been run down over many years, the British economy would not have been able to cope. The Germans are having great difficulty, but I have no doubt that, in future, they will emerge in a much better position than Britain, France or any other west European country could possibly have managed.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gapes: In a moment, but not now. It is a myth to say—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gapes: No, not yet. The hon. Gentleman may be my neighbour, but I am not giving way.
  It is a myth to say that the German economy is falling apart and that it is in terrible trouble. It has difficulties with unification, but it is coming through it.
  In 1999, the German economy will be the motor force behind some sort of single European currency. When I spoke a few weeks ago to five Christian Democrat Members of Parliament—from the sister party of the British Conservatives in the European People's party—they told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ms Quin) that the policies of the British Labour party were much closer to their policies than those of their supposed friends in the Conservative party. [Interruption.] They said that they believed that they could work with us in government, but that they would have great difficulties working with the British Conservatives.
  A few days ago, I met some French politicians, led by Giscard D'Estaing, who were meeting members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. They made it clear that the French, including the Gaullists, the socialists and UDF members, saw moves towards economic and monetary union and a single currency as going ahead. That is despite the referendum in France. They attributed the

  413
  narrowness of that result to the unpopularity of President Mitterrand and the domestic unpopularity of that Government.
  If the Dutch are moving that way, if the Germans continue to move that way, and if the French, across the political spectrum and including the Conservative party's supposed allies in the European People's party and the majority of its Gaullist friends, move that way, where is Britain? It is nowhere. It is sitting on the sideline. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is here."] Yes, it may be here but why is it not over there in Europe as well?
  I shall conclude—[Interruption.] I shall not conclude, but I shall make two more points.
  The British Conservative party is in a complete shambles. To preserve the pretence of unity, it has a drafting committee for a European election manifesto; it brings forward the sublime and the ridiculous and puts them on the same committee. It will be interesting to see what kind of manifesto the committee comes up with. Will it be the same manifesto as that of the European People's party—a manifesto that talks about federalism and a single currency? Will the British Conservatives be able to launch their European campaign saying proudly, "We and our European partners all agree on these objectives"? We must wait and see.
  We in the Labour party know that, with our allies and partners in the party of European socialists and with those in many of the Christian Democrat parties in Europe who also believe in jobs, investment, social justice and the social chapter, we will be able to create the kind of Europe that provides employment and social justice for our people and for the people of the rest of Europe and contributes to peace, security and justice in the world.
  12.15 am
  Mr. John Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) most warmly. He gave us a superb exposition of the Labour's future view of the Community. I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conveying to us fraternal greetings from the European People's party—although a little disconcerted that the Foreign Secretary left his place on the Front Bench shortly afterwards.
  The hon. Gentleman has focused sharply on a philosophical divide. It is a genuine divide, and it is an irritating divide, because it does not follow the normal fault lines of party politics. Conservative Members had the opportunity to study the faces of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends as he made his speech, and they did not give the impression of unanimous glee.
  Mr. Radice: I did.
  Mr. Biffen: Of course, I almost felt that my hon. Friend.—I say hon. Friend because he is my pair—was the author of this advanced document of Euro-socialism.
  One one side of the divide, which is a genuine one, are those who think of politics as a mechanical process and who are attracted by the whole proposal of convergence, because they see it following what is to them unmistakeably a predetermined path—albeit not in iron terms—with all the resources of Government being dedicated to making it come about. On the other side are those who are, by contrast, evolutionary in their approach
  414
  to political problems and above all to European problems, who, by their lights, are no less communautaire than their opponents.
  I think that I take a more Tory view of life. These are great ambitions, and they are ambitions much more realistically undertaken without any clear view of the timing of the objectives. One is perfectly entitled also to ask whether the objectives of uniformity and convergence are a proven success. There is a case to be made for European economies with a degree of diversity. At times, when one is coming out of a recession, a strong economy often helps by being a lead economy. I adopt a neutral approach to that question, therefore.
  I do, however, observe that the European Community is an intensely diverse organisation. The nation states of Europe have a profound history, which is stronger than economics, and that diversity will be intensified by the enlargement of the Community to which hon. Members on both sides of the House are committed.
  Let me come to what is perhaps a more pedestrian view. The present view—the Delors view and the view of that great roll call of political parties to which the hon. Member for Ilford, South subjected us, which I respect as part of a dirigiste tradition that is well established on the continent—is that convergence is something to be brought about by Government involvement, which cannot be left to itself to happen; that is a rather sort of Gladstonian liberal view no longer shared by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), but still held in affection by myself.
  The European Commission looks at the situation and asks who will provide the resources to give real impetus to the process on the time scale of convergence. Recently, the general view was that it would be the Federal Republic of Germany. We can only observe that the federal republic—the united Germany—is in immense difficulty.
  I say that without any trace of satisfaction. A Germany in turmoil is a danger for Europe. If we look at the priorities that confront German domestic politicians today, will German resources be used in the Mediterranean or to the east. Those resources must go to the east partly because there are economic opportunities there, but, above all, the political situation there is so fragile that that must be the first call on German interests.
  What will happen? There will be a redistribution of the obligation and the privilege to help to finance this great politically contrived enterprise. We shall move more into the role of a contributor. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke warmly about the advantage that he hoped his constituency would get from this system. That is what we all hope and believe. However, the likelihood of Britain being a recipient of largesse from Greece or Portugal can be put to one side.
  I shall conclude on this point. It is a technical point, but it runs to the heart of the difference. It is one of measurement. If politicians are given access to resources, the ability to measure equitably so that the judgment will be respected by the population at large is crucial.
  There is no prospect of resources in western Europe being equitably assessed and managed. We view the statistical basis on which we work with some unease. Certainly, Sir Claus Moser, who is possibly in a position to make these judgments, has his anxieties about the quality of our statistics. But we should think of Greek and Portuguese statistics and those that will greet us from the east.

  415
  If we look at the protocol governing these matters in the Community documents, we see that the Commission will be charged with putting together the information on which decisions will be taken. One cannot go to the European people, who will justifiably be uneasy, on the basis of central allocations, basically because they do not trust other people's figures. It may seem a modest and technical point in this Chamber, but hon. Members should listen to the litany of disbelief in their constitutions about the equitable way in which Community resources are being distributed.
  If we go down this semi-mechanical route, we will be storing immense trouble if there cannot be as much evident justice about European budgeting as there is about national budgeting. It is against that background that one could well have a growing disillusion, which, far from fostering European partnership, will do the reverse.
  12.23 am
  Mr. William Cash: Following that speech will be difficult. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) referred to the precise point that Labour Members have completely missed—that the convergence criteria are deflationary; they are intended to be deflationary, and therefore will increase unemployment. It is no consolation to hon. Members on both sides of the House to know that the level of unemployment in Europe has risen to 17 million. The European Commission admitted last August that economic and monetary union is bound to increase unemployment significantly throughout Europe. Why on earth should we go through the charade of a debate such as this on the convergence criteria when everybody knows that they cannot work, and that they must not be allowed to work? It escapes me completely.
  As I pointed out earlier, the statistics themselves are riddled with holes. They do not include eastern Germany as part of the statistical base for the convergence criteria as devised.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman is evidently opposed to the convergence process, and convinced that the figures are deeply flawed. He and his hon. Friends have made strong arguments that Britain should not be taking part. Will he take the opportunity tonight not to collaborate with the submission of the information, by not voting for the Government motion?
  Mr. Cash: I have made it perfectly clear to the Whip that I have not the slightest intention of voting for the motion. I would not dream of doing so. I think that it is absolute rubbish, and the House should not pay the slightest attention to this ridiculous report.
  I will go further. I was deeply concerned to hear the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Johns Hopkins university on 29 November last year. My right hon. Friend stated that, whatever one's view on the steps to be taken after stage 2 of economic and monetary union, everyone was agreed on the importance of better economic co-ordination and greater convergence in the European economies.
  The plain fact is that it is not going to work, and it will induce unemployment. I will simply conclude on this point: what satisfaction can it give the people of this country to engage in a policy which is guaranteed to throw our people out of jobs?
  12.27 am
  Mr. Dorrell: It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The problem for the House this evening is the one to which I drew attention in my opening remarks. The motion asks the House to approve again a document that it has approved many times before, and to approve the contents of the Red Book because of a clause that was written into the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which dealt with the Maastricht treaty.
  The question for the House was whether we should endorse the contents of the Red Book. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) sought to address that question in his speech, but, as my hon. Friend the member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) rightly said, the result was a boring rant and familiar claptrap.
  The hon. Gentleman alleged that the plan set out in the Budget presented no prospects of growth, jobs or improving living standards. He was apparently blind to the fact that unemployment has fallen during the past 12 months, and that the growth rate during the same period has been 2 per cent. There are clear prospects of growth being sustained. That is the view not just of the Government, but of almost all independent commentators.
  Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend also accept that the improvement in our economic performance has come about by our diverging from our European partners on a number of key measures, not least the exchange rate?
  Mr. Dorrell: One of the key thinks which has been made possible the economic recovery, and which will continue to underwrite it, is the fact that we have inflation under better control in Britain today than for 25 years. The choice which the Government made to insist on facing down the inflationary pressures which were present in the British economy at the end of the 1980s was one of the key factors which has made recovery possible. I did agree with my hon. Friend's characterisation of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East.
  The House then had a real treat from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who displayed a hitherto unsuspected skill in the art of dispassionate and forensic analysis of the position in which the different countries of Europe have found themselves. He offered us, I suspect, the speech of a graduate of the Prescott school of rhetoric. The whole House enjoyed his speech, even if we were, with great respect to him, not much the wiser when he sat down.
  On the other hand, the majority of my hon. Friends who spoke recognised a sterile debate when they saw one. They understood that the House had already approved the document several times. There is not a great deal of point in reciting yet again familiar arguments from the two sides of the House. That is why I so much welcomed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He presented a view around which all Conservative Members can unite—the proposition that the proper way in which to see institutions and policies develop is to insist on an evolutionary approach to politics.
  The view expressed by my right hon. Friend was one of the key arguments that I advanced in the speech which the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was kind enough to quote in extenso. It was the reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister insisted at Maastricht that we should not sign up to an artificial timetable for

  417
  economic and monetary union, and that if, at any stage in the future, we chose to join a European single currency, that was a decision that should be made at the time when it was to be put into effect, based on the circumstances prevailing at that time.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North that that corresponds precisely with the evolutionary approach to such problems that he says—I agree with him—we should adopt.
  My right hon. Friend also stressed—again, I agree with him—that, in deciding whether we should proceed with a particular form of evolution, we should take account of what Alan Clark would describe as the actualite. Part of that actualitd in the evolution of European politics, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, is the current position in the German economy which is the result of reunification.
  Another thing that he might have mentioned, but did not, is the result of the possible enlargement of the Community. All those factors should be taken into account in the way in which the Community evolves. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister insisted at Maastricht that we should not commit ourselves to a long-term plan for the Community which built in no flexibility to allow it to react to events as they evolved.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that, under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty and the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government are obliged to notify the Community that they do not intend to proceed to stage 3 before the Community proceeds to stage 3? Have the Goverment yet given notification that they do not intend to move to stage 3? If not, when does the Financial Secretary anticipate that it will be communicated to the Community?
  Mr. Dorrell: No communication of that nature has yet been given to the Community. If it is given, it will be given at the time—
  Mr. Smith: If.
  Mr. Dorrell: As we have made clear from the beginning, we are anxious to keep the option open, observing precisely the principle that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North expounded.
  Therefore, the basis exists on which every Conservative Member can proceed in unity. It was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, and it was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North when he referred to the article written by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in The Economist, which advanced a imilar approach to the problem. That is the basis on which we shall approach the future of European economic and monetary questions.
  The question for the House this evening is whether the Government's plans set out in the document represent a proper way to proceed to deliver economic recovery and improving living standards. The Government's view, as the House well knows, is that sustainable, non-inflationary growth requires us to observe key disciplines of sound money and sound public finance. We do that primarily and principally because that is the only way in which to deliver the improving living standards that are the shared ambition
  418
  of every member of the Conservative party. It is on that basis that I commend the contents of the Red Book to the House and ask its support for the motion before us.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 239.

  Division No. 117]

  [12.35 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Eggar, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bates, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Bosweil, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowden, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton &Ripon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  419

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mates, Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

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

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trotter, Neville

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Needham, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wallace, James

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Ward, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Willetts, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilshire, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Wolfson, Mark

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rathbone, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  420

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fraser, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ainger, Nick

  Galloway, George

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Gapes, Mike

  Allen, Graham

  Garrett, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  George, Bruce

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Austin-Walker, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Barnes, Harry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barron, Kevin

  Graham, Thomas

  Battle, John

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bell, Stuart

  Grocott, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hain, Peter

  Benton, Joe

  Hall, Mike

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hanson, David

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hardy, Peter

  Betts, Clive

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Henderson, Doug

  Boyes, Roland

  Heppell, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hoey, Kate

  Burden, Richard

  Home Robertson, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hood, Jimmy

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hutton, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Ingram, Adam

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keen, Alan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cousins, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Cox, Tom

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Cummings, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Litherland, Robert

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Darling, Alistair

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davidson, Ian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McAllion, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Denham, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dewar, Donald

  McFall, John

  Dixon, Don

  McKelvey, William

  Dobson, Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McLeish, Henry

  Dowd, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McNamara, Kevin

  Eastham, Ken

  McWilliam, John

  Enright, Derek

  Madden, Max

  Etherington, Bill

  Mahon, Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fatchett, Derek

  Marek, Dr John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Foulkes, George

  Maxton, John

  421

  Meacher, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Michael, Alun

  Rowlands, Ted

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Milburn, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Short, Clare

  Morley, Elliot

  Simpson, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Paul

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, William

  Stott, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Straw, Jack

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Patchett, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vaz, Keith

  Pike, Peter L.

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walley, Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, John

  Watson, Mike

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in section 2,4 and 5 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

  Nursing (Performance-related Pay)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  12.46 am
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: First, may I place on record my disgust at the Government's refusal to honour the recommendations of the pay review body for nurses by expecting efficiency savings to fund it?
  In December 1993, the Department of Health put forward proposals to introduce performance-related pay for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The Department's guidelines for performance-related pay may be issued, but it will be up to local employers to decide whether to pay extra. There will be no jointly agreed rules or guarantee of payment. Trusts will be free to choose any performance measure they like.
  As a result, the management side of the nurses' negotiating body proposed that local employers should be allowed to introduce performance-related pay based on the
  "achievement of increased productivity and/or improved efficiency".
  I firmly believe that to go down such a road would be a disaster for the finest nursing profession in the world.
  First, we should examine the advantages of the current system for setting nurses' pay through a national salary scheme, determined by an independent review body following representations from employers, Government and unions. A national salary for nursing staff has been in place ever since the foundation of the national health service. It was brought in to replace the chaotic confusion in the pre-war arrangements, when pay was determined by a local hospital board and local authorities.
  The system of national pay has been very useful and the pay review body introduced in 1983 has also worked well, so nursing has enjoyed good industrial relations and stability. But, as everybody knows, the Government's motto for the public sector is, "If it is working well and workers seem to be satisfied and are benefiting, let's wreck it"
  That is what the internal market, of which performance-related pay is a creature, will do.
  Tonight I want to make the case for a national salary for nurses—that case is moral, economic and social. Is it fair that a nurse in my constituency of Halifax should be paid less than nurses in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise), for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) when the jobs that those nurses perform are identical?
  The clinical grading system can deal with differences in work between areas of the country, and the London allowance is intended to offset the high costs of living in the capital. But the Minister should say tonight whether he believes that other variations in pay are justifiable, particularly if they are based on factors outside nurses' control, such as local unemployment or the financial, or otherwise, success of the trust. The morale of nurses has never been lower. Does the Minister seriously intend to make it worse by allowing the crazy system to go ahead?
  In economic terms, a national salary makes it easier for nurses, especially qualified ones, to move around the country. It avoids the prospect of competition for staff between hospitals and is simple to administer. Why interfere with that system? Why not leave it alone when it has been proved to work so well?

  423
  I am sponsored by UNISON—I do not receive a penny for myself, but money is paid to the Labour party. My union and the Royal College of Nursing have undertaken research. In a report on performance-related pay and United Kingdom nursing commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing, and written by Mark Thompson and James Buchan, the Institute of Manpower Studies concluded that there was no reliable evidence that PRP improved employee motivation and some evidence that it could be demotivating. It also concluded that there was no evidence that performance-related pay helped to retain good performers. It stated that there was no evidence that performance-related pay improved the performance of the organisation.
  In an earlier report, the Institute of Manpower Studies considered performance-related pay in both the public and private sector. It looked at 20 different organisations. Its conclusions were:
  "Few studies have shown any link between PRP and productivity and the claims for PRP were found wanting in practice".
  Most people—certainly, most health workers and anybody with any knowledge of the health service—would agree that proposals for performance-related pay for nursing would be bad for patient care. It would be harmful if nursing were to become more financially driven, competitive and preoccupied with meaningless, if measurable, targets. Nurses are already sinking under excessive paperwork as the new market-led approach takes over. Nursing is not a production-line process or a service providing a profit. Performance-related pay would prove an extremely dangerous experiment that could seriously harm patient care.
  In other parts of the public sector, performance-related pay is not the success that it is claimed to be. There is evidence in the Inland Revenue that the introduction of performance-related pay is leading to the demoralisation of staff. Surveys for British Telecom, much hailed by the Government as a success story, have found widespread resentment at unfairness in its operation, particularly where cash limits have been applied so that the numbers of staff who can qualify for higher levels of payment is not determined by their performance but by predetermined budget limits. I do not think that anybody doubts that the same would be true of the NHS.
  A small number of trusts in the NHS have introduced schemes, but a survey in 1992 by NALGO, as it was then, found overwhelming dissatisfaction with performance-related pay for managers. PRP is not being introduced to support the NHS or the nurses. By imposing PRP linked to productivity, the Government hope to get nurses to fund their own pay increases well into the future. That is the real agenda; it has nothing to do with patient care of the care of nurses—and, of course, it involves many problems.
  Recently, the Royal College of Nursing said:
  "One of the greatest difficulties with introducing PRP to nursing is determining the performance indicators to be used. There is a danger that easily quantifiable measures such as the number of patients treated will be used and that factors such as the ward environment, the financial resources available and, perhaps most importantly, the quality of care provided may be overlooked. Current job evaluation schemes introduced into the NHS are already giving rise to these concerns: they concentrate on recognition and reward of management responsibility without giving sufficient consideration to factors such as patient care and communication skills."
  Will nurses find that they are pressurised into discharging patients too early, in order to meet productivity targets?
  424
  In Ayrshire and Arran trust, among others, there have been proposals for a system linking pay with attendance. Such a system would almost certainly put pressure on sick nurses. Imagine the consequences for a special care baby unit, or a maternity unit, if a nurse with influenza reported for duty.
  Another crazy idea relates to throughput. I warn the Minister that nurses will not tolerate a system that encourages them to ignore the quality of care, and to push patients out of the door as quickly as possible. Linking patient discharge rates with pay could cause individuals to suffer; it could also conflict with the duty not to discharge patients until community services are available.
  How could the throughput measure be applied to long-stay patients? In an excellent study, appropriately named "Nurses on the Production line", UNISON says:
  "Using patient throughput could lead to more productivity but worse care. In addition, at present no measures of readmission rates exist and one of the main dangers of using throughput would be that those patients discharged too quickly would simply be readmitted later with complications."
  A development that is already under way—because of the national shortage of beds, especially acute beds—would be massively accelerated.
  The Government must have devoted some thought to the proposal, given that they allowed the trusts and the director-managed units to go ahead on such a loose basis. Will there be a practice of including bed utilisation rates and bed occupancy rates? If so, how will it work in practice? Such matters are often beyond the control of individual nurses.
  Surely, if patient discharge rates are linked to pay, treatment regimes are bound to be influenced. There must be an effect on the quality of treatment. This idea is dangerous nonsense, and I hope that the Minister will note the points that I have raised on behalf of nurses.
  Another way of using performance-related pay is the method employed in the United States, where PRP is linked with performance appraisal. In the United Kingdom, the Homewood trust runs such a scheme, rating employees from "ordinary" to "outstanding"; there are four grades within the appraisal. Although most unions and staff organisations do not oppose appraisal, they object to a link between pay and appraisal. My union, UNISON, is on record as expressing the fear that staff will be less open if their pay suffers after they have discussed their weak points.
  I believe that there are many problems to do with performance-related pay that the Government have not taken seriously enough. What criteria will be used; how objective will it be? Performance-related pay systems are usually related to the individual, but nursing, by its very nature, is a team-based job in which people rely on each other and work together for the good of the patients. How much will this system upset what is a life-saving service?
  Experience of performance-related pay linked to appraisal schemes in other areas suggests that racial and sexual discrimination will be a major problem if the scheme is applied to nursing.
  There are so many drawbacks that it is difficult to know which ones to pinpoint in this debate. The Government's proposals to impose these measures mut be resisted as hard as possible. The public, Members of Parliament and all decision-makers must fight this just as hard as the police:

  425
  fought the Sheehy plan. If we can get the issue on the political agenda, I am sure that the Government will back off as fast as they did when the police resisted Sheehy.
  I appeal to all who may hear or read this debate, and to past and present patients and all hon. Members, to join me in praising the skills and commitment of nurses and in sympathising with them for the fraught time that they are having as they undergo some appalling changes to a market-led health care system. I appeal to everyone to condemn the scheme and to lobby the Government, to ensure that their thoughts on this dangerous and unnecessary experiment are put across to them.
  This crackpot scheme deserves to be put in a hospital incinerator.
  1.1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for raising the topic of the proposed performance-related pay for nurses, because it gives me an opportunity to explain the importance that the Government attach to the development of performance-related pay in the public sector. How we take this forward for nurses, the largest staff group in the NHS, is very important to the success of our whole approach.
  We want to extend the link between performance and rewards to all NHS staff groups, and to make it much more explicit. The Government's policy on rewarding performance in the NHS can be traced back to the 1989 White Paper "Working for Patients", which set out a programme of reform. One of the objectives of the changes subsequently made to the NHS was to provide greater satisfaction and rewards for those working in it who successfully respond to local needs and preferences.
  The White Paper proposed that NHS trusts should be free to settle the pay of their staff. The Government's objective throughout the service is progressively to introduce greater flexibility in order to allow managers to relate to local labour markets and reward individual performance.
  Performance rewards are not new in the NHS. By April 1994 it is expected that 95 per cent. of all hospital and community health services will be provided by trusts, employing 90 per cent. of all staff. Many trusts are now actively drawing up local reward strategies, with firm plans for their introduction this year. The Government's objective is to devolve pay bargaining to a local level, and we are examining how trusts may make more progress.
  Evidence suggests that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Halifax said, trusts are using their pay freedoms responsibly and are thoroughly researching their overall strategies before deciding the best way forward. They are pursuing the general aim that a well-motivated and rewarded work force will enjoy greater job satisfaction and will improve standards of patient care.
  In evidence to the review body last autumn, the Government stated our belief that the link between pay and performance should be achieved by linking a larger proportion of the pay bill to performance. Any overall increases in pay must of course be affordable on a basis similar to that in the civil service: in general, any increase in pay must be funded from efficiency improvements.
  426
  Against that background, the Health Department, in evidence to the review body, urged it to recommend only modest increases in remuneration nationally to leave maximum scope to encourage local bargaining on self-financing pay increases. Local NHS employees should be free to adopt performance schemes most relevant to their needs. Local schemes might include the introduction of multi-disciplinary group awards, which could also recognise individual contributions to team effort and individual performance where one person is clearly responsible for ensuring that a particular service target is achieved.
  The review body, in its 1994 report published on 3 February, made it clear that it wanted to facilitate a significant step towards local pay determination and productivity bargaining. It supported the Government's wish to move towards locally devised performance-related pay schemes. The report further commented that by next year a framework would be established for effective local pay determination with clear prospects for achieving pay increases based on local achievements and needs. It said:
  "These are transitional arrangements for a transitional year. We would prefer not to make recommendations in this form next year. By that time we expect to see a framework established for effective local pay determination, with clear prospects for achieving pay increases based on local achievements and needs."
  The review body was clear that its recommendations should not inhibit local productivity pay bargaining in any trusts that have prepared for this in 1994. It went on to say that had the discussions between parties at a national level and the preparations at local level been more advanced, it would have recommended an increase of 2 per cent. in national pay rates, with strong encouragement for local determination of increases beyond that.
  We welcome the review body's enthusiasm for local determination of performance-related pay. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, commenting on the review body report, said:
  "I afford the highest priority to the early introduction of arrangements which will link a significant proportion of pay increases from next year to the performance of staff achieving improvements in local services."
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Minister is carefully not defining performance. The main burden of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was on the impossibility of satisfactorily defining performance in nursing work. Will he kindly address that point?
  Mr. Sackville: The hon. Lady knows that we intend to leave employers to define how they wish to use this freedom. All employers in the private and public sectors must make their own assessments of the performance of their employees. It is absurd, although the hon. Members for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Halifax may not agree, to pretend that all employees have the same determination and commitment.
  It is surely open to employers to assess their staff's performance, commitment and success in meeting targets and to use the freedom to reward them.
  Mrs. Wise: What kind of targets?
  Mr. Sackville: There are a number of ways in which employers can measure their employees' performance, and they do so in most professions. There is no reason to

  427
  exempt any profession from such a policy, no matter how unwelcome that might be to someone with the hon. Lady's political background.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I must declare that I am also sponsored by UNISON and receive no personal remuneration. The Minister is talking absolute rubbish and is not defining what he means by performance-related pay. The aim of the debate is to establish what criteria the Minister has in mind for the measuring of performance. He cannot leave it to the trusts or to people outside to decide; we want him to tell us so that the unions and work force in the hospitals know what he has in mind. Rather than abdicating his responsibility, he should give us an answer from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not going to attempt to prescribe to employers a set of rules on how they should assess their employees. Only they are capable of doing that. Assessments are carried out throughout the world of work. It is a ridiculous myth that in the public sector, with its rigid collective bargaining background, it is impossible for employers to assess their staff.
  We understand that people do not work in the health service primarily for money. They work in the service for various reasons—they might wish to serve patients or they might get satisfaction from the work. That does not negate the idea that those who are able to demonstrate a high level of commitment and who are able to make a particular contribution should not be rewarded. We have every intention of ensuring that employers in the health service, like those in other spheres of activity, should have the freedom to assess employees, whether they be nurses or other NHS employees. I have no hesitation in commending that approach.
  The hon. Member for Halifax gave a series of gloomy predictions about the effects of such a policy. She suggested that people would be measuring bed occupancy and trying to link pay to discharges. There is no reason for an employer to use his powers insensitively. It is perfectly possible for employers in the health service, as elsewhere, to assess which employees they believe especially deserve a higher level of performance-related pay. There was nothing in the hon. Lady's speech to deter me from that view. I commend the concept of performance-related pay in the NHS to the House.
  1.13 am
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have listened carefully to the Minister's speech and I have about three minutes in which to speak. He has added nothing to the sum of our knowledge of this topic. He has not replied to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was trying to extract from him some information about what people should consider important when measuring employers' peformance. He was prepared to rule out some measures—he said that there was no reason for insensitivity—but he was not prepared to say which measures were ruled in.
  I have spent some time in hospital recently. I have been in wards for some fairly long stretches over the past few years and I have been able to sit and watch, and lie and listen, and hear conversations with nurses, doctors arid other people in the medical profession. My experience of being on a ward over a prolonged period—an experience that I understand that the Minister has never had—leads me to believe that it is not possible to measure the performance of a nurse fairly.
  The only result of the policy will be to encourage resentment and jealousies—a feeling that some people are being preferred over others, and that, because certain friendships exist with hospitals and wards, favours are being given in the form of enhanced pay. The Minister will make some nurses feel that they are being badly treated. I can give him a copper-bottomed guarantee that he will undermine morale on the wards in hundreds of hospitals throughout the country if he continues along that route.
  If the Minister wants to implement and impose local agreements for nurses, which my hon. Friends and I also oppose, that is another argument and another discussion. But when he insists on the introduction of some sort of measurement, he is beginning to meddle with the relationships that build up communities in wards and in hospitals—something that Ministers fail to understand.
  The Minister need not take it from me; he can take it from the people in the profession. He should ask not the Tory doctors but the apolitical doctors, the senior nursing officers, the registrars, the nurses and the cleaners. The effects will work all the way through a hospital ward. People will see relationships that have been built up over decades at every level between professionals, and between people who are not professionals—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Children (Northern Ireland) Order
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will defer the introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order, pending the outcome of the review of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Ancram
  No. The Government are not undertaking a review of the Children Act 1989 although its provisions are monitored and some changes have been made since its enactment.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There is no specific budget for my travel costs. The amounts spent on travel on Government business are:

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Internal travel

  £621,241

  £430,540

  External travel

  £ 36,935

  £ 17,300

  1 To 4 February.

  Electricity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which companies or organisations were invited to compete for the supply of electricity to Northern Ireland Electricity ultimately won by Scottish Power to supply it over the proposed interconnector; what was the procedure for this tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I understand that NIE initially approached a number of generating companies including National Power plc, PowerGen plc, Electricite de France, Scottish Hydro Electric plc in addition to Scottish Power plc before entering into detailed negotiations with the latter.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Ove Arup report on the commercial assessment of the electricity interconnector with Scotland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No. This report, which contains information supplied in confidence by two privately owned companies, was commissioned by and is the property of the European Commission.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will request the Northern Ireland Electricity 240
  Regulator to take account of the results of a proper independent cost benefit analysis for the Province as a whole, prior to reaching a decision on the most economic source of electric power for Northern Ireland and making any future announcement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No. Under the terms of its licence Northern Ireland Electricity plc is required to purchase its power requirements as economically as possible and must satisfy the Director General of Electricity Supply that it has done so.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many citizens living overseas have applied to be registered to vote in elections in each parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Ancram
  Records of the number of applications from British citizens overseas are not held. The numbers of overseas electors included on the electoral register for 1993–94, and the expected figures for 1994–95, are given in the table.

  Overseas electors

  Constituency

  1993–94 register

  1994–95 register (anticipated)

  Belfast East

  10

  9

  Belfast North

  8

  5

  Belfast South

  9

  4

  Belfast West

  1

  —

  East Antrim

  3

  3

  East Londonderry

  9

  7

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  6

  7

  Foyle

  2

  1

  Lagan Valley

  3

  2

  Mid Ulster

  6

  5

  Newry and Armagh

  4

  2

  North Antrim

  6

  7

  North Down

  21

  19

  South Antrim

  3

  2

  South Down

  2

  3

  Strangford

  10

  9

  Upper Bann

  5

  6

  Total

  108

  91

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to encourage the development of retail, wholesale and manufacturing co-operatives.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  LEDU, Northern Ireland's small business agency, plans to continue to encourage such activities through its community business programme which provides a package of grant aid as well as loan funding.

  In addition, the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency (NICDA), which is funded by Government, encourages the development of worker co-operatives, service co-operatives, community enterprises and employee share ownership plans, through a range of services.
  241

  Proxy Votes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make the application form to vote by post or proxy due to disability or physical incapacity available in braille.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no plans to do so.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 1 February 1994 at column 633.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who are the members currently appointed to the Royal Mint advisory committee.

  Mr. Nelson
  The members of the Royal Mint advisory committee are as follows:

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (President)

  Roger de L. Holmes, Deputy Master of the

  Performance against Maastricht convergence criteria

  Latest inflation1

  Budget balance2

  General government debt3

  Long-term bond yield4

  Belgium

  2·4

  -7·4

  139·1

  6·6

  Denmark

  1·5

  -4·4

  80·2

  6·2

  France

  2·1

  -5·9

  58·3

  5·9

  Germany5

  3·4

  -4·2

  50·8

  5·9

  Greece

  11·1

  -15·4

  111·3

  n/a

  Ireland

  1·5

  -3·0

  93·7

  6·4

  Italy

  4·0

  -10·0

  116·2

  8·4

  Luxembourg

  3·6

  -2·5

  8·9

  6·6

  Netherlands

  1·7

  -4·0

  83·4

  5·8

  Portugal

  6·6

  -8·9

  65·8

  9·1

  Spain

  4·9

  -7·2

  53·8

  8·0

  United Kingdom

  1·9

  -7·6

  51·8

  6·5

  1 Latest percentage change in consumer prices on year ago.

  2 Estimate of 1993 general government financial balance (as a percentage of GDP).

  3 Estimate of 1993 gross debt of general government (as a percentage of GDP).

  4 Yield on 10 year government securities on 7 February 1994.

  5 Inflation figures are for western Germany.

  Source: OECD and European Commission.

  The convergence criteria are:

  a high degree of price stability, as measured by consumer price inflation over one year being within 1½ percentage points of, at most, the three lowest inflation countries;
  242

  Royal Mint (Chairman)

  Marchioness of Anglesey

  Professor E. Arthur Bell

  Dominic Cadbury

  Sir Hugh Casson

  Dr. Christopher Challis

  Vincent Duggleby

  Sir John Hale

  Michael Harvey

  Professor Bryan Kneale

  John Porteous

  Dr. Conrad Swan

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by Her Majesty's Treasury on (i) internal and (ii) overseas travel by the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 27 May 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  Expenditure and budgets for the Chancellor's United Kingdom and overseas travel since 27 May 1993 is as follows:

  Item

  Budget (£)

  Actual (£)

  Overseas travel

  38,531

  24,613

  United Kingdom travel

  1,087

  556

  Economic Convergence
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in table form those EC countries conforming to the economic convergence criteria of the treaty of Maastricht.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table shows the state of progress of EC member states with respect to the convergence criteria as set out in the Maastricht treaty. Definitions of the indicators of convergence have not yet been fully standardised and the figures are therefore only indicative at this stage.no "excessive" budget deficit, as judged by ECOFIN. (A Commission report to ECOFIN might be triggered by a budget deficit above 3 per cent. of GDP or a ratio of public debt to GDP above 60 per cent. of GDP);

  243
  average long-term nominal interest rates over one year within two percentage points of rates in, at most, the three lowest inflation countries;
  respecting the normal fluctuation margins in the ERM without severe tensions for at least the last two years. In particular, the member state shall not have devalued its currency's bilateral rate against any other member state's currency on its own initiative for the same period.

  Currently Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain are members of the ERM. On 2 August 1993 the fluctuation margins of the ERM were temporarily widened to 15 per cent.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated per capita average rate of economic growth in each of the industrial countries in real terms(a) between 1964 and 1973, (b) between 1973 and 1979, (c) between 1979 and 1988 and (d) between 1988 and 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  The relevant statistics are published in the OECD National Accounts Main Aggregates volume 1 and in the OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  £ per year

  1993–94 tax regime

  Assuming no married couple's allowance

  Income net of tax and national insurance contributions, plus child benefit

  Equivalised net income

  Income net of tax and national insurance contributions, plus child benefit

  Equivalised net income

  (a) Single people earning £30,000

  21,296

  21,296

  21,296

  21,296

  (b) Single wage married couples earning £30,000

  21,984

  13,405

  21,296

  12,985

  (c) Two-wage married couples each spouse earning £15,000

  22,610

  13,787

  22,180

  13,524

  (d) Single-wage couples plus two children aged 4 and 10 earning £30,000

  22,925

  9,924

  22,237

  9,626

  Single-wage couples plus four children aged 4, 10, 13 and 15 earning £30,000

  23,768

  7,428

  23,080

  7,212

  (e) Two income couples plus two children as above each spouse earning £15,000

  23,551

  10,195

  23,121

  10,009

  Two-income couples plus four children as above each spouse earning £15,000

  24,394

  7,623

  23,964

  7,489

  EC Funding
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the expected receipts from each of the European Community's funds to the United Kingdom in the current year.

  Sir John Cope
  Details of the United Kingdom's public sector receipts by Government Department and EC fund, for the current United Kingdom financial year, will be published in March in the Chancellor's 1994 departmental report. The forecast of United Kingdom public sector receipts by calendar year for 1994, that is the current EC Budget year, will be published in the spring in the White Paper, "Statement on the 1994 Community Budget".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what value of receipts he expects from the
  244

  Incomes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for the current tax year, showing incomes net of income tax and national insurance contribution, plus child benefit for(a) single people earning £30,000 a year, (b) single-wage married couples earning £30,000 a year, (c) two-wage married couples each spouse earning £15,000, (d) single-wage couples plus two children aged four and 10 years and plus four children aged four, 10, 13 and 15 years, again with £30,000 per family per year and (e) two-income couples plus two children and plus four children, ages as above, each spouse with £15,000; if, in each case, he will equivalise the families' net incomes, using the equivalence ratios used by the Department of Social Security in their households below average incomes analysis, but taking single people as the reference point; and if he will recalculate both sets of figures assuming that married couple's allowance had been phased out.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is given in the table. The calculation of income tax liability assumes that no reliefs or allowances other than the personal and married couple's allowance are available. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 national insurance at the contracted-in rate. The equivalence scales used are before housing costs are deducted.

  European Community's structural fund for each of the fund's objectives in the calendar year 1994, divided into payments to (a) central Government, (b) local government, (c) other public sector bodies and (d) the private sector.

  Mr. Portillo
  The structural funds are implemented by multi-annual programmes and the Commission has announced the United Kingdom's allocations under objectives 1, 3, 4 and 5(b) for the years 1994–1999 and under objective 2 for the years 1994–1996. The breakdown of those allocations between years will be a matter for negotiation with the Commission on the community support framework which lay down how the funds will be used.

  It is not possible to say how much any sector will receive in advance of applications, for support being received from the funds and decisions taken.
  245

  Trustee Investments Act Review
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he is making to ensure that a wide range of charities, investment management companies and other interested parties are invited to make representations to the Treasury in connection with the current review of the Trustee Investments Act 1961; and if he will list the names of organisations which have been invited individually to submit views.

  Mr. Nelson
  A number of changes to the Trustee Investments Act 1961 are currently being drafted. These are largely technical in nature and are either necessary to comply with European obligations or result from amendments to other statutes. The Treasury has undertaken a limited consultation on these changes, seeking the views of other Departments (including the Charity Commission), the Law Society, the Unit Trust Association and a small number of law firms who have expressed a desire for technical changes.

  The Government are also considering the case for wider reform. If it is decided that there are grounds for such reform, we will ensure that bodies of the type mentioned are fully consulted.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect on the tax relief on payments required by the Child Support Agency of the use of collection services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where tax relief is available for maintenance payments made under Child Support Agency assessments it is unaffected by the use of the agency's collection services.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken or intends to take to secure extension of the derogation permitting the continuation of VAT zero rating in the United Kingdom beyond 1996.

  Sir John Cope
  At ECOFIN on 24 June 1991, all member states agreed that, under transitional agreements to last until at least the end of 1996, member states which at 1 January 1991 applied zero rates of VAT to certain goods and services in accordance with the provisions of Community law then in force would have the option of retaining them.

  The Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended, provides that the transitional period will continue beyond the end of 1996 if there is not unanimous agreement of the definitive VAT system to operate from that date. The United Kingdom has made it clear that one of the conditions for such an agreement must be our right to continue with zero rates.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Nelson
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".
  246

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors will be taken into account in setting levels of vehicle excise duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  As with other taxes, the Chancellor takes account of a wide range of factors in setting the structures and rates of vehicle excise duty (VED). These include the need to raise revenue while minimising economic distortions; the impact of the tax on inflation; the transport costs of British industry and the competitive position of United Kingdom hauliers relative to their continental counterparts; and the costs of other forms of transport. In general the Chancellor will seek to ensure that, through a combination of VED and fuel duty, road users at least cover the economic costs they impose, though further work is required to estimate these costs accurately. When direct charges for motorway use are introduced the Government will take these into account in setting motoring taxes.

  Policy in the past has been that road vehicles should, through VED and fuel duty, at least cover their annual "track costs".

  However, the Government made clear in their Green Paper, "Paying for Better Motorways", that this measure has limitations as a basis for setting motoring taxes. For example, it takes account only of the cash costs of capital expenditure on road construction, and of current expenditure on road maintenance and makes no allowance for a return on capital. Publication of the annual Road Track Costs Bulletin will therefore be discontinued. The Government intend to produce better measures of the costs of road use including, where these can be valued, wider costs such as noise and other environmental costs.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Except for minor cases (eg misuse of stationery, postal services and sick certificates), staff found guilty of fraud have been dismissed. The number each year since 1989 is:

  Guilty of fraud

  Dismissed

  1989–90

  0

  0

  1990–91

  1

  0

  1991–92

  2

  2

  1992–93

  9

  4

  11993

  2

  1 To date.

  The figures given exclude the Central Computer Telecommunications Agency and Chessington computer centre as these businesses were transferred to the Cabinet Office in 1992.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Where evidence appears sufficient to obtain a conviction, cases are considered for referral to the police for further

  247
  investigation and possible prosecution. All cases of fraud are also considered under the Treasury's disciplinary procedures.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Information
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 719, what representations he has received about human rights in respect of the arrangement for passing information from the courts to central Government.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 719, on matrimonial cases, when the decision to set up the arrangement in question was made; by whom that decision was taken; what representations he has received concerning the arrangement; who made the decision to discontinue it; what reasons led to its discontinuance; when that decision was taken; what its estimated cost was; and in how many cases and by how many courts the information was requested under the second heading by the Home Office supplied.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The arrangement came into effect on 1 November 1993, following discussions between junior officials in the civil business division of my Department and officials of the Home Office between July and October. I have received no representations other than those from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The matter became known to senior officials on 18 January 1994. Legal advice was sought which stated that the arrangement had no statutory authority. The decision to discontinue the arrangement was taken by the head of the civil business division on that day. Arrangements have been made to ensure that legal advice will be sought in all future cases of this type. The cost of each notification made under the arrangement is estimated at £1·16 for the inner London area and £1·06 for the remainder of the courts. I am informed by the Home Office that they received approximately 30 notifications between 1 November and 18 January, which have all been destroyed. It is not therefore possible to say how many separate courts provided information.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 719, on matrimonial cases, how many arrangements currently exist or have existed within the last five years by which information from the courts is disseminated to (a) the Home Office or (b) other central Government Departments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following arrangements currently exist or have existed within the last five years by which information from the courts is or has been disseminated to central Government Departments:

  To the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Information about divorce decrees absolute (in accordance with the senior district judges' direction of 20 January 1992).

  To the Child Support Agency

  As required by the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations 1992.
  248
  To the Inland Revenue

  Information about small maintenance orders in accordance with the requirements of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (this was discontinued on 6 April 1989).

  To the Home Office (Immigration and Nationality Department):

  Information about divorce cases where the parties were married in the United Kingdom and separated on the same day (this was discontinued on 18 January 1994).

  In addition to this information, various pieces of statistical information which do not identify particular cases or parties are supplied by the courts for use, for example, in the Judicial Statistics.

  Writs
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the current charge for the issue of a writ; what it was 12 months ago; when it was last changed; what considerations underlay the scale of the change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1993 the writ fee was increased from £70 (set in 1990) to £100. In setting the level of these fees, the Department has sought to begin closing the gap between the present level of cost recovery and its target of full cost recovery from court users by 1996–97.

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions have taken place between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office concerning possible changes to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill[Lords].

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary regularly discuss matters which are of interest to both of their departments, including the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has in respect of the appointment of chief justices' clerks to magistrates courts committees.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government's intention is that every magistrates courts committee should appoint a legally qualified head of service and that the Lord Chancellor's approval should be required for each such appointment.

  Such an appointment will provide clearer lines of accountability within the service, and also yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service's management.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to empower the Lord Chancellor to enforce the amalgamation of magistrates courts committee areas.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently before Parliament proposes that the Lord Chancellor should have the power to initiate amalgamations between magistrates courts committee areas. An amalgamation order may only be made after consultation with the local magistrates, the magistrates courts committees concerned and all local authorities in the affected area.
  249
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change the proposed requirement that the Lord Chancellor should approve the appointment of chairmen of magistrates courts committees.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As announced in this House on 2 February, the Lord Chancellor has listened to the criticism of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill voiced in the House of Lords on 18 January. He proposes to move an amendment when the Bill next comes before Parliament, the effect of which will be to remove the proposed requirement that the Lord Chancellor approve the appointment of magistrates courts committee chairmen.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to require that all justices' clerks be put on fixed-term contracts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As announced in this House on 2 February, the Lord Chancellor has listened to the criticism of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill voiced in the second reading debate in the House of Lords on 18 January. He proposes to move an amendment when the Bill next comes before Parliament, the effect of which will be to remove the proposed power of the Lord Chancellor to require that any contract of service made between a magistrates court committee and a chief justices' clerk or justices' clerk must contain such provision as my be specified in the order.

  Crown Courts (Racial Bias)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints he has received in his last recorded year over alleged racial bias by(a) Crown court judges, (b) Crown court recorders and (c) Crown court magistrates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  According to the information which is readily available, during 1993 no complaints were received in which a specific allegation of racial bias by individual members of the judiciary or magistracy sitting in the Crown court formed the sole or substantive grounds of complaint (but two such complaints, one against two circuit judges and one against a recorder, initially received in 1992, were dealt with in 1993). This does not include any complaints received in 1993 about proceedings in the Crown court in which imputed or alleged racial prejudice by the courts may have been an element in, or seen as relating to, the grounds of complaint, but which cannot be separately identified or quantified.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".
  250

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hostels, West Midlands
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are expected to be made redundant in the event of the closure of hostels in the west midlands area; and what would be the financial costs.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff will be made redundant in the event of the closure of hostels in the west midlands area; and what would be the financial costs.

  Mr. Maclean
  It will be for the probation committee as employer to decide how to manage the consequences of closures in terms of staff redeployment or redundancy; we have not yet received full accounts of their conclusions.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the occupancy rate of hostels in the west midlands area for each of the last 10 quarters.

  Mr. Maclean
  Occupancy figures for the period April 1991 to March 1992 are not readily available on a quarterly basis. The occupancy figures for the most recently available six quarters and for December 1993 are as follows:

  Per cent.

  April—June 1992

  78

  July—September 1992

  74

  October—December 1992

  74

  January—March 1993

  79

  April—June 1993

  60

  July—September 1993

  71

  December 1993

  79

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the proposed closure of hostels in the west midlands area, what advice will be given to the magistrates courts regarding any future bail hostel remands.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice will be given to the magistrates courts regarding any future bail hostel remands following the closure of bail hostels in the west midlands.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are alternative hostel facilities in the west midlands and in neighbouring probation areas; and it will be for the probation service to bring them to the attention of the courts.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be consulted about the proposed closure of hostels in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Maclean
  The west midlands probation service was notified on 1 December of our closure proposals and given the opportunity to comment.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average cost of a weekly place in hostels in the west midlands area, (b) the average length of stay and (c) the average cost of a prison remand place in the west midlands area.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average cost of a

  251
  weekly place in hostels in the west midlands area, (b) the average length of stay and (c) what was the average cost of a prison remand place in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) The average weekly cost in 1993–94 is £243; (b) this information is not readily available in the form requested; (c) costs for remand prisoners are not kept separately. For 1992–93, the average weekly net operating cost per prisoner at Birmingham prison, the only prison in the west midlands, was £383. Remand prisoners represent just over 40 per cent. of these prisoners.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital expenditure was planned for hostels in the west midlands area prior to his Department's statement of 30 November.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any capital expenditure was planned for hostels in the west midlands area prior to the Home Office statement of 30 November.

  Mr. Maclean
  A number of proposals for capital expenditure on west midlands hostels had been received prior to the 30 November statement, but none had or have yet been approved.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of hostels in the west midlands area were(a) aged under 17 years, (b) 17 to 21 years and (c) 21 years and over at the most recent available date.

  Mr. Maclean
  For the period January to December 1993,(a) none, (b) 368, (c)

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital and revenue expenditure will be available for hostel provision in the west midlands area for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital and revenue expenditure will be available for hostel provision in the west midlands area for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Maclean
  Revenue grant for approved bail and probation/bail hostels in the west midlands for 1994–95 and 1995–96 will be approximately £1·5 million a year. The amount of capital grant available for hostels in this area will depend on the strength of bids submitted by the probation committee in comparison to those for hostels in other areas.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he expects to be the annual saving as a result of the closure of hostels in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect the saving to be in the order of £0·2 million in 1994–95 and £0·4 million in 1995–96.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) re-arrested and charged or (b) breached for failure to comply with requirements at hostels in the west midlands area for the latest period for which statistics are available.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were either re-arrested and charged or breached for failure to comply with requirements at hostels in the west midlands area for the latest period for which statistics are available.
  252
  Mr. Maclean
  For the period January to December 1993, the information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Re-offended

  54

  Absconded and breached

  210

  Breached for failure to comply with hostel rules

  219

  Bewsey Street Hostel, Cheshire
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any capital expenditure was planned for the Bewsey street hostel prior to his Department's statement of 30 November 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  A proposal for capital expenditure on the Bewsey street hostel had been received prior to the 30 November statement, but it had not and has not since been approved.

  Youth Custody
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1989 the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will list for each year since 1989 the total number of young people serving youth custody sentences.
  The information you have requested is given in the following table.

  Average population1 of sentenced young offenders in Prison Service establishments, England and Wales: 1989 to 1993

  Year

  Average population

  1989

  7,232

  1990

  6,264

  1991

  5,859

  1992

  5,469

  1993

  5,131

  1 Includes a small number held in police cells in some years.

  Source: Table 1.5, Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1991, (Cm 2157) and Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/93, Table 1 for figures 1989–92.

  Domestic Homicides
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homicides involving(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms have taken place as a result of domestic incidents in each police force area in each of the last 10 years; and how many of the victims in each case were women.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following tables give the information.
  253

  Offences currently recorded as homicide (1) in which the relationship between the suspect and victim was domestic (2) and where a shot gun was used—England and Wales, 1983 to 1992

  Police force area

  1983

  1984

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  2

  —

  1

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  1

  2

  2

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  2

  1

  —

  1

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Northumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  —

  2

  West Midlands

  —

  2

  —

  1

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Wiltshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  2

  2

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  10

  11

  9

  15

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bedfordshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Greater Manchester

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  254

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Metropolitan Police District

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2

  2

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  1

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Surrey

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  2

  1

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  6

  10

  10

  13

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  1

  —

  —

  1

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  1

  England and Wales

  5

  10

  2

  10

  255

  Police force area

  1989

  1990

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Kent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  1

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  2

  9

  6

  11

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  —

  —

  —

  —

  256

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  1

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gwent

  —

  2

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  2

  9

  2

  6

  Offences currently recorded as homicide1 in which the relationship between the suspect and victim was domestic2 and where a firearm was used—England and Wales, 1983 to 1992.

  Police force area

  1983

  1984

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  1

  2

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  2

  4

  4

  5

  257

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  4

  4

  —

  2

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  2

  —

  1

  258

  Police force area

  1987

  1988

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  1

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  1

  4

  —

  4

  Police force area

  1989

  1990

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  1

  —

  1

  —

  259

  Police force area

  1991

  1992

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  2

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  3

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  3

  6

  1

  8

  (1) Offences currently recorded as homicide as at 27 August 1993.

  (2) 'Domestic' includes the following relationships of victim to suspect: son or daughter; parent; spouse; cohabitant or former spouse or cohabitant; other family; lover or former lover including spouse's lover or lover's spouse or other associate.

  (3) Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Parole
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to chief constables concerning approaches by the police to prisoners in respect of responsibility for crimes other than those for which they were convicted, in respect of resistance to parole.

  Mr Charles Wardle
  None.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many occasions a licensed firearms or shotgun holder has committed(a) homicide or (b) serious injury with a gun in each of the last 10 years.
  260
  Mr. Maclean
  No information is available centrally on whether a licensed firearm or shotgun holder has used his weapon to kill or injure.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Police Advisory Board.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The constitution of the board stipulates that the board shall consist of:

  (a) the Secretary of State, who shall be the Chairman thereof, and such persons as he may from time to time direct to serve thereon;

  (b) the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales, the Police Superintendents's Association of England and Wales, and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  It is for the authorities and bodies listed above to decide who should represent them on the board.

  The membership of the board is currently as follows:

  Secretary of State

  Mr. Trefor Morris—Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary

  Mr. I. Burns—Deputy Under Secretary, Home Office

  Mr. C. Scoble—Assistant Under Secretary, Home Office

  Mrs. P. G. W. Catto—Police Department, Home Office

  Mr. I. Smith—Police Department, Home Office

  Miss M. Barton—General Secretary ACPO

  Mr. B. Skitt—ACPO (Chief Constable, Hertfordshire)

  Mr. T. Speed—Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

  Mr. D. Clark—Superintendents' Association

  Mr. V. Jones—Superintendents' Association

  Mr. R. Coyles—Chairman, Police Federation

  Mr. L. Williams—Secretary, Police Federation

  Mr. J. Moseley—Police Federation

  Mr. S. Cadmore—Police Federation

  Mr. G. Hyde—Police Federation

  Mr. D. Bellotti—Association of County Councils

  Mr. J. Collins—Association of County Councils

  Mr. R. G. Owen—Association of County Councils

  Mr. S. Murphy—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. R. W. Gillies—Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Tribunals comprise three members selected from the following panels:

  Chairmen

  His Honour Christopher Beaumont MBE

  Mr. T. G. Field-Fisher QC

  Mr. G. Flather QC

  Mr. M. Vere-Hodge QC

  Mr. R. Grey QC

  His Honour Robert Leech

  Mr. D. C. Lovell-Pank QC

  Mr. T. M. E. Nash

  Sir Max Williams

  Mr. J. G. Boal QC

  Miss A. J. Rafferty QC

  Mrs. L. Stern QC

  Mr. V. B. A. Temple QC

  Mr. H. A. D. De Silva

  Second Members

  Mr. R. F. Broome OBE QPM

  Mr. J. Brownlow CBE QPM

  Mr. G. Charlton CVO CBE QPM

  Mr. S. W. Crump QPM

  Mr. F. L. Jordan CBE OStJ QPM CBIM

  Mr. C. Payne CBE QPM DL CBIM

  Mr. A. O. Smith QPM OStJ

  Mr. S. L. Whiteley CBE QPM

  261

  Mr. P. Wright CBE CBIM

  Sir Stanley Bailey CBE QPM DL CBIM

  Sir James Anderton CBE QPM DL

  Mr. D. Hall CBE QPM

  Sir Peter Imbert QPM

  Sir John Woodcock CBE QPM CBIM

  Third Members

  Mr. P. Astles

  Mr. T. Grinter

  Mr. A C. Turner

  Mr. P. A. Cripps BEM

  Mr. J. D. Thompson

  Miss V. G. Neild QPM Dip NEBSS

  Mr. R. Ellis

  Mr. B. T. Turrell

  Miss M. Henderson

  Mr. P. M. Heaton

  Mr. C. McIlwrick MBE

  Mr. A. Eastwood

  Mr. E. Day

  Mr. P. Wall

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Service Candidates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current list of members is as follows:

  Anthony Cripps, QC (Chairman)

  Muir Hunter, QC (Vice Chairman)

  Rt. Hon. The Lord Barnett

  Baroness Birk

  Baroness David

  Rt. hon. the Earl Ferrers

  Lord Kilmarnock

  Baroness Macleod of Borve

  Rt. hon. the Lord Renton

  Rt. hon. the Baroness Seear

  Baroness Sharples

  Lord Wigoder, QC

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the members currently appointed to the Alcohol Education and Research Council.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The current members of the Alcohol Education and Research Council are:

  The rt. hon. Christopher Chataway (Chairman)

  Dr. Ann Cartwright

  Mr. Alan Croston

  Mr. Anthony Fuller

  Dr. Ellish Gilvarry

  Professor Ray Hodgson

  Mr. Tim Hulbert

  Mr. Ian MacKenzie

  Professor Phyllida Parsloe

  Dr. Diana Patterson

  Dr. Jeremy Queenborough

  Dr. Bruce Ritson

  Mr. Arnold Tasker

  Ms Gill Williams

  Anthony Robert Madden
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place a copy of the report into the death of Anthony Robert Madden in Armley prison on 26 June 1993 in the Library;

  (2) if he will provide family access to the medical records regarding the late Anthony Robert Madden.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  262
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Anthony Robert Madden, who killed himself in Leeds prison on 26 June 1993.
  As in all cases of death in Prison Service custody, an investigationi was carried out into the very sad death of Mr. Madden. A report was submitted by the Governor of Leeds prison to Prison Service Headquarters. It is not, however, our practice to publish reports of internal investigations, the disclosure of which might undermine their effectiveness.
  A full and open inquest into Mr. Madden's death was conducted by the West Yorkshire Coroner on 29 and 30 November 1993. After hearing all the relevant evidence relating to Mr. Madden's death, the jury recorded the verdict that he killed himself. Transcripts of Coroner's notes of evidence are not routinely made, but can be requested from the office of the Coroner concerned on payment of a fee.
  If you or Mr. Madden's family have any specific questions about the death of their son which they feel were not answered at the inquest, please let me know.
  Under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 Mr. Madden's next of kin are entitled to request the disclosure of a copy of his prison medical record. If they would like to make such a request to me in writing, I will arrange for a copy of the record to be sent to them.

  Deportees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his Department's investigation of the complaints alleging excessive force by Airline Securities Consultants Ltd. against two deportees to report; and whether there is any independent element to those investigations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I expect these investigations to be completed shortly. Complaints against members of the Immigration Service or private security firms engaged in detaining or escorting immigration detainees are investigated by a senior officer of at least inspector level who has no involvement in the matter under complaint. An independent complaints audit committee has recently been established with a remit to satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the procesures for investigating complaints, to draw to the attention of management any weakness and to make an annual report to the Home Secretary.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces provided in-flight escorts for deportees in 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The answer is as follows:

  Cambridgeshire

  Devon and Cornwall

  Durham

  Greater Manchester

  Leicestershire

  Metropolitan Police

  Norfolk

  Nottingham

  West Mercia

  Royal Ulster Constabulary

  South Wales.

  263

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Police Resources
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the criteria used for the allocation of resources for police authorities by urban and rural classification.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary wrote to chief officers of police on 5 November 1991 with details of the criteria used for allocating additions to force establishments. A copy of his letter is in the Library.

  South Wales Police Authority
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the next expenditure of the South Wales Police Authority for(a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1992–93.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is in the following table:

  South Wales constabulary

  1989–90 £ million1

  1990–91 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Total expenditure2

  97·275

  108·599

  132·913

  Expenditure net of 51 per cent. Home Office police grant

  47·665

  53·214

  65·127

  1 Comparisons with future years affected by changes in the funding of capital projects from 1990–91.

  2 Includes capital expenditure and loan charges.

  Forensic Science Service
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the result of his review of the Home Office forensic science service.

  Mr. Howard
  I announced the review of the Forensic Science Service, an executive agency of the Home Office, on 19 May 1993. This review is now complete. The Government have decided that the service should remain as an executive agency for the present and move to trading fund status when appropriate. This will allow the agency to continue to build on the progress it has made so far.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there was any further correspondence reiterating promises of civil aid between Her Majesty's Government and the Government 264
  of Malaysia following the letter dated 28 June 1988 from the then Secretary of State for Defence to the Malaysian Finance Minister.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: Yes. We have kept in close touch with the Malaysian Government about the provision of development aid.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not possible to provide a definite and exhaustive list of questions which I might exceptionally decline to answer on grounds other than cost. Each question will continue to be answered on its merits, but examples which would fall into this category would be questions about:

  (i) The propriety of decisions given in individual cases by courts of law, administrative tribunals and similar bodies;

  (ii) Details of investigations by or on behalf of the Departments for which I am responsible in connection with prosecutions or civil actions and confidential information relating to such proceedings or possible proceedings; and

  (iii) Legal advice given to or by the Law Officers.

EDUCATION

  Universities (Staff and Students)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) undergraduates, (b) postgraduates, (c) teaching staff and (d) professors there are at each university in the United Kingdom; and what are the salary scales at each institution for (i) professors, (ii) readers, (iii) senior lecturers and (iv) lecturers.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the number of students and staff at former UFC funded United Kingdom universities is published by the Universities' Statistical Record in "University Statistics: Volume 1 Students and Staff'. Student data for the universities formerly funded by PCFC are contained in "Statistics of Education, Further Education, Higher Education in polytechnics and colleges 1991–92" published by DFE. Staff information is published in "The Academic Staff of Polytechnics and Colleges: 1991". Copies of these publications are in the House Library. The nationally agreed pay scale bands for academic and research staff in the former UFC and PCFC sectors are as follows:

  Former UFC Universities: Pay bands as at 1 April 1993

  £

  Lecturers A

  12,828–18,855

  Lecturers B

  19,642–25,107

  Senior Lecturers

  26,359–32,202

  Professors

  Minimum 30,398

  Research Grade 1B

  12,828–15,186

  Research Grade 1A

  12,828–20,442

  Research Grade II

  18,855–25,107

  Research Grade III

  23,782–32,202

  265

  All Former PCFC Funded HE Institutions: Pay band as at 1 September 1993

  £

  Lecturer

  11,067–20,745

  Senior Lecturer

  19,362–25,584

  Principal Lecturer

  24,198–30,426

  Researcher A

  8,988–12,444

  Researcher B

  13,140–20,052

  Head of Department

  Minimum 26,304

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much the carpets incorporating the initials NCC in the National Curriculum Council's York office cost to purchase; when they were purchased; and what has happened to them.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The carpet was purchased in 1990, when the National Curriculum Council was fitting out its offices in York. No information on the cost of the carpet is held centrally, and the cost is not separately identifiable from the published accounts of the NCC. The council was dissolved on 1 January 1994 and its former York office (with the carpet still in place) has been transferred to the Secretary of State. It will become the headquarters of the new Funding Agency for Schools from April this year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  The Prime Minister
  The general practice of this and previous Administrations is described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

TRANSPORT

  Road Lighting
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on lighting trunk roads and motorways in each of the last five years; and how much it is budgeted to spend in the current financial year and 1995.

  Mr. Key
  The table shows the amount spent on lighting in 1992–93, in 1993–94 to date, and the budget for 1994–95. Figures for earlier years are unavailable.
  266

  £ million

  1992–93 (actual)

  23·911

  1993–94 (to date)

  28·793

  1994–95 (budget)

  27·248

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of a mile of cycle lane on the average road if it is constructed on the current road surface and does not involve extending the road.

  Mr. Key
  The estimated cost of providing signing and white-lining for a mile of cycle lane on the current road surface is approximately £3,000. In addition there are costs which will be site-specific, for example for provisions at junctions and traffic management during installation, but these items cannot be estimated.

  Mandatory cycle lanes can only be marked on the carriageway when the remaining width is sufficiently wide for existing traffic flows and when waiting and loading can be effectively restricted.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which new policy commitments and initiatives in the field of transport, announced in "Sustainable Development: The U.K. Strategy", have not already appeared in previous Government documents and ministerial speeches.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 8 February,Official Report, column 149.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what EC funds are available to ensure additional environmental protection on the route of the channel tunnel rail link; when he applied for them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not aware of any EC funds specifically for this purpose, but the channel tunnel rail link is already in receipt of funds from the EC's transport infrastructure programme, and my Department is in discussion with European Commission officials about further support.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 2 February at col.758.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparative date he has on the cost per kilometre of rail travel to passengers in each European Community country; and if he will provide separate figures for the cost per kilometre to passengers on inter-city rail routes.
  267
  Mr. Freeman
  Comparative data of the kind requested is not available to the Department.

  Road Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which local authorities no longer employ road safety officers;

  (2) what is his estimate of the overall number of road safety officers employed in 1993–94 (a) in total and (b) for each local authority.

  Mr. Key
  No central record is kept of the numbers of road safety officers either in total or in any one authority. It is for individual local authorities to assess their own requirements for road safety officers, having regard to the needs of the local community.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities have submitted road safety plans accompanying the transport supplementary grant plans under the national road safety plan; and if he will make a statement as to the use made of these plans.

  Mr. Key
  All local traffic authorities have submitted road safety plans. These are used to provide advice on the allocation of funds for local safety schemes. More importantly, they are used by the authorities themselves to focus and monitor road safety activity within the authority.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is currently responsible for the co-ordination and monitoring of road safety policy.

  Mr. Key
  Mr. right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the Government's road safety policy.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account is taken of road accidents in the determination of road safety policy.

  Mr. Key
  The reduction of road accidents is the fundamental objective of road safety policy, and the yardstick by which its success is measured.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the requirements within the Road Traffic Acts relating to road safety; and what enforcement measures in each case are required of the police.

  Mr. Key
  The main provisions of road traffic law relating to road safety are set out on pages 67 to 72 of the Highway Code. The police have a duty to enforce all laws and it is for each chief constable to decide how best to fulfil that responsibility.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibility he expects the Highways Agency to have for road safety.

  Mr. Key
  The Highways Agency will be required to support the Department's road safety policy and to contribute to the Secretary of State's target of reducing road casulaties by one third by the year 2000 compared with the annual average from 1981 to 1985.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the overall budget spent on road safety by local authorities.
  268
  Mr. Key
  The local roads settlement for 1994–95 includes provision of £50 million for expenditure on local safety schemes, maintaining the level of provision for the current year. In addition, local authorities spend money on education, training, publicity, street lighting, road maintenance, gritting and snow clearing, crossing patrol officers and many other safety related activities. No central record is kept of total expenditure.

  Departmental Headquarters
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce details of his Department's new headquarters accommodation.

  Mr. MacGregor
  On 12 November 1992 at columns 963–64 I announced that the Department of Transport would remain in Marsham street for around three years, with suitable accommodation being sought for the longer term.

  I am now able to announce my Department's new headquarters will be Great Minster, Horseferry road. After the building is fitted out staff will relocate there from 2 Marsham street, probably in autumn 1995. The Department will retain some space in Romney house nearby to provide overspill accommodation when required.

  Driver Safety Consultation Paper
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responses he has received to the new driver safety consultation paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Some 5,200 copies of the consultation document wer1e distributed and about 400 responses were received from organisations and individuals. There was very widespread support for the four main proposals in the document and many interesting and helpful comments were made on points of detail. In the light of these responses. The Government propose to proceed as follows.

  A1. Retesting for new drivers convicted of offences: The document proposed that a driver convicted of certain offences within a specified period of passing the driving test would be debarred from holding a full licence, reverting to "learner" status, until passing a further test. There was very strong support for this measure. A number of different views were expressed on the detailed questions asked in the consultation document, and a further exercise is being set in hand to consider how such a scheme could work in practice. Any such scheme will require the approval of Parliament either in the form of a statutory instrument requiring affirmative resolution or (for some variants) primary legislation.

  A2. Separate theory testing: Consultees were asked whether a separate theory test should be introduced to fulfil the requirement of the Second EC Driving Licence Directive (91/439/EEC). Almost all consultees were in favour of a separate mandatory theory test. I am setting in hand detailed developmental work to ensure that such a test, and the organisation to operate it, is fully in place by 1 July 1996, the date on which the directive comes into effect.

  This will be the most important change in the car driving test since its introduction in 1935, and we shall be aiming to devise a form of test that makes a significant contribution to reducing the accident rate among newly qualified drivers, in particular by improving hazard perception. We shall be carefully monitoring the effect of

  269
  the separate theory test during the first five years of its operation and it will be rigorously evaluated to ensure that it is achieving the desired effect of reducing accidents. I shall make appropriate adjustments if it fails to do so. We are also anxious to obtain the fullest advantage from technological improvements that are likely to occur in this period.

  A3. Post-test driver training: The document proposed the development of voluntary schemes in which insurers would offer financial incentives to newly qualified drivers to take further training. A number of insurers and driving schools have expressed strong interest in this proposal, and my officials are working towards the setting up of a voluntary scheme.

  A4. Road safety education: The document proposed the development of educational programmes of the 16-plus age group targeted at potential drivers and new drivers. Again there was strong support and we shall be working with the private and voluntary sectors to prepare suitable material for use in schools and colleges. We are already targeting this age group with the current "Drive" TV series, produced in conjunction with the BBC.

  We also consulted on two other measures on which we were doubtful but prepared to keep an open mind:

  B1. Probationary plates: We received a mixed response on this issue. Members of the public who commented were almost all in favour of the introduction of probationary ("P") plates for newly qualified drivers, but the main representative organisations were more guarded. In the Government's view, the case for introducing "P" plates is still not proven, though we are prepared to consider it further when the full results are available of a study into "Restricted" plates in Northern Ireland.

  B2. Increasing age for full licence to 18: Only a minority of consultees supported this, and a number of disadvantages were highlighted. We shall not take this proposal further.

  The consultation document also described 10 further possible measures which the Government had considered but were not minded to pursue. While some of these attracted a fair measure of support, particularly from individuals who responded, the majority of consultees accepted our reasons for rejecting them.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Yorkshire Wildlife Trust
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what authority and under what regulation his Department advised the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust that the conditions laid down in enclosure statutes were only of permissive character; and if he will make it his policy that his Department will not disregard such statutory requirements.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Because of the legal complexities involved in this issue, I will write
  270
  to the hon. Member with an answer to his question as soon as possible. I will arrange for a copy of that reply to be placed in the Library.

  Projects and Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list all contracts awarded by his Department to(a) financial, (b) political and (c) other consultants without competitive bidding (i) for each of the past five years and (ii) as a total the number, and the cost over the same period;

  (2) if he will publish a list of all contracts or projects which are planned to be the subject of competitive bids by (a) financial, (b) political or (c) other consultants, the nature of each contract or project and the date envisaged by his Department for inviting bids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: I am placing the information in the Library.

  Competitive bids are normally sought in awarding consultant commissions. The main reasons for awards without competitive bidding are; specialist nature of work, need for continuity by extending an existing contract, urgency, and the small-scale nature of some projects. Fee bidding was introduced as normal policy for road schemes consultancies in 1991.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the consumer panel.

  Mr. Soames
  Currently the members are:

  Mr. Phillip Bell

  Mrs. Judy Brander

  Mrs. Dorothy Craig

  Mrs. Hariet Kimbell

  Ms Suzi Leather

  Mrs. Jean McVitty

  Mr. Gareth Morgan

  Mrs. Karen Powell

  Mrs. Maeve Robinson

  Mrs. Noel Whamond

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Consumers Committee for England and Wales under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.

  Mr. Soames
  The members of the committee are:

  Mrs. Janet Lawrence (chairman)

  Miss Beata Brookes

  Mrs. Marjorie Grimes

  Mrs. Barbara Hawkins

  Mr. John Murphy

  Mrs. Evelyn Rose

  Mr. John Tracy

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis.

  Mr. Soames
  The members currently appointed to the consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis are:

  Mr. M. T. Thomasin-Foster (chairman)

  Mr. R. Baker

  271

  Lady Bolitho

  Mr. C. P. Booty

  Mr. H. V. Thompson

  Dr. A. J. Mitchell-Jones

  Professor H. E. M. Kay

  Dr. D. W. Macdonald

  Dr. W. Cresswell

  Dr. Hans Kruuk

  Mr. P. J. de Vries

  Dr. J. L. Stanford

  Mr. J. Sterry

  Mr. E. R. Thomas

  Professor S. Harris

  Dr. M. J. M. Rowland

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Soames
  The current membership of the Farm Animal Welfare Council is as follows.

  Professor Sir Colin R. W. Spedding CBE—chairman

  Mr. C. B. Atkinson

  Mr. R. H. Baker

  Dr. M. Baxter

  Mr. G. Berry

  Rev. A. L. Birbeck MBE

  Dr. W. J. M. Black JP

  Professor D. M. Broom

  Mr. H. A. R. Dewhirst

  Mr. T. Harris

  Mrs. F. F. Hodgson

  Mr. C. Hollands

  Mrs. J. A. MacArthur Clark

  Mr. R. Macpherson

  Miss C. A. Milburn

  Dr. M. Pattison

  Mr. F. E. Sheidls MBE

  Mr. P. F. Staines

  Mr. J. G. Thomas

  Mrs. J. Turnbull JP

  Mr. A. Watkins

  Mrs. T. Wickham

  Dr. A. C. Winter

  Tobacco
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the United Kingdom contribution to common agricultural policy expenditure on tobacco subsidies in the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to particular parts of it such as CAP expenditure on tobacco. We do not produce or store tobacco and therefore have no receipts. Our contributions would benefit in full from the abatement agreed at Fontainebleau and in effect, our net contribution to the tobacco regime could be estimated to be at around six per cent. of EC expenditure. Community expenditure on tobacco amounted to 1,330 mecu (£931 million) in 1991, 1,223 mecu (£873 million) in 1992 and 1,165 mecu (£917 million) in 1993. Budgetary ecu rates: 1991 £1=1·4291 ecu; 1992 £1=1·4131 ecu; 1993 £1=1·2700 ecu.

  The effect on expenditure on tobacco resulting from the reform of the regime agreed in 1992 will not begin to show in expenditure figures until at least 1994 and the regime is to be reviewed again in 1996. Nevertheless, tobacco is still the most heavily subsidised CAP crop per hectare and we will continue to press for greater reforms.
  272

  Quarantine
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she considers animal quarantine regulations a suitable subject for subsidiarity.

  Mr. Soames
  The principles of subsidiarity apply to this area, as in all Community activity. Moreover, the Government do not consider that animal health measures fall within the Community's exclusive competence. We accept, however, that the harmonisation of animal health controls on the movement of animals between member states, which are designed to further the single market, is appropriate.

  I am satisfied that the current harmonised EC animal health trade rules provide adequate safeguards against the introduction of disease and that post-import quarantine of farm livestock imported from other member states is not necessary.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of cases of scrapie in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  Scrapie was made a notifiable disease on 1 January 1993 to meet the requirements of EC directive 91/68 on animal health conditions governing intra-community trade in sheep and goats.

  The following cases of scrapie in Great Britain have been confirmed by laboratory analysis in the period requested (to 31 January 1994):

  Sheep

  Goats

  1985

  143

  N/R

  1986

  153

  N/R

  1987

  176

  N/R

  1988

  211

  N/R

  1989

  246

  6

  1990

  334

  15

  11991

  896

  12

  11992

  589

  6

  21993

  282

  3

  21994

  22

  0

  N/R = not recorded.

  1 In 1991 and 1992 voluntary reporting of cases of scrapie in sheep was encouraged to obtain material for spongiform encephalopathy research.

  2 Further laboratory analysis of suspect cases of scrapie is not usually carried out for two years after the disease has been confirmed in a flock. These figures therefore indicate the number of flocks confirmed to be infected, but give no indication of the number of cases of scrapie in those flocks.

  Pig Producers
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations she has made to the French Government and the European Commission on the subject of financial assistance given to Danish, Belgian and German pig farmers;

  (2) what action she is taking to determine the legality of French Government aid to their pig producers;

  (3) what consideration has been given by her Ministry to the introduction of a scheme to compensate British pig producers who are disadvantaged by unfair competition from European Union pig producers;

  (4) what measures she is considering introducing to improve the economic prospects for British pig producers;
  273
  (5) if she will summarise the evidence she has prepared for the European Commission on state aids given to pig producers in other EU states.

  Mr. Jack
  The support measures available to pig producers under the CAP are very limited and pigmeat producers are dependent on the market for their returns.

  Aid programmes paid for by national governments are only permitted with the approval of the European Commission. Rumours of aids to pig producers in other member states are widespread, but we have firm evidence only in respect of a scheme in France. My right hon. Friend has already pressed the Commission to determine the legal status of the aids in accordance with article 93 of the treaty and to take whatever action is necessary. She has also raised the matter on numerous occasions in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

  The Government legitimately help the pig industry through the funding of research and development. Spending by the Agriculture Departments on the pig sector in the current year amounts to £14 million. A further sum is spent by the Agriculture and Food Development Council on animal science, some of which is of direct benefit to the pig industry.

  Organophosphorous Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to be able to announce the names and past relevant experience of all the members of the panel to evaluate research into reports of long-term effects arising from exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips; and whether they have past or present declarable interests in the manufacture of such sheep dips.

  Mr. Soames
  I announced the appointment of Dr. D. N. Bateman, medical director of the Northern region drug and therapeutic centre, as chairman of the Veterinary Products Committee's medical panel, in my reply to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 3 February at column 817–18. Prospective members of the panel are currently being approached with a view to establishing their willingness to serve. A further announcement about the membership of the panel, and any declarable interests which members may have, will be made as soon as possible.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the extent to which the Government are fulfilling their obligations under EU legislation with respect to the safe disposal of organophosphate sheep dips.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's obligations with respect to the disposal of sheep dip under EU legislation are implemented through the Water Resources Act 1991 in England and Wales and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, as amended by schedule 23 of the Water Act 1989, in Scotland. These controls are further supplemented by detailed guidance in the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice published by the Ministry and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department.

  The Government are also undertaking a review to assess whether any further measures might be necessary to ensure the safe disposal of sheep dips.
  274

  Goosanders
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether English Nature has given its approval for the issuing of licences to kill goosanders on the river Wharfe on the Bolton Abbey estate, north Yorkshire; how many goosanders have been approved to be shot; what evidence has been submitted to her Department in support of this application; and if she will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Soames
  As a licensing authority under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Ministry is responsible for the issue of these licences and they must not be unreasonably withheld.

  On receipt of the applications from the Bolton Abbey estate, ADAS, the Ministry's wildlife advisers followed their usual practice and notified English Nature of the applications and invited them to comment. The views of English Nature were made known in its press release of 14 January 1994, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Those views were given full weight in making the licensing decision.

  The applicant must provide sufficient evidence of serious damage being caused to the fishery and show that other methods of non-lethal scaring are ineffective or impractical and not just difficult to implement. The Ministry cannot disclose to third parties information provided in support of a licence application which is commercial in nature, such as the extent of any financial loss being suffered by the fishery.

  Two licences have been issued for the Bolton Abbey estate to shoot goosanders as an aid to scaring; one licence, covering a 7·5 mile stretch of the River Wharfe, is to shoot up to 10 birds between 1 October 1993 and 28 February 1994; the other is to shoot up to four birds on the Bolton Abbey trout hatchery between 1 January to 28 February 1994.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research work has been carried out on the river Wharfe to examine the impact on fish stocks of breeding goosanders.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has not conducted any formal research studies on the river Wharfe. However, on receipt of the applications from the Bolton Abbey estate, an officer of ADAS, the Ministry's wildlife advisers, visited the applicants to assess their case. English Nature was advised of the applications and were invited to comment. The Ministry's own fisheries experts at Lowestoft were also asked for their comments. ADAS then provided a report on the visit with recommendations to the Ministry.

  Once the licences were issued, ADAS began making monitoring visits and have been providing reports to the Ministry. They will continue to do this during the period of validity of the licence. The licensees are also required to provide a report to the Ministry of the action taken under their licence and, where possible, to retain the carcases of birds shot. These will be collected by ADAS and sent to our fisheries laboratory at Lowestoft where the contents of the gut will be examined. All of this information collected as part of the licensing arrangements will enable the Ministry to keep under review its policy on the issue of such licences.
  275

  Milk Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the last date for the ending of the milk marketing scheme.

  Mrs. Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have made an order under section 1(3) of the Agriculture Act 1993. The order extends the deadline for the revocation of the England and Wales milk marketing scheme from 1 October 1994 to 1 January 1995. This will enable the Milk Marketing Board to proceed with its intention to propose a new vesting date of 1 November 1994.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those topics on which it is not her practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if she will list any recent changes in the practice of her Department.

  Mr. Jack
  This Department's practice is as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answers of 17 December,Official Report, column 1068 and 11 January, Official Report, column 63, what is the average number of (a) hill cows and (b) hill sheep eligible for hill livestock compensatory allowances she considers necessary for a less-favoured area farm to be considered a full-time commercial business for the purposes of the farm business survey; and what hectarage and acreage she considers to be a very small farm.

  Mrs. Shephard
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: To be classified as a full-time commercial farm in the less-favoured areas of England, a farm must have at least a minimum level of agricultural activity. On the assumption that, apart from grass, there are no other crops or livestock on the farm, this minimum is currently equivalent to either 30 hill cows, or between 200 and 250 hill ewes.

  In practice, almost all farms have other crops or livestock so that many with fewer than 30 hill cows or fewer than 200 to 250 hill ewes will exceed the minimum and will therefore be classified as full time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Car Parking (Orange Badge Holders)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what action he plans to take to ensure that car parking spaces associated with the House of Commons and parliamentary buildings which are reserved for orange badge holders are not misused by other drivers.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Although there are no places specifically set aside for orange badge scheme holders, there are 12 parking spaces in Star Chamber Court and three in the Norman Shaw car park reserved for vehicles driven or used by photo-identity pass holders who have disabilities and have registered with the Serjeant at Arms.
  276
  Those who use the other parking spaces in Star Chamber Court have recently been reminded not to use the spaces reserved for disabled people. The area is checked on a random basis and the Serjeant at Arms has been requested to draw any case of continuing misuse to the attention of the Administration Committee.

  Data and Video Network
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the parliamentary data and video network to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 14 March to Friday 18 March.

  Child Care
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will name the consultants engaged to carry out the survey into child care needs in the House; and what has been the total cost incurred to date.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The survey of potential demand for child care services for the House was conducted by Research Services Ltd. The fee paid is a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when he expects to announce the results of the questionnaire on child care facilities sent out last year; what was the total number of hon. Members, Members' staff and staff of the House who were sent a questionnaire, listed by(a) females and (b) males; how they were selected; and what proportion of those sent a questionnaire returned it.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee expects to receive the consultants' report on the survey of potential demand for child care facilities in the very near future. It intends to examine the results and will then consider what recommendations to make in respect of future policy.

  The questionnaire was sent to 4,105 Members, Members' staff, staff of the House and other support staff who work for both Houses. It is not possible to determine how many of that number were male or female.

  Results of the survey itself will be made known once they have been considered by the Committee and the Commission.

  Plain English Campaign
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Plain English Campaign to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 21 March to Friday 25 March.
  277

  Souvenir Kiosk
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what was the turnover of the kiosk run by the Refreshment Department for the most recent financial year; and what was the turnover for the months of November and December in(a) 1992 and (b)

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The turnover from all sources for souvenirs in financial year 1992–93 was £652,087 excluding VAT. On the same basis the other information requested is as follows:

  1992 £

  1993 £

  November

  95,642

  80,445

  December

  175,735

  212,260

  Total

  271,377

  292,705

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Newton
  No service in the Privy Council Office has been market tested.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many names there are on the register of appointees to non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  An updated list of appointments at 1 December is available in the Library of the House. There are 784 appointments and 14 vacancies.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many names there were on the list of potential appointees to non-departmental public bodies in Wales in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The departmental register of candidates for appointment is a running list to which names are

  Local authority

  Actual rent 1993–941 £.p

  Estimated average weekly notional local authority rent in 1994–952 £.p

  Percentage difference: notional rent, 1994–95 on actual rent, 1993–94

  Aberconwy

  28·93

  29·07

  0·5

  Alyn and Deeside

  26·06

  29·46

  13·0

  Arfon

  29·80

  30·65

  2·8

  Blaenau Gwent

  32·81

  31·13

  -5·1

  Brecknock

  28·34

  31·22

  10·2

  Cardiff

  34·63

  36·13

  4·3

  278
  frequently added. Information is not available on a calendar year basis. Currently there are 4,421 names on the register.

  Hunting Hounds
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to raise with the Masters of Foxhounds Association the practice of feeding of uncooked meat and offal from fallen and casualty stock to hunt hounds.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to discuss this matter with the Masters of Foxhounds Association.

  Executive Appeals
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the subjects on which his Department formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  Next steps agency chief executives are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  Temporary Employment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were in temporary employment at the latest available date; and what is the proportion of those in temporary employment as a percentage of the total number registered for employment for each employment travel-to-work area and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Redwood
  According to latest estimates from the summer 1993 Labour Force Survey there were 84,000 employees in temporary employment in Wales. This represents 8·5 per cent. of all employees in employment. Comprehensive data are not available on numbers registered for employment. Estimates are not available for travel-to-work areas.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the proposed notional rent for 1994–95 for each district council in Wales, together with the average for Wales; and what is the percentage difference for each council and for Wales, between these notional rents and the corresponding actual rents in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is set out in the following table:
  279

  Local authority

  Actual rent 1993–941 £. p

  Estimated average weekly notional local authority rent in 1994–952 £. p

  Percentage difference: notional rent, 1994–95 on actual rent, 1993–94

  Carmarthen

  31·06

  32·03

  3·1

  Ceredigion

  32·30

  31·70

  -1·9

  Colwyn

  28·24

  28·57

  1·2

  Cynon Valley

  29·48

  29·67

  0·7

  Delyn

  29·05

  30·27

  4·2

  Dinefwr

  23·78

  28·33

  19·1

  Dwyfor

  27·35

  28·24

  3·3

  Glyndwr

  25·40

  29·67

  16·8

  Islwyn

  33·18

  30·84

  -7·0

  Llanelli

  34·65

  27·37

  -21·0

  Lliw Valley

  28·50

  29·67

  4·1

  Meirionnydd

  30·07

  27·63

  -8·1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  30·85

  27·40

  -11·2

  Monmouth

  35·72

  37·82

  5·9

  Montgomeryshire

  30·69

  33·75

  10·0

  Neath

  30·95

  28·01

  -9·5

  Newport

  35·06

  36·31

  3·6

  Ogwr

  32·12

  31·80

  -1·0

  Port Talbot

  32·36

  29·43

  -9·1

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  28·69

  30·17

  5·2

  Radnorshire

  33·48

  32·75

  -2·2

  Rhondda

  32·38

  32·56

  0·5

  Rhuddlan

  26·55

  29·48

  11·0

  Rhymney Valley

  34·75

  31·44

  -9·5

  South Pembrokeshire

  31·00

  34·06

  9·9

  Swansea

  31·10

  28·75

  -7·6

  Taff Ely

  33·19

  28·67

  -13·6

  Torfaen

  39·25

  35·03

  -10·7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  35·73

  34·86

  -2·4

  Wrexham Maelor

  26·09

  27·86

  6·8

  Ynys Mon

  29·44

  28·81

  -2·1

  Wales

  31·84

  31·30

  -1·7

  Source: 1 Local authority subsidy claims.

  2 Welsh Office estimates.

  Science and Engineering Graduates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of graduates with professional science and engineering qualifications employed in industry in Wales at the latest available date.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Reliable estimates are not available.

  Housing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many houses for renting(a) Tai Cymru and (b) other housing associations in Wales have developed on mainly private estates in each year since 1991–92;

  (2) what are the figures for underspending by housing associations in Wales for each year since 1991–92;

  (3) how many houses from the private sector have been bought by housing associations in Wales for renting in each year since 1991–92 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is primarily a matter for Housing for Wales. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and I shall place a copy of his reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the guidelines to housing associations on buying houses from the private sector; what assessment he has 280
  made as to whether they are sufficiently flexible to ensure that there is a balance of rented accommodation and privately owned houses provided in communities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Purchases from the private sector need the approval of Housing for Wales. In determining a particular application Housing for Wales will take into account both the economic and the social implications

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the housing allocation policies of Welsh local housing authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received 31 responses to the Department's consultation exercise on allocation of council housing, policies and procedure. I have asked the housing management advisory panel for Wales to prepare a good practice guide for local authorities taking account of those responses. Responses to the Department's consultation paper, "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", have been invited by 18 March.

  Police Reforms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the Government will determine the share which the new police authorities proposed for Wales in the White Paper on police reforms—Cm 2281—will have of non-domestic rate revenues.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am still considering the arrangements for distributing non-domestic rate resources
  281
  to the new police authorities. I will discuss my proposals with the Home Secretary and the Welsh local authority associations through the forum of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. Currently non-domestic rates are distributed amongst local authorities on the basis of resident population.

  Hospital Staff (Redundancies)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of redundancies among national health service hospital staff(a) by grade and (b) by reason for each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many units of sheltered accommodation have been provided by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) health trusts for people with mental and physical disabilities in Wales; and if he will give these statistics for each local authority for each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on newly built sheltered accommodation is not held centrally.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what circulars or other guidance have been published by his Department to assist local planning authorities when considering applications for wind power installations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance is contained in the annex to Planning Policy Guidance Note 22, "Renewable Energy", which was published jointly by the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment in February 1993.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional finance has been provided to teach Welsh as a second language to students of constituent colleges of the university of Wales for each year since 1988.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has made £314,500 available to colleges of the University of Wales in 1993–94 for the provision of Welsh courses for adults. Information for earlier years, when the University of Wales was funded by the Universities Funding Council, is not held centrally.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he is making within the Welsh Office to submit a Welsh language scheme as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993; on what date he will submit the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is too early to indicate on what date a scheme might be submitted to the Welsh Language Board. The Department's scheme will need to take into account the statutory guidelines which the board will be preparing. A comprehensive internal review of the Department's policy and practice regarding the use of Welsh is currently being conducted. This will be of considerable benefit in formulating our language scheme.
  282

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  National Health Service
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria are used for allocating NHS resources to areas of high deprivation in Wales; and what resources are available to those areas which meet the criteria.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The current formula for assessing the distribution of revenue resources to health authorities in Wales was introduced in 1991. This takes into account the higher levels of sickness that are associated with socially deprived areas by the morbidity weighting within the formula.

  Quangos (Membership)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has concerning the number of active Conservative party members currently sitting as members of quangos in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: I do not know how many people currently holding public appointments to non-departmental public bodies in Wales are active Conservative party members.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian military personnel and Indonesian state employees working on defence-related matters received support through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the past 10 years to study in Britain; and through which programmes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Indonesian military personnel have over the years attended a range of developmental and technical training courses in the United Kingdom. Details of the training, including numbers involved, are regarded as confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Indonesia.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian military personnel have been funded to study in Britain since 1975; through which Government Departments they have been funded; and what subjects they have been studying.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Indonesian military personnel have, over the years, attended a range of developmental and technical training courses in the United Kingdom. Details of the training, including numbers involved, are regarded as confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Indonesia.
  283
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring he is undertaking as to the use to which Hawk aircraft supplied by the United Kingdom to Indonesia are being or have been put; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It would be impracticable on a regular basis to monitor, after transfer, equipment which we have licensed for export. We are, however, ready where necessary to ask recipient countries, on a confidential basis, about the location and use of defence equipment we have supplied. We have no evidence that Hawk aircraft are being or have been used for repressive purposes against the civil population in Indonesia and East Timor. Nor do we believe that Hawk, or any other items of British equipment, have been or are likely to be used against the civilian population in Indonesia and East Timor. The Indonesian Government have given us assurances that Hawk aircraft will not be used for internal security purposes.

  Military Personnel (Scholarships)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many military personnel have been funded to study under Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships from(a) Indonesia, (b) Jordan, (c) Ecuador, (d) Malaysia, (e) Nigeria, (f) Oman and (g) India in the past 10 years; and what subjects they have been studying.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Military personnel are attending a range of developmental and technical training courses in the United Kingdom. Details of the training, including numbers involved, are regarded as confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments concerned.

  Appointments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used in the appointments of(a) Pauline Neville-Jones to the post of political director of the Foreign Office and (b) Paul Lever as chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The selection board's criteria were the same as those used in any other apointments for officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—namely, their skills, experience and qualities as measured against the requirements of the job in question and the field of available candidates.

  Statements (Translation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide an English translation when he deposits in the Library statements made by other states speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in other languages.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not our usual policy to deposit statements in the Library that are not in English.

  When documents in other languages are deposited they are used to provide a translation and such translations are deposited as soon as they are available.
  284

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda of the 1994 session of the conference on disarmament in Geneva; and how the quantity of work to be done in the conference on disarmament in 1994 has changed from that of previous years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The agenda of the conference on disarmament remains the same as in 1993, and the following ad hoc committees have again been established: nuclear test ban; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; transparency in armaments; and prevention of an arms race in outer space. The overall quantity of work has not changed.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that all statements made by representatives of Her Majesty's Government at the conference on disarmament are placed in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The working documents of the conference on disarmament contain verbatim texts of the statements of the delegates of all governments represented at the Conference, including those of Her Majesty's Government. Copies of these documents are normally placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration Her Majesty's Government are giving to offering an additional voluntary financial contribution to the costs of the 1995 non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference and the preparatory arrangements thereof.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Arrangements as to how costs for administration relating to the non-proliferation treaty extension and review conference are to be shared by states party to the treaty are currently being considered. However, as a co-depositary of the treaty, and in accordance with past practice, we have made clear our willingness to contribute significantly more to conference costs than would be the case under the regular United Nations budget scale.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's annual contribution to the costs of the conference on disarmament; and what consideration Her Majesty's Government are giving to offering an additional voluntary financial contribution towards these costs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom contributes to the costs of the conference on disarmament through its contribution to the United Nations regular budget from which the conference is fully funded. No voluntary contributions are made to the conference on disarmament.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government on the appointment of Miguel Marin Bosch of Mexico to be chair of the ad hoc committee on a nuclear test ban at the conference on disarmament.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We shall work constructively in the committee, under Senor Marin Bosch's chairmanship, for an effective comprehensive test ban treaty.
  285

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to the use of tactical air support for the opening of the humanitarian aid route between Split and Sarajevo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An aid route linking Split and Sarajevo via Gornji Vakuf is in regular use. Air support to open the route is thus not required.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to withdrawal of British forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British forces will continue through the winter to support the UN in carrying out its humanitarian mandate. No decisions have yet been taken about the deployment of British forces thereafter.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what opportunities have arisen during recent NATO meetings to discuss the possible use of air strikes against Bosnian Croat forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The NATO summit on 10–11 January reaffirmed the readiness of the alliance to provide close air support for UNPROFOR throughout Bosnia.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the decision was taken not to use air support for the protection of the United Nations safe haven at Mostar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  NATO has undertaken to make air power available to the UN Secretary General should he require it in support of the UNPROFOR mandate. The UN has not so far requested the use of this facility.

  India (Human Rights)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received over human rights offences and disappearances in India; and what representations he has made to the Indian High Commissioner.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received various representations of human rights in India from a number of sources. We regularly raise our concerns with the Indian Government, including with the Indian high commissioner.

  Canada (Environmental Protest)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of Canada and British Columbia over the arrest of Cornelia Durrant, a British national, last November in connection with protests at Clayoquot Sound.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff in his Department are covered by statutory sick pay.
  286
  Mr. Goodlad
  All staff in the Department are covered by statutory sick pay. FCO staff number 6,220 and ODA staff number 1,128: a total of 7,348.

  Dual-use Machine Tools
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to raise at the next Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union the role of the Dresdner Bank in financing the export of dual-use machine tools from the European Communities to various countries in the middle east in breach of EC agreements on export control restrictions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Bilateral channels exist to take up such matters as appropriate.

  Colombia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received over human rights offences and disappearances in Colombia; and what representations he has made to the Colombian ambassador.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We receive frequent representations. During my recent visit there I made clear to President Gaviria and his Government the concern felt in this country about human rights. We support the Colombian Government's efforts to tackle human rights abuses.

  India
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva to express its concern at the human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir and to send a fact-finding mission to investigate and report on the situation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned by the human rights situation in Kashmir, and shall continue to express our views clearly to the Indian Government. Our approach to Kashmir at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva will be closely co-ordinated with our European partners.

  Land Mines (Export)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts to prevent the export of land mines.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There have been no discussions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".
  287

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to involve the private sector in the work of GCHQ; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  For many years GCHQ has used private sector contractors to provide various support services. There are no plans to change this practice.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards establishing a new scheme for St. Helenians to enable them to come to the United Kingdom for training and work experience.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  In order to mitigate the effects on the economy of St. Helena of the ending of the dependent territories quota scheme and in recognition of its unique position in being the only dependent territory in receipt of budgetary aid, the Government have decided to introduce a special arrangement, on a pilot basis, which will enable St. Helenians to come to this country to undertake training or work experience at a lower level than is normally permitted. The new arrangement will allow citizens of St. Helena to spend up to four years training towards vocational qualifications or up to two years gaining valuable work experience, while working with British businesses or other organisations. The Government hope that the new arrangement, which has been welcomed by the St. Helena Government, will benefit individuals and contribute to the economy of the island.

EMPLOYMENT

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civilians were found guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One employee was convicted of fraud in 1990. The person concerned was dismissed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Employees convicted of fraud would be subject to internal disciplinary proceedings. Each case would be treated on its merits, but in serious cases the normal penalty would be dismissal.

  Unemployed Benefit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of Employment Service claimants were paid the correct sum within three working days of signing on in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  288
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the proportion of Employment Service claimants who were paid correctly and within three working days of signing in the last year for which figures are available.
  The Employment Service (ES) monitors both the accuracy of awards of benefit and the promptness of all payments made. However, our definition and measurement of promptness of payment is "the despatch of a payment on the day entitlement is established". We do not, I am afraid, collect information about payments in the terms requested by your question.
  In 1992–93 we paid 96·7 per cent. of our clients accurately, and 97·5 per cent. of our clients promptly.
  This exceeded both our Annual Performance Agreement and internal management targets.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of clients of the Employment Service are offered the option of having money sent direct to a bank or building society account rather than receiving a girocheque.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the proportion of clients offered the option of being paid directly into a bank or building society account.
  It may be helpful if I explain that automated credit transfer facilities for the payment of benefits is a feature of a new computer system (NUBS2). The system is being installed into our offices on a rolling programme, due to be completed in September 1994.
  Currently about 70 per cent. of clients are served by the new system, all of whom can chose to have their money paid direct into a bank or building society account. At the moment approximately 42,000 clients receive their payment in this way.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department published national citizens charter targets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have not published any national citizens charter targets for the Department as a whole. However, individual services across the Employment Department group which deal directly with the public have set and published their standards and targets in charters or charter statements of service standards. They include:

  Employment Service's job seeker's charter—published December 1991 and currently being revised.

  Redundancy payments service charter—second edition published January 1993.

  Advisory, Conciliatory and Arbitration Service commitment—published May 1992.

  The Health and Safety Executive's booklets "HSE and You" and "HSE—Working for Employers"—published January 1994.

  289

  Customer Survey
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department last carried out its most recent annual national customer survey; and how many local customer surveys were carried out in 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have not carried out a national customer satisfaction survey for the Department as a whole.

  However, individual services within the Department carry out annual surveys to get their customers' views about the services they provide. They include the following:

  Employment Service

  Redundancy payments service

  Health and Safety Executive

  Skills and enterprise network

  Statistical services division

  In addition, the Employment Service will be carrying out local customer surveys in all ES jobcentres in the spring.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what proportion of jobcentres displayed local targets as at July 1993 on(a) waiting times, (b) telephone answering, (c) promptness and accuracy in benefit payments and (d) information on local labour markets; and in how many cases these targets were being met;

  (2) what proportion of jobcentres displayed at July 1993 (a) the name of the local manager and (b) the name of the area manager.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Hugh Bayley dated 9 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about how many Employment Service local offices displayed standards and targets, how many local offices met the standards, and how many local offices displayed the name and address of the local manager and area manager in July 1993.
  The Jobseeker's Charter sets out our aim for our local offices (1,300 July 1993) to display standards of service. Between July and September 1993, 92 per cent. of local offices displayed standards and targets.

  The information you have asked for is as follows:

  WAITING TIME:

  Clients waiting no longer than the 10 minutes standard: 1,170 offices; 90 per cent.

  TELEPHONE ANSWERING TIME:

  Calls answered within the 30 seconds standard: 1,170 offices; 90 per cent.

  PROMPTNESS OF PAYMENTS:

  98 per cent. of payments were made on time; on accuracy of payments of benefit you will wish to know that in the quarter July to September 1993 96·9 per cent. of payments were accurate. This is against a national target of 96·5 per cent.

  LOCAL LABOUR MARKET INFORMATION:
  Each local office has a target for the number of vacancies and number of placings they must achieve. We do not collect information about how many offices reach their target, but nationally, in the first six months of the operating year 1993–94, we placed over 859,000 people. This is 10 per cent. above our profiled target for this period.
  Turning to your second question, this information is not available centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate
  290
  cost. However, I can assure you that all our local offices have been instructed to display the name and address of the local area managers.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of people attending jobcentres for advisory interviews in July 1993 saw the same person as they saw on their previous visit.

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

  Letter from M.E. G. Fogden to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what proportion of people attending advisory interviews in July 1993 were seen by the same person as they saw on their previous visit.
  Unfortunately this information is not available in the form you request it. My local offices now deliver advisory interviews through teams of five or six people who focus their activities on particular sections of the unemployed register. This allows more continuity of contact to make sure the service we offer our clients is structured and co-ordinated.
  When they attend for an interview, clients are seen by someone from the same team and, wherever possible, by the same person.
  We do not collect statistics about what proportion are seen by the same person. However, I can assure you that we do believe that the arrangements we have in place represent the best available levels of service and that we are continually looking for further improvements.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Earnings
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workers have earnings(a) above the national insurance contributions maximum payments ceiling and (b) below the lower earnings limit; and how many of these are women.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that in April 1993 there were 2·9 million employees earning above the national insurance upper earnings limit and 3·2 million employees earning below the national insurance lower earnings limit. The corresponding numbers for women were 400,000 and 2·3 million respectively.

  Sources: New earnings survey 1993—Employment Department.

  Survey of personal income-Inland Revenue.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people are in employment classified by standard industrial category.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The labour force survey asks people of working age if they currently have any health problem or disability which limits the kind of paid work they can do. Estimates based on answers to this question will include people with short-term health problems and disabilities as well as those registered as disabled.

  The latest labour force survey estimates of the number of such people in employment by industry are given in the table:
  291

  People with health problems or disabilities in employment Great Britain

  Thousands

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing

  37

  Energy and water supply

  15

  Manufacturing

  296

  Construction

  94

  Distribution, hotels and repairs

  288

  Transport and communication

  97

  Banking, financial and business services

  131

  Other services

  428

  TOTAL all industry sectors1

  1,406

  1 Total includes people with work place outside Great Britain and those who did not state industry.

  Source: Labour force survey, summer 1993—not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people are employed in(a) companies with between 20 and 99 employees, (b) companies with between 100 and 999 employees and (c) companies with over 1,000 employees.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  Brixham Jobcentre
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed by his Department in the Fish Quay office at Brixham, providing administrative support for the jobcentre; and what assessment he has made of the cost to public funds of relocating them together with another jobcentre into a single location.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 1994 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff employed in the Brixham Jobcentre and the assessment of the cost of relocating them together with another Jobcentre to a single location.
  Within the Fish Quay office, eight staff are providing administration support to the Jobcentre. The decision to rehouse them into a single site has been taken in principle only. Until all suitable options have been explored the costings cannot be determined.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration was given to the future relocation of the Brixham jobcentre in Fore street before public funds were used on refurbishing it; and how much was spent on the refurbishment in the last two years.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 9 February 1994 292
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the consideration given to the future relocation of Brixham Jobcentre prior to the public funds being spent on refurbishment, and how much was spent on refurbishment in the last two years.
  The refurbishment of the Brixham Jobcentre was completed in October 1991, as part of the National Employment Service Integration Programme. Subsequently, an increase in the number of people using the office has prevented a full service from being offered. It has been decided, in principle, to rehouse the Jobcentre in order to offer a better service to people, locally. No funds have been spent on refurbishment in the last two years.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which appointments since 1979 to public bodies or posts for which he is responsible have included candidates nominated by the Chief Whip's Office; if any nominees by this source have been appointed; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 February,Official Report, column 725.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who are the members currently appointed to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive has three members:

  Director General

  J. D. Rimington CB

  Appointed by the Health and Safety Commission with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Deputy Director Generals:

  Miss J. H. Bacon and Mr. D. C. T. Eves

  Appointed by the Health and Safety Commission with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and after consultation with the director general.

  Docks and Ports (Deaths)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths have occurred in docks or ports in each year from 1989; and what was the name of the deceased and the date and place of death in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Fatal injuries occurring within the docks and harbours industry (a) Reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR), 1988–89–1992–931

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1988–89

  10

  1989–90

  11

  1990–91

  2

  1991–92

  7

  11992–93

  8

  (a) As defined by (i) standard industrial classification 1968 minimum list headings 70S and 706 for the year 1988–89, (ii) standard industrial classification 1980 class 74 and activity heading 7630 for subsequent years.

  1 provisional.

  It is not the policy of the Health and Safety Executive to disclose other information concerning fatalities without the knowledge and consent of the families concerned.
  293

  Community Action Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the distribution of expenditure and places under the community action scheme in each standard region; and what are each region's figures as a percentage of the total.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Community Action.
  It may help if I explain that in the current financial year, £31·5 million has been made available to the Employment Services in order to set up and run Community Action. Of this £8·5 million has been allocated for programme expenditure, i.e., the money paid to providers contracted to deliver the programme. The attached table shows the regional breakdown of resource and allocation of places. This has been allocated to the nine Employment Service regions in direct proportion to the percentage of 12 months plus long-term unemployed people within each region.
  A further £19 million of the budget allocation is used to cover the allowance payments to participants. Each participant on Community Action receives an allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement plus £10 each week. This budget is held centrally. The remaining £4 million has been set aside to cover the costs of the Employment Service of setting up and running Community Action, the majority of this budget has been allocated to Employment Service regions on the same basis as the programmes money. A small proportion has, though, been retained centrally to cover Head Office running costs and the costs of producing forms and national publicity materials.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table showing 1993–94 programme budget allocation and places for community action by employment service region

  Region

  Programme allocation £

  Number of places

  Per cent. of total

  Northern

  473,000

  1,120

  5·58

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  767,000

  1,810

  9·05

  East Midlands and Eastern

  761,000

  1,800

  8·98

  London and South East

  2,672,000

  6,310

  31·55

  South West

  613,000

  1,450

  7·24

  Wales

  400,000

  940

  4·72

  West Midlands

  929,000

  2,190

  10·97

  North West

  1,114,000

  2,630

  13·15

  Scotland

  742,000

  1,750

  8·76

  Great Britain Total

  8,470,000

  20,000

  100

  Notes

  1. The average length of stay on community action is four months, therefore, 20,000 programme places would provide a total of 60,000 opportunities in a full year.

  2. Additional amounts of £19 million to cover allowance payments to participants, and £4 million to cover ES running costs, arc held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-Fast will receive a reply to the letter he wrote on the Employment Service and enterprise councils on 28 July 1993, which was followed up by a reminder on 1 November 1993.
  294
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Regrettably, no trace can be found of the hon. Member's letter of 28 July, nor his reminder of 1 November. I have written to the hon. Member offering a meeting at his earliest convenience.

  Working Conditions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all proposed EC/EU measures of the past 10 years regarding working conditions which Her Majesty's Government(a) opposed and (b) supported.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 February 1994]: Since 1983, the Council of Ministers, including the UK, has agreed to over 50 measures relating to working conditions—covering measures in the field of employment law, social security arrangements and health and safety at work. The UK plays a full and constructive part in all negotiations on social affairs matters, adopting an approach on particular proposals or on individual parts of them, based on the Government's view of their merits, the need to achieve a sensible balance between social protection, competitiveness and employment growth, and the question of whether action is best taken by the Community or by member states. The UK has not voted against a single legislative proposal in the current EC social action programme and has one of the best implementation records of any member state. Details of measures adopted by the Council are contained in the "Directory of Community Legislation in Force", published by the, Official Journal of the European Communities, the 22nd edition of which is available in the Library.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all current effective legislation affecting health and safety matters.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: I have arranged for a list to be placed in the Library and will send a personal copy to the hon. Member.

  Paper Shredders
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many paper shredding machines there are(a) in his private office and (b) in his Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: There is one shredding machine in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's office. Information is not held centrally for the numbers in the Department as a whole.

ENVIRONMENT

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the proportion of residential housing stock owned by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) private owners and (d) Government Departments, which were empty in each year from 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The numbers of their own dwellings reported by local authorities and housing associations in England as vacant on 1 April in each year from 1979 to 1993 were as follows:
  295

  Local authorities1 at 1 April

  Management vacants (000s)2

  Other vacants (000s)

  Total vacants (000s)

  Total as a percentage of all LA dwellings

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  100

  2·2

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  100

  2·1

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  97

  2·0

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  100

  2·1

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  114

  2·4

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  113

  2·5

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  117

  2·6

  1986

  n/a

  n/a

  113

  2·6

  1987

  54

  59

  112

  2·5

  1988

  51

  52

  103

  2·4

  1989

  51

  50

  101

  2·4

  1990

  51

  48

  99

  2·5

  1991

  43

  40

  83

  2·1

  1992

  40

  34

  74

  1·9

  1993

  40

  31

  71

  1·9

  1 The figures for the years up to 1986 exclude vacant dwellings owned by authorities situated outside their own area.

  2 Available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  Source: Annual HIP1 returns.

  Housing associations1 at 31 March:

  Management vacants (000s)2

  Other vacants (000s)

  Total vacants (000s)

  Total as a percentage of all HA dwellings

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  6·9

  1982

  n/a

  n/a

  32

  7·7

  1983

  n/a

  n/a

  31

  7·1

  1984

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  5·5

  1985

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  5·5

  1986

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  5·2

  1987

  n/a

  n/a

  24

  4·8

  1988

  n/a

  n/a

  24

  4·7

  1989

  8

  14

  22

  4·2

  1990

  7

  13

  20

  3·5

  1991

  7

  9

  16

  2·7

  1992

  7

  9

  16

  2·5

  19933

  7

  10

  17

  2·4

  1 The figures for 1981 to 1988 are for England and Wales.

  2 Available for letting immediately or after minor repairs.

  3 Excludes some 10,500 dwellings that were purchased under the November 1992 Housing Market Package and were management vacants on 31st March 1993

  Source Annual HAR10/1 returns.

  n/a = not available.

  In addition to providing information on those of their own dwellings that are vacant, local authorities in England are also asked to provide estimates of the numbers of private sector and other public sector vacant dwellings in their area on their annual housing investment programme returns. Estimates of the proportions of private sector dwellings that are vacant, based on these data and including estimates for those authorities which did not provide the information, are set out in the table. These proportions should be treated with care as there are doubts about the quality of some of the estimates provided by authorities.

  Data on vacant Government Department-owned dwellings have been collected from Departments in recent years and the proportions reported as vacant are set out in the table. Corresponding figures for earlier years are not available. Most of the Government Departments' voids are Ministry of Defence properties. External consultants
  296
  advised MOD that in order to meet the demand for married accommodation from entitled service personnel an overall 9 per cent. management margin of vacant properties, excluding those held vacant for major works or deployment, should be maintained. The task force on Government Departments' empty houses was set up to help bring this property back into use, and it is expected to present its final report to Ministers shortly.

  Private sector (other than housing associations)

  Government Departments

  percentage

  percentage

  1979

  4·0

  n/a

  1980

  4·1

  n/a

  1981

  4·1

  n/a

  1982

  4·3

  n/a

  1983

  4·2

  n/a

  1984

  4·2

  n/a

  1985

  4·1

  n/a

  1986

  4·1

  n/a

  1987

  4·1

  n/a

  1988

  4·1

  n/a

  1989

  4·1

  18

  1990

  4·0

  15

  1991

  4·2

  13

  1992

  4·6

  12

  1993

  5·0

  15

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of organisations representing housing co-operatives to discuss funding and strategy; what is his policy regarding the development of housing co-operatives; what criteria he applies when determining financial assistance to housing co-operatives; what plans he has to encourage the development of housing co-operatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Arrangements for the development and funding of housing association co-operatives in England are the responsibility of the Housing Corporation and are set out in the corporation's housing co-operative strategy, which was published in March 1993. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. In the field of local authority housing, my Department is currently providing grant support for the development of 85 tenant management organisations including co-operatives. Details of the criteria for grants to such organisations will be made available in the near future, in the context of the new right-to-manage legislation.

  Housing
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to repeal any part of subsection (i) of section 2 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 12.1 of the consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", which states that we: have no plans to alter the categories of priority need.
  297
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the consultees to whom the consultation paper on access to local authority and housing association tenancies has been sent.

  Sir George Young
  Approximately 4,000 copies of the consultation paper have been sent out. Recipients include all English local housing authorities, the local authority associations, each hon. Member of this House with an English constituency, the Housing Corporation, the 200 largest housing associations operating in England, and a wide range of organisations with an interest in housing in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of(a) owner-occupiers, (b) council tenants, (c) housing association tenants and (d) private sector tenants, including (i) protected tenancies and (ii) other tenancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The most recent information on the main tenure breakdown is from the 1992 Labour Force Survey. It shows that in England in 1992 there were an estimated:

  13,200,000 owner occupiers

  3,800,000 council tenants

  600,000 housing association tenants

  1,800,000 private sector tenants

  My reply to my hon. Friend on 18 January 1994, Official Report, column 578, gave a provisional estimate from the first half year of data collection from the new survey of English housing of about 350,000 protected tenancies in England in 1993. This remains the current estimate. An equivalent figure for 1992 is not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for 1978–79 and each subsequent year for which data are available, the total number of dwellings let to new tenants by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations, and of these, in each case, the number let to (i) homeless applicants and (ii) applicants from the waiting list, and the number which were first lettings of (iii) newly built and (iv) newly modernised buildings.

  Sir George Young
  The numbers of local authority lets to new tenants in England and the numbers of these lets which were to(a) households accepted under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 or the Housing Act 1985 and (b) applicants from the waiting list are given in the table. No information is collected centrally on lettings of newly built or newly modernised local authority dwellings.

  Thousands

  Local authority lettings

  New lettings

  Of which to homeless households

  Of which to waiting list applicants

  1978–79

  289

  38

  185

  1979–80

  275

  41

  171

  1980–81

  275

  44

  174

  1981–82

  251

  45

  167

  1982–83

  256

  49

  173

  1983–84

  246

  49

  161

  1984–85

  240

  54

  156

  1985–86

  247

  63

  153

  1986–87

  244

  67

  149

  1987–88

  242

  74

  142

  1988–89

  236

  73

  139

  298

  Local authority lettings

  New lettings

  Of which to homeless households

  Of which to waiting list applicants

  1989–90

  229

  80

  125

  1990–91

  240

  97

  126

  1991–92

  239

  109

  112

  1992–93

  230

  104

  111

  Source HIP1 returns.

  The available information on housing associations lettings to new tenants in England is set out in the table. The figures for new lettings in the years before 1989–90 are estimates.

  Housing association lettings

  (000s)

  New lettings1

  Of which to households accepted as homeless by local authorities

  First lettings to new tenants

  newly built

  newly rehabilitated

  1978–79

  34

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1979–80

  37

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  42

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  43

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  45

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983–84

  47

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  49

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  51

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1986–87

  52

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–88

  54

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–89

  57

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1989–90

  60

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  63

  9

  14

  3

  1991–92

  71

  15

  20

  3

  21992–93

  91

  23

  29

  3

  1Figures for the number of housing association new lets in years before 1989–90 are estimates based on the data for England and Wales available for these years.

  2Information on the number of first lettings of newly built and newly rehabilitated properties in 1992–93 that were to new tenants is provisional.

  Sources New lettings and new lettings to homeless applicants—

  Housing Corporation HAR10/1.

  First lettings of newly built/rehabilitated dwellings—National Federation of Housing Associations CORE database.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the actual numbers of dwellings which were(a) privately-owned, (b) rented from local authorities, (c) rented from housing associations and (d) rented from the private sector for 1970, 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates of the stock of dwellings in England by type of tenure appear in "Housing and Construction Statistics, Great Britain". Figures for December 1970 appear in the 1970–1980 annual edition, table 107, those for 1979 are in the 1979–1989 edition, in table 9.3 and those for 1992, with provisional June 1993 figures, are in part 2 of the June 1993 quarterly edition, table 2.23.

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.
  299

  Water Quality
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has reached agreement with the European Commission on changes to the requirements imposed on the United Kingdom by European Community laws on water quality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The European Council in December asked the Commission to bring forward as soon as possible four framework directives to replace parts of existing Community laws on water quality. We welcome this decision to make water legislation consistent with subsidiarity and up-to-date science. The Commission and the Council must now ensure that the new and revised directives meet these criteria and are confined to essential quality and health parameters. Existing directives will remain in place until the Commission has brought forward its proposals and substitute directives have been agreed by the Council after consultation with the European Parliament.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated reduction in waste sent to landfill sites in 1992–93 and 1993–94 because of the changes made by the packaging industry(a) throughout England and (b) in west Yorkshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not available. However, the producer responsibility group, in its report "Real Value, from Packaging Waste", presented to Ministers on 7 February, indicated that it would monitor this in future. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated saving of waste to landfill sites because of recycling of waste materials and incineration by west Yorkshire for the period 1 April 1992 to 1 April 1993 to 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not currently available. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy produces an annual report on waste disposal statistics for local authorities and data for 1992–93 are due to be published by the end of this financial year. I have asked the institute to notify the hon. Member when the report is published. Provided the appropriate authorities reply to the institute's request for information, the information sought by the hon. Member should be provided by the report.

  "London: Making the Best Better"
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses his Department received to the consultation paper "London: Making the Best Better".

  Sir George Young
  Responses are still coming in, but a total of 10,000 completed questionnaires had been received by the end of January 1994.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to(a) analyse and (b) publish the results of the consultation on his Department's publication "London: Making the Best Better".
  300
  Sir George Young
  Analysis of the responses to "London: Making the Best Better" is in progress and we aim to publish a digest of the results in March.

  Benzene
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of which are the main sources of exposure to benzene vapour in the environment; and if he will quantify the contribution made by each of those sources.

  Mr. Atkins
  The main sources of exposure to benzene vapour in the environment arise from the benzene content of ambient air and, in smokers, from cigarette smoke. Of the former, the greater proportion arises from the use, production and distribution of petrol. The recent report of the expert panel on air quality standards estimated that 78 per cent. of benzene emissions in the United Kingdom in 1991 arose from petrol engine exhausts. Cigarette smoke contains benzene and this may be the main source of exposure for a heavy smoker.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has given to the letter from the president of the Nuclear Control Institute in regard to the economic viability of reprocessing at THORP; and when he received the letter.

  Mr. Atkins
  The President of the Nuclear Control Institute's letter was received on 2 February. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be replying shortly.

  North Yorkshire County Council
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff were employed by the education department of North Yorkshire county council in the year before the implementation of the local management of schools; and what is the current level of employment in the department.

  Mr. Baldry
  North Yorkshire county council education department employed 7,763 full-time and 9,617 part-time staff in June 1989 and 6,521 full-time and 8,685 part-time staff in June 1993. The figures for June 1993 exclude staff in institutions which transferred to the Further Education Funding Council in April 1993.

  Local management of schools was introduced in April 1990. Staff in locally managed schools remain employees of the local authority.

  New Towns
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the contributions made by the Commission for New Towns to each former new town local authority for promotional activities each year since 1988.

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been no contributions by the commission to local authorities for promotional activities since 1988 although various promotion agencies, which include local authority representation, have received such contributions.
  301

  Inner City Areas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to institutions of the European Communities regarding the application of community funds to the social and infrastructural re-invigoration of inner-city areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government promoted a powerful case for increased assistance from the structural funds for inner city areas. As a result, Merseyside has gained objective 1 status from January 1994. Other inner city areas, including for the first time parts of London, have gained objective 2 status. We were disappointed that some urban areas proposed by the Government were omitted from the list of eligible areas agreed by the Commission. However, at 76 per cent. of our original bid for objective 2 funding, the United Kingdom has done better than almost every other member state.

  Sponsor Ministers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is the sponsor Minister for(a) Birmingham Sandwell and Walsall, (b) Wolverhampton, (c) Nottingham, Rugby and Leicester, (d) Sheffield and Hull, (e) Newcastle, Tyne and Weir, (f) Leeds, Bradford and Kirklees, (g) Bristol, (h) Plymouth and (i) Stoke on Trent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The list of sponsor Ministers was placed in the Library of the House on 4 November 1993, and a copy of the list has been sent to the hon. Member. There has been one change to the list since 4 November; following the move of Lady Denton to the Northern Ireland Office, her responsibilities as sponsor Minister for Leeds, Bradford and Batley have been taken over by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Curry).

  Public Bodies
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the number of appointments he makes to those non-departmental agencies he has responsibility for and their budgets.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is published annually in"Public Bodies", the latest edition of which was issued in December and is available in the Library.

  Homelessness, Dewsbury
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are homeless in the parliamentary constituency of Dewsbury.

  Sir George Young
  The available data relate to local authority areas. The reported number of households accepted as homeless by Kirklees metropolitan council are given in the supplementary table to the quarterly Information Bulletin "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England"; copies of both are in the Library. The latest statistics are for the third quarter of 1993.

  Environmental Trusts
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider providing core funding for existing environmental trusts providing the same services as groundwork trusts.
  302
  Mr. Atkins
  Existing environmental voluntary organisations can apply for core funding under the Department's environmental action fund.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to encourage the efficient use of energy.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment's Energy Efficiency Office budget has been increased to more than £100 million for 1994–95, over 17 times the level of expenditure in 1979–80. It runs a comprehensive range of programmes and initiatives to encourage the efficient use of energy. In addition, the Department is taking a variety of initiatives with regard to publicly owned housing and, as set out in the answer given on 19 January to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)Official Report, columns 671–72, is considering proposals to strengthen the energy efficiency requirements of the Building Regulations. The Department's programmes, and their contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and protecting the environment generally, are set out in the United Kingdom's report under the framework covention on climate change and in the United Kingdom's strategy for sustainable development, both of which ere launched by the Prime Minister on 25 January 1994.

  Coastal Marine Environment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to improve the quality of the coastal marine environment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's policies for protecting and enhancing the marine environment were summarised within "This Common Inheritance" in 1990 and reported upon in the 1991 and 1992 reports (Cm. 1655 and Cm. 2068 respectively). A further report is to be published shortly.

  Halons
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government propose to phase out the use of halons more rapidly than required by the Montreal protocol following the decision to establish a halon recycling scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not Government policy to phase out the use of halons. Our policy, in line with that of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and subsequent EC regulations, is to control the production and supply of halons, not their use. Production of halon was phased out by 1 January 1994.

  The halon bank has been set up to enable recycled halons to be made available to service those halon users with a continuing need. The establishment of the bank is in accordance with decision IV/26 of the parties to the protocol agreed in November 1992 to encourage recovery, reclamation and recycling of halons. The UK halon bank was the first in the world and has helped to ensure that production of halon will not be necessary during 1994.
  303

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Small Cetaceans
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publicise the United Kingdom's activities implementing the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas.

  Mr. Atkins
  The summary of action taken by the United Kingdom to implement the agreement has been published today. A copy has been placed in the House Library.

  Recent activities have built on our already extensive range of laws intended to protect dolphins and other marine and land-based animals, and their habitats.

  A co-ordinating committee has been established to ensure the objectives of the agreement were understood and acted upon by Government agencies. This has resulted in extensive co-operation between Government Departments, agencies, universities and voluntary bodies to identify priorities for action, set up a secretariat to run the agreement and begin vital research work.

  Action taken by the Government to support the agreement includes financial contributions for a number of research projects: a two-year international survey of populations and distributions of porpoises and dolphins in the North sea and English channel, research into ways of deterring cetaceans from swimming into fishing nets, recording of beached animals and analysis of cause of death, and investigation of the problems presented by acoustic disturbance.

  Taken together, these projects will provide a sound basis for future policies and programmes for effective and appropriate protection of these species on an international scale.

  Canadian Rain Forest
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made, in accordance with the objective of global conservation set out in the United Kingdom action plan for biodiversity, to the Governments of Canada and British Columbia over the logging of substantial areas of Canada's temperate rainforest.

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

  None. The Canadian Government and British Columbia authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about logging.
  304

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his policies for increasing the competitiveness of the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is for the Post Office Board to ensure the competitiveness of the Post Office and for the Government to set the framework within which it does so. That framework is under consideration within the Post Office review, which is still continuing.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of post offices as at July 1993 displayed posters giving information on service targets and performance against them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As at July 1993 information about service targets and performance displayed on posters in post offices was as follows:

  Royal Mail
  All Crown, franchise and modified sub post offices displayed posters giving 1st class letter targets and performance on a quarterly basis for their local postcode area.

  Post Office Counters Ltd.
  All Crown offices displayed posters giving annual national targets for customer queuing times and performance of the individual office on a quarterly basis. In 1993–94 a rolling programme to introduce posters displaying queuing time targets is being implemented in the largest 5,000 agency offices.

  Parcelforce
  All Crown, franchise and modified sub post offices displayed posters, for a period of one month after the Post Office annual report and accounts for 1992–93 were published, giving national delivery targets and performance for inland services for that year.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the service targets set by the Post Office as at July 1993; and what was the performance against them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As at July 1993 the service targets set by the Post Office businesses were as follows:

  Royal Mail
  The 1993–94 annual targets for 1st class letter delivery—nationally and for each postcode area—are set out in detail in the Post Office's 1992–93 annual report and accounts. For 1993–94 the overall national target is to deliver 92 per cent. of 1st-class letters on the next working day after posting. For the April-June 1993 quarter in the York postcode area the overall performance for 1st class letter delivery by the next working day was 91 per cent. against a local annual target of 92 per cent.

  Post Office Counters Ltd.
  For all Crown and franchise offices an annual target of 96 per cent. of all customers to be served within 5 minutes was set for 1993–94. For the quarter 22 April-14 July 1993 performance against this target was 97·8 per cent. In addition, this target is being extended during 1993–94 under a rolling programme to 5,000 of the largest sub post offices.

  Parcelforce
  National annual delivery targets for 1993–94 and performance for the quarter April-June 1993 are as follows:

  Target

  Performance April-June '93

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Parcelforce Datapost 10

  99·0

  96·9

  Parcelforce Datapost 12

  99·0

  97·5

  Parcelforce 24

  99·0

  95·7

  Parcelforce 48

  98·0

  93·9

  Parcelforce Standard

  94·0

  95·0

  305

  Electricity
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to refer PowerGen and National Power to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to refer PowerGen and National Power to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to refer PowerGen and National Power to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Director General of Electricity Supply has said that he will decide shortly whether to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Space Launch Agreement
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the agreement between the EC and the Russian Federation on space launch services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A draft agreement has been negotiated by the European Commission and the Russian Space Agency governing Russian access to the international market for space launch services between 1995 and 2000. Conclusion of the agreement is still being considered both by the member states of the European Union and by the Russian Government.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held with members of the aerospace industry about the prospects for the industry.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of the British aerospace companies to discuss future prospects for the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department maintains a close and continuing dialogue with aerospace industry on a wide range of issues.

  Chinaware
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department is giving to promote British chinaware in United Kingdom embassies and high commissions overseas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The full range of overseas trade services are avilable to the British chinaware industry for their export campaigns. In addition, I hope shortly to be able to announce formally the establishment of a DTI tabletop advisory group. This will include manufacturers of china, glass, cutlery and table linen. The group will work with the DTI, manufacturers and retailers to promote the sectors' competitiveness and sales both at home and overseas.
  306

  Gas
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by how much the price of gas to the domestic consumer has fallen since privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Domestic gas prices for all consumers have fallen by 22 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many domestic gas consumers use (i) 100 therms, (ii) 200 therms, (iii) 300 therms, (iv) 500 therms, (v) 1,000 therms and (vi) 2,000 therms a year; and what is the forecast percentage change in cost of those levels of consumption as a result of the abolition of the monopoly control over the domestic gas tariff.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Gas estimates of the number of domestic gas consumers in different ranges of consumption are as follows:

  Analysis of British Gas domestic tariff sales (September 1992 estimate)

  Range therms per year

  Number of customers

  0–100

  1,325,311

  101–200

  964,173

  201–300

  1,392,542

  301–500

  3,871,768

  501–1,000

  8,121,502

  1,001–2,000

  1,965,922

  over 2,000

  152,482

  17,793,700

  Source: Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Gas and British Gas plc, Volume 2, Appendix 4.1, Table 2.

  Abolition of the monopoly will expose British Gas to competition which should lead to reduced prices to domestic consumers. A joint DTI/OFGAS public consultation document, to be published soon, will discuss the operation of the competitive market and the arrangements for regulating the transition to full competition.

  Recycling
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to encourage industry to increase the use of recycled materials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have been encouraged by the recycling rates achieved in recent years. Around 30 per cent. of container glass, for example, was recycled in 1993, compared with only 20 per cent. in 1990.

  The producer responsibility initiative that we launched in July 1993 is aimed at encouraging commerce and industry to increase recycling rates further.

  West Midlands (Regeneration)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what practical steps he is taking to encourage commercial regeneration in the west midlands.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are committed to regeneration throughout the United Kingdom. In the west midlands there is a wide range of Government-funded support services available.
  307

  Insolvency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many investigations are currently being carried out by the Insolvency Service; and how many were carried out during(a) 1980 and (b)

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under the Insolvency Act 1986 the Official Receiver has a duty to investigate the affairs of each company wound up by the courts and the conduct and affairs of every bankrupt except where an order for summary administration has been made.

  There were 6,910 winding-up and receiving orders made in 1980 and 12,477 made in 1985. In 1993 there were 8,361 winding-up orders and 31,025 bankruptcy orders including 5,357 summary cases.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Government policy towards insolvency.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Government believe that it is important to have a civilised, orderly and equitable method for dealing with financial failure of individuals and businesses and for tackling fraud and malpractice where they occur. The insolvency legislation seeks to achieve this end. It is kept under continual review.

  Defence Technology Transfer
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to assist with technology transfer from defence based industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A number of my Department's schemes assist technology transfer, including transfer from defence-based industries.

  Electrical Equipment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has received from business or consumer organisations about banning the sale of electrical equipment without pre-fitted plugs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Representations from business and consumer organisations were received during the formal consultation on the proposed regulations last year. Also, a number of meetings were subsequently held with officials. There was general support for the proposed regulations.

  However, the European Commission is still seeking clarification on a number of points which is delaying the progress of the proposed regulations. I am hopeful that these matters will be resolved shortly.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the terms of reference of the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government will announce the terms of reference for the review and how it will be conducted as soon as possible.
  308

  South East (Growth)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department has taken in the past 12 months to stimulate growth and job creation within the South East.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are committed to stimulating growth and job creation throughout the United Kingdom. Assisted area status and objective 2 status have been granted to parts of the South East in the past 12 months.

  International Competitiveness
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of Britain's international competitiveness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government have announced that they will publish a White Paper on competitiveness later this year.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors have been disqualified during the years(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of directors disqualified in 1980 was 62; in 1985 it was 120; and in the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92 was 420 and 460 respectively.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of fixtures and fittings in his Department's new offices.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the last and current financial years my Department has not moved into any new offices in central London.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has had any recent discussions with representatives of the motor industry concerning future exports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not discussed this subject with industry representatives recently, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade met representatives from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 1 February to discuss, among other matters, issues relating to the export of automotive products.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit Ilford to discuss the economic situation.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no current plans to do so.

  Arms Trade
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the value of(a) British and (b) Japanese arms exports in the most recent years for which comparable figures are available; and what proportion this represents of total exports from those countries.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom defence exports can be found in table 1.11 of UK Defence
  309
  Statistics 1993 edition, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. For 1992, United Kingdom exports of identified defence equipment amounted to £1,506 million, representing 1·4 per cent. of total visible exports. Comparable figures for Japan are not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Telecommunications for Disabled and Elderly People Committee
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Disabled and Elderly People.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Appointments to the Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Disabled and Elderly People are the responsibility of the Director General of Telecommunications. However, I understand that the current members are:

  Chairman

  Mrs. Jean Gaffin

  Members

  Mrs. Sheila Barrows, MBE

  Mr. David Dunsmuir

  Mr. Michael Godfrey

  Mr. Wally Herbert, OBE

  Mr. David Hyslop

  Mr. Colin Low

  Mr. Michael Martin, OBE

  Dr. Eric Midwinter, OBE

  Mrs. Sheila Porter

  Mrs. Nancy Robertson

  Dr. Eleanor Steiner

  Area Transport Users Committees
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the members currently appointed to the area transport users consultative committees.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are eight area transport users' consultative committees. The committees and their members at 21 January 1994 are as follows:

  The transport users' consultative committee for southern England:

  Miss Angela M. Hooper, CBE (Chairman)

  Mr. John A. Bigny

  Mr. Chris John Campbell

  Mr. Peter Catchpole

  Miss Suzanne Davis

  Mr. John G. Doctor

  Mr. John V. Foster

  Mrs. Jennifer Hinton

  Mr. Peter J. Lee

  Mrs. Elizabeth Macdonald-Brown

  Miss Alison M. R. Penn

  Mrs. Fiona M. G. Ross

  Mr. Alan E. J. Shorter

  The transport users' consultative committee for eastern England:

  Mr. David Bertram (Chairman)

  Mr. Dennis A. Adams

  Mrs. Jill Allen-King, MBE

  Mr. Robert E. Bone

  Councillor Peter R. Chappell

  Mrs. Charlotte E. M. Clark

  Mr. Brian M. Cooke

  Mr. Bryan M. W. Frost

  Mrs. Elizabeth B. Gard

  Mrs. Jennifer M. Honisett

  Mr. Rodney Hughes

  Mr. John R. Legg

  Sir Graham A. M. Macmillan

  Mr. Peter R. Pennington

  Mrs. Elizabeth Purdy

  310

  Mr. Richard Ramage

  Mr. Derek J. Stevens

  Mr. Richard E. West

  The transport users' consultative committee for north western England:

  Mr. Frank F. Dolphin (Chairman)

  Mr. Mark Andrew

  Mrs. Jennifer S. Borer

  Mr. Harold Combs

  Mr. Morris Dickie

  Mrs. Geraldine P. Evans

  Mr. Paul Fawcett

  Mr. Robert Gale

  Mrs. Nora Gleave

  Mrs. Valerie Godfrey, JP

  Mrs. Phyllis M. Hardman

  Ms Christine S. Jackson

  Mr. Robin Morris

  Mr. Walter H. Neve

  Mr. John M. Richardson

  Mr. Donald R. Wignall, BA, MSC

  The transport users' consultative committee for north eastern England are:

  Mr. Alan Paul, MBE (Acting Chairman)1

  Mrs. S. J. Adams

  Mrs. Christine J. H. Clubley

  Mr. Garnet G. Dore

  Mr. Geoffrey Egglestone

  Mrs. Sylvia D. Greenwood

  Mrs. Gloria V. E. Havenhand

  Mr. David Heseldin

  Mrs. Joan Johnson, OBE

  Mr. Geoffrey E. Meikle

  Mr. John T. Middleton, OBE

  Major David M. Naylor, CB, MBE

  Mr. Eric Davis Pepper

  Mrs. Shirley Shaw

  Sir Reginald Sheffield

  Dr Robin W. J. Sisson

  Mrs. Ruth S. Studholme

  Mr. Dennis M. Walsh

  1 Mr. Paul is Acting Chairman in the absence of Professor Paul Fairest, the permanent chairman, who has temporarily stood down to undertake research.

  Professor Fairest will resume duties as chairman on 1 April 1994.

  The transport users' consultative committee for western England:

  Sir Robert W. Wall, OBE (Chairman)

  Mr. Peter C. Blackburn

  Councillor Geoffrey J. P. Browne

  Councillor G. L. J. (Toby) Bruce-Morgan

  Councillor John M. Chapman

  Mr. William H. Davey

  Councillor Rosaleen A. Day

  Mr. Paul A. Eward

  Dame Margaret J. Fry

  Lady Elizabeth P. A. Gass

  Dr. K. Melissa Hardie

  Mr. Chris C. Irwin

  Mrs Abigail A. Kirby-Harris, JP

  Dr. Robin L. D. Rees

  Mr. Peter W. Simmonds

  Mrs. Elizabeth A. Smith

  Councillor Betty J. Topham

  The transport users' consultative committee for the Midlands area:—

  Dr. P. Pritchard Jones (Chairman)

  Mrs. Sarah A. Bennett

  Mr. D. G. Bullock

  Mrs. H. Byford, OBE

  Mr. Stuart I. Edwards

  Mr. John M. Everitt

  Dr. John P. Fletcher

  Mr. Gyde Horrocks

  Mr. Robert M. S. Lincoln

  311

  Mr. Arthur E. R. Manners

  Mrs. Sandra M. Meredith-Vulja

  Mr. Robert Miller

  Mr. D. J. Pett, MA

  Mr. Barry Picken, JP

  Mr. J. O. Pugh

  Mr. Mark A. Sullivan

  Mrs. Jean H. Thornton

  Mr. Percy J. Tinson

  The transport users' consultative committee for Scotland are—

  Mr. John A. Corrie (Chairman)

  Mrs. Eleanor Brownlee

  Miss Pamela Clough

  Ms Deirdre Forsyth

  Mr. Stephen C. Gibbs

  Miss Cecily E. Giles, CBE

  Mr. Lawrence Kemp

  Captain Roderick Mackinnon, JP

  Mrs. Jeanette M. Mason

  Mr. Alan T. Rees

  Dr. Douglas G. Williamson

  Mr. John Wilson, JP

  The transport users' consultative committee for Wales:

  Mr. Charles A. Hogg, JP (Chairman)

  Mrs. Margaret A. Brown

  Mr. Ashley M. D. Clay

  Mr. H. Mansel Davey, JP

  Mr. Martin R. Davies

  Mr. David B. T. Deere

  Mr. Phillip C. Evans

  Mr. Robert L. Griffin

  Mrs. Gillian M. G. Jones

  Dr. William P. Race

  Miss Kathleen J. Smith

  Mr. Robin C. Smith

  Councillor John D. A. Thompson

  Councillor William J. Williams

  Mr. Owen P. Williams

  Malaysia (Exports)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) of 1 February, Official Report, column 612, if he will list exports to Malaysia under standard international trade classifications(a) 792, (b) 793 and (c) 981·29 for 1982 to 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is given in the table.

  Value of exports to Malaysia

  (£000's)

  Year

  SITC 792

  SITC 793

  SITC 981.29

  1982

  6,976

  338

  NA

  1983

  8,054

  2,318

  NA

  1984

  8,712

  192

  NA

  1985

  CC

  CC

  NA

  1986

  3,785

  228

  NA

  1987

  2,461

  2,077

  NA

  1988

  CC

  CC

  CC

  1989

  CC

  CC

  CC

  1990

  CC

  CC

  0

  1991

  6,174

  789

  0

  1992

  CC

  CC

  0

  1993

  CC

  CC

  CC

  Notes:

  SITC—Standard International Trade Classification.

  792—Aircraft and associated equipment; spacecraft (including satellites) and spacecraft launch vehicles; and parts thereof.

  793—Ships, boats (including hovercraft) and floating structures.

  981.29—Munitions of war and parts thereof, not elsewhere specified.

  CC—Figures not available due to commercial confidentiality.

  NA—The SITC was revised in 1988. As a result, exports prior to 1988 corresponding to the current heading 981·29 cannot be separately identified.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise.
  312

  Disqualification Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the full complement of staff in his Department's disqualification unit; and how many are currently in post.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The complement of permanent staff of the disqualification unit is currently 50·5. There are 47·5 staff in post, in addition to which there is a total of 11 staff seconded from the private sector, on loan from other Government Departments or employed on a casual basis.

  Mr. Roger Levitt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the bankruptcy laws in the light of Roger Levitt's discharge from bankruptcy.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Competitiveness Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each subdivision of his competitiveness unit; together with an outline of their work programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the Minis 93 returns, and the DTI functional directory, both of which are in the Library of the House. A new branch is being established to spread best purchasing practice in both the public and private sectors. The Minis 94 returns will set out its work programme.

  Coal
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he takes to ensure that coal imported to the United Kingdom from Colombia is mined under conditions which do not breach international standards on the use of child labour; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received assurances from the Colombian authorities that none of the United Kingdom' s coal imports from Colombia are produced by child labour, and that their Government are attempting to eliminate the practice where it does occur in illegal family-run mines. Most of the coal produced in Colombia for the United Kingdom comes from the El Cerrejon mine which is run by Exxon to high standards. Representatives of the United Kingdom's two major coal importers have been to that mine to inspect conditions and are satisfied that no children are employed there.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to safeguard the environment in areas likely to be affected by the granting of compulsory rights orders by the local authority after privatisation of the coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have announced a review of the regime for compulsory access to land for minerals extraction contained in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966, which applies to all minerals including, coal. The intention of this review is to produce an integrated regime for access to minerals that will be appropriate for the next century. As a transitional measure during the review, the Government intend to retain the compulsory rights order (CRO) provisions of the Opencast Coal Act 1958, but only until the end of 1999.
  313
  It is the Government's intention that CROs should be available to opencast operations as a matter of last resort only. The Coal Industry Bill would transfer to the Coal Authority the power to make CROs, but it is intended that the authority should not exercise this power unless it is satisfied that the applicant has made all reasonable efforts to secure the rights by agreement, but this has not been possible because: the owners of the land are too numerous, or cannot be identified; or the owner(s) do not have power to grant the rights sought; or the owner(s) have unreasonably refused to negotiate, or sought unreasonable terms. To come into force, a CRO must be confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, or for Scotland or Wales as appropriate. My right hon. Friends will confirm a CRO only if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

  As now, CROs will only be used in exceptional circumstances. There is no reason at this stage to think that the use of CROs will more or less likely in any area of Britain's coalfields.

  All new opencast development proposals will of course require planning permission and will continue to be scrutinised by planning authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently issued draft revised guidelines, which set demanding environmental tests for the industry.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards and compensatory arrangements he plans after privatisation of the coal industry to protect local communities and individuals from pollution of rivers and streams by old coal workings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government will ensure that all British Coal's current responsibilities will continue to be discharged following privatisation. The Coal Authority will be responsible for water pollution from abandoned mines, except to the extent that any part of the responsibility may be passed to the private sector through leases.

  All discharges into controlled waters, including any from abandoned mines, will continue to be subject to the pollution control regime of the Water Resources Act 1991. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently reviewing the legal framework governing discharges from abandoned mines in general.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to offer to the private sector further pits closed by British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are committed to ensuring that any closing pits are made available to the private sector.

  To date, 28 pits have been made available by British Coal for lease/licence. Decisions on lease/licence are a matter for British Coal.

  British Coal has indicated that the corporation is unlikely to offer any further closing pits for lease/licence. It is the Government's intention, therefore, to offer such pits in parallel to the privatisation regional packages. Such pits would meanwhile be kept on care and maintenance basis. Detailed arrangements will be announced within the next few weeks when expressions of interest are invited from potential bidders.

  The chairman of British Coal has assured me that no equipment will be removed from the pits proposed for
  314
  closure at general review meetings last week unless it is essential for safety reasons or the reserves of any of the pits are reallocated to adjacent mines.

  Clothing and Textiles
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest progress on the final discussions on the clothing and textile section of the GATT round.

  Mr. Needham
  The final GATT Uruguay round textiles and clothing agreement sets out the methodology for the phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement (MFA) over a 10-year period which will commence once the detail of the complete GATT package has been agreed.

  The MFA phase-out will be in four stages, each consisting of the liberalisation of some quotas and an increase in the level of those quotas not eliminated. Detailed work on the content of each stage of the phase-out phase-is not yet completed although it has been agreed that smaller supplying countries will benefit sooner than the larger suppliers.

  The phase-out of the MFA will be balanced by improved GATT rules to deal with unfair trading practices, better intellectual property rights and lower tariffs in many export markets. We have pressed the European Commission to seek improvements in the tariff reductions offered by some countries and it is currently continuing negotiations with India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Hong Kong with a view to achieving greater concessions than those offered at present. Negotiations will if necessary continue until Ministers sign the final GATT act in April.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been granted in the last 10 years for self-neutralising or self-destructing anti-personnel land mines.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the policy of successive administrations not to disclose details about export licences that have been issued. In this case, in addition, the information requested could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Scotch Whisky (Chile)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Her Majesty's Government intends to request the European Commission to initiate GATT proceedings against the Chilean Government on account of their failure to respond to Her Majesty's Government's representations about their discriminatory taxation treatment of Scotch whisky.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department is in close touch with the Scotch Whisky Association about discriminatory taxation in Chile. Once it is clear what effect the outcome of the Uruguay round has had on this problem, all the options for future action including action by the European Commission in the GATT, will be considered.
  315

  Alcohol (Taxation)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations have been made to the Japanese Government about the need for the outstanding liquor tax discrimination within the spirits sector to be eliminated this year.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government have made a number of high level representations to the Japanese Government in recent months regarding the continuing tax discrimination against foreign liquors in that country. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the issue with the Japanese Prime Minister both in person during his visit to Tokyo in September 1993 and subsequently by letter. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade raised the issue with Japanese Ministers during his visit to Tokyo in January. I have also lobbied the Japanese Government, and the European Commission is actively pursuing the matter. This is an issue which concerns us greatly and one on which we are regularly in touch with the Scotch whisky industry.

  Power Transmission Lines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet the chairman of the National Grid Corporation to discuss the allegations of ill health caused by electro-magnetic radiation fields given off from overhead transmission cables and electricity sub-stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the Chairman of National Grid Corporation from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has given to the letter from the President of the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington DC in regard to the economic viability of reprocessing at THORP; and when he received the letter.

  Mr. Eggar
  The letter arrived on 2 February 1994. I shall be replying in due course.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the annual report and accounts for British Nuclear Fuels for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement on the delay in completing these accounts.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual report and accounts for British Nuclear Fuels plc for 1992–93 were published on 2 February 1994 and, in accordance with section 14 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1971, laid before both Houses of Parliament. On the question of timing, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 16 December 1993,Official Report, column 756.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the basis of his decision of 27 January not to refer the joint venture proposal involving British Nuclear Fuels plc, Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland NV, Uranit GMBH and Urenco Ltd. to the Monopolies Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In accordance with advice from the Director General of Fair Trading, I decided not to refer the 316
  proposed joint venture between British Nuclear Fuels plc, Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland NV, Uranit GMBH and Urenco Ltd. to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) because it did not in my view raise competition or other relevant concerns warranting scrutiny by the MMC.

  Oil Sales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the monthly sale of oil in(a) monetary value and (b) tonnage from the United Kingdom to Greece in each month since 1984.

  Mr. Eggar
  Data on monthly exports of oil by the United Kingdom to Greece since 1984 are available from the monthly Central Statistical Office publication "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom". From July 1992 the exports are as follows:

  United Kingdom oil1 exports to Greece

  £ million

  Tonnes2

  1992

  July

  0·3

  388

  August

  0·2

  348

  September

  0·8

  3,310

  October

  0·4

  662

  November

  0·4

  479

  December

  12·5

  129,039

  1993

  January

  0·2

  —

  February

  3·7

  —

  March

  0·8

  —

  April

  0·4

  —

  May

  3·5

  —

  June

  0·5

  —

  July

  0·2

  —

  August

  0·7

  —

  September

  0·3

  —

  1 Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials; i.e. Division 33 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  2 Monthly details of tonnage for Intra-EC trade under the Division 33 heading from January 1993 onwards are not yet available.

  Source HM Customs and Excise.

  UN—Iran Joint Commission
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to the answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 644, if he will list the (a) United Kingdom and (b) Iraqi participants at the UN-Iraq Joint Commission of 27 to 30 November 1989.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)

  The right hon. Lord Trefgarne, Minister for Trade

  Mr. M. Petter, Head of Middle East Branch Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. J. Gallaher, Middle East Branch, Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. R. Higgins, Middle East Branch, Department of Trade and Industry

  Dr. J. Warren, Head of Overseas Technical Information Unit, Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. S. Lawrence, Overseas Technical Information Unit, Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. R. Wild, Director Project of Group, Export Credit Guarantee Department

  Mr. D. Coombe, Head of Project Division, Export Credit Guarantee Department

  Mr. I. Foster

  Project Division, Export Credit Guarantee Department

  317

  Mr. A. Brown

  First Secretary Commercial, British Embassy, Baghdad

  Mr. P. Sullivan

  Head of Industrial Training, British Council

  Mr. M. Edwards

  Ministry of Agriculture

  Mr. T. Crawley

  Department of Health

  Mr. R. Mackintosh

  National Health Service, Overseas Enterprises

  (b)

  Dr. Mohammed Mehdi Saleh

  Minister for Trade

  Mr. Abdul Sahib Sattar Aziz

  Protocol Division, Ministry of Trade (PS to Minister)

  Mr. Farouk Al-Obaidi

  Director General Foreign Economic Relations, Ministry of Trade

  Mr. Bourhan Abdullah Ramadhan

  Foreign Economic Relations Department, Ministry of Trade

  Mr. Hashim Ali Obeid

  Under-Secretary, Ministry of Finance

  Dr. Azmi Al-Slihi

  Iraqi Ambassador to United Kingdom

  Mr. Sadaam Z. Hasan

  Commercial Attache, Iraqi Embassy London

  Mr. Rajaa Hssan Ali

  Director General, Economic and Administrative Department, Ministry of Industry and Military Manufacturing

  Mr. Yahya Abdul Amir Al Dojaili

  Director General, Ministry of Industry and Military Manufacturing

  Mr. Khalid Hussain Ahmed

  Head of Economic Planning Commission, Ministry of Planning

  Mr. Sabeeh Jalal

  Central Bank of Iraq

  Mr. George Z. George

  Rafidain Bank

  Mr. Haitham A. Khalil

  Research Department, General Federation of Iraqi Chambers of Commerce and Industry

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of Rover by BMW on the share of the United Kingdom car market taken by imports.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We would expect the acquisition of Rover by BMW to strengthen Rover's competitiveness still further, thus increasing the ability of United Kingdom-based manufacturers to increase their share of the United Kingdom market.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made as to the effect on United Kingdom car manufacturers of being taken over by foreign companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The effect on car manufacturers being taken over by foreign-owned companies will vary from case to case.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made as to the effect of United Kingdom membership of the EC on United Kingdom car plants being owned by foreign companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.
  318

  Manufacturing Assets (Foreign Companies)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the proportion of the value of manufacturing assets owned by foreign companies in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) Italy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total Export Credits Guarantee Department exposure outstanding in Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  At 31 March 1993 the total Export Credits Guarantee Department exposure outstanding on Indonesia was £1,177·2 million.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what levels of export credit guarantees have been provided to Indonesia in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department's annual report details the value of guarantees issued for capital goods and projects each year for the main markets. The value of such guarantees for Indonesia in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  67·0

  1989–90

  52·3

  1990–91

  149·6

  1991–92

  126·8

  1992–93

  448·8

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of Export Credits Guarantee Department credit for Indonesia has been allocated to defence contracts in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  Of the guarantees issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in support of capital goods and project exports to Indonesia, the following proportion has related to exports of defence equipment in each of the last five years:

  Per cent.

  1988–89

  4·2

  1989–90

  0·0

  1990–91

  1·7

  1991–92

  1·7

  1992–93

  97·3

  Company Voluntary Arrangements
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress being made in the consultations with outside interested parties on the company voluntary arrangements document issued by the Insolvency Service in October 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The deadline for responses to the document has been extended to 31 March 1994. More than 40 have been received so far and many more are expected. The views expressed will be carefully considered.
  319

  Management Bids
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the management bids under each of the Minis rounds by each agency chief executive and departmental head together with the current staff-in-post numbers.

  Mr. Eggar
  The process of resource allocation within the Department is an internal matter for the Department. The final allocation to each management unit is published annually in Minis.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tenders were received for the contract for the review of the Insolvency Service which was awarded to Stoy Hayward.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Three tenders were received and all three parties were interviewed before the contract was awarded.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the Stoy Hayward report cost.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the minutes of the Department's resources management group held on 13 July 1993 relating to the staffing needs of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No, the discussions of the Department's Resource Management Group are an internal matter for the Department.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints have been received under the Insolvency Service published standards by(a) the inspector general and chief executive, (b) official receivers and (c) the President of the Board of Trade for each of the last two years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service Standard, published in March 1993, has been in place for less than a year. In that time no letters have been received under it by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Inspector General and Agency Chief Executive has received letters relating to 23 cases under its terms. Complaints made to official receivers which are satisfactorily dealt with at that level are not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place the Stoy Hayward report into the Insolvency Service in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As announced on 7 February, a summary of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tenders were received for the second stage review of the privatisation of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A letter of invitation to bid for the second phase of the review was issued on 4 February 1994.
  320
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the projected budgets and staffing levels for the Insolvency Service for the next three years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The allocation of budgets and manpower to the Insolvency Service for 1994–95 has yet to be made. Budgets and staffing levels for future years will depend on the outcome of future Public Expenditure Surveys.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will detail moneys paid into the Insolvency Service account in respect of interest on the money received by liquidators and invested for each of the past five years, together with details of the amounts paid to the commissioners of the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The details are as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Interest paid (net of tax) £'000

  Amounts paid to Inland Revenue £'000

  1989

  1,887

  662

  1990

  2,030

  677

  1991

  1,700

  499

  1992

  1,949

  562

  1993

  1,946

  804

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many temporary staff were employed by the Insolvency Service in January 1993, April 1993 arid January 1994; and how many he estimates will be in post in April.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of casual staff employed by the Insolvency Service in January 1993, April 1993 and January 1994 was as follows:

  Number

  1 January 1993

  164·5

  1 April 1993

  190·5

  1 January 1994

  241

  The level of resource for the Insolvency Service for 1994–95 has not yet been decided upon.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he defines the term, mechanical processing work, used in his announcement of the review into the future of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The term is used loosely to describe those activities routinely involved in case administration as opposed to investigation.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will highlight the areas market tested in the Department, the cost of each market test; and how many tests were awarded in-house.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has completed market tests in the following areas; office and financial management service, internal consultancy, and oil and gas support
  321
  programmes. Within these area, in 11 individual tests service delivery was retained in house. Market test costs are being finalised for publication in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report".

  Overseas Project Board
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how the members of the Overseas Project Board are chosen; and what criteria are used for their selection;

  (2) who are the present members of the Overseas Projects Board; when they were appointed; what are their occupations; which firms employ them; what were the reasons for their selection; and what is their term of office;

  (3) what is the role of the Overseas Projects Board; and when it was established.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answers 8 February 1994]: The Overseas Projects Board (OPB) provides expert advice to DTI Ministers and their officials on issues affecting UK industry's ability to complete effectively for major projects overseas and services as a focal point for industry to communicate its views to Government. Appointments are made by the Minister for Trade usually for three years. The aim is to have on the OPB senior businessmen and others who have experience of major projects overseas. The names of the current members, their occupations, employers, and the dates of their appointments are as follows:

  Overseas Project Board

  Members

  Sir Alan Cockshaw

  Chairman

  AMEC plc

  (Appointed 1 September 1991)

  Mr. C. H. Brown

  Chief Executive, British Gas plc

  (Appointed 31 March 1993)

  Mr. B. P. Dewe Mathews

  Director J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Limited

  (Appointed 30 June 1989)

  Professor G. Fleming BSc PhD

  Professor of Civil Engineering

  Department of Civil Engineering

  University of Strathclyde

  (Appointed 30 June 1991)

  Mr. R. T. Fox CBE

  Vice Chairman, Kleinwort Benson Group Plc

  (Appointed 30 June 1987)

  Mr. S. Gillibrand CBE

  Vice Chairman, British Aerospace plc

  (Appointed 30 June 1989)

  Mr. D. O. Lloyd

  Director, Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd.

  (Appointed 31 August 1990)

  Mr. I. W. Reeves

  Chairman, High Point plc

  (Appointed 31 July 1992)

  Mr. A. White CBE

  Chairman, Biwater Ltd.

  (Appointed 31 July 1992)

  Mr. P. Hills

  Executive Director

  Samuel Montagu

  (Appointed 4 November 1993)

  Mr. F. Kennedy

  Executive Board Director

  George Wimpey plc

  (Appointed 4 November 1993)

  322

  Sir Wilfrid Newton

  Chairman

  London Regional Transport

  (Appointed 4 November 1993)

  Mr. D. Jefferies

  Chairman, National Grid Company

  (Appointed 4 November 1993)

  Sir Desmond Pitcher

  Chairman

  North West Water Group

  (Appointed 26 November 1993)

  Mr. P. L. Lock ton CBE

  Managing Director

  Rolls Royce India Ltd.

  (Appointed 26 October 1987)

  Mr. K. A. Bray

  Managing Director

  GEC Asthom

  (Appointed 12 January 1994)

  Mr. R. Beresford

  Managing Director

  Mott McDonald

  (Appointed 12 January 1994)

  Mr. I. Robinson

  Chairman and Managing Director

  John Brown plc

  (Appointed 28 January 1994)

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department are covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: Approximately 12,700 staff in the Department are eligible to receive statutory sick pay. This total includes Departmental staff on loan or secondment out of the Department.

HEALTH

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the total expenditure on(a) hormone replacement therapy and (b) etidronate prescribed by general practitioners in each family health services authority area and NHS region for each of the last two complete years; and if she will also express this as an expenditure figure per head of the total population in each area, and also as an expenditure figure per head for women aged 45 years and over.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The net ingredient cost for products used for hormone replacement therapy in each family health services authority area and national health service region for 1991 and 1992 will be placed in the Library. Information for the drug disodium etidronate cannot be supplied as it is commercially confidential.

  Opticians
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last discussed form AG3 with opticians; what assessment she has made of form AG3 with respect to the optical section in particular; whether people likely to need this form are likely to be able readily to understand it; and what assessment she has made of whether opticians find the form to be simple and straightforward.
  323
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Planned changes to form AG3 are discussed periodically with the optical profession, most recently as part of a wider review of national health service forms and leaflets. In addition, family health services authorities provide comprehensive guidance to opticians about the national health service low-income scheme and form AG3 in order that they may give effective advice to patients. There are no grounds for believing that the form is other than simple and straightforward to use.

  Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the advisers to her Department for each of the professions allied to medicine, stating in each case whether they are full-time appointments, for what duration the appointments have been made and the method by which the appointees were selected; and if she will outline her policy on the future of such appointments.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department obtains advice in relation to the professions allied to medicine from professional staff employed within the Department and from a variety of outside expert sources, depending on the nature of the advice required. It is not our practice to publish details of individual appointments.

  Electric Power Lines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been(a) sponsored or (b) undertaken within her Department on the potential risks of overhead power cables and electricity transmission stations; and in what form these have been published.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department funds the National Radiological Protection Board which undertakes a programme of research into the effects on health of electromagnetic radiation. This includes sources of EM radiation such as power lines and electrical equipment. The board publishes its work in various documents, reports and other scientific forms.

  Patients' Views
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the companies commissioned by her Department to carry out polling and market research about patients' views in the year to 1 April 1993; and if she will list the areas of research, the questionnaires to be used and the groups to be questioned.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health commissioned four market research projects about patients' views in the year to April 1993. These were:

  Subject

  Questionnaires

  Groups

  Pregnancy Booklet

  Omnibus Survey

  Pregnant Mothers

  Oral Syringe

  Group discussions/interviews

  Parents of children having treatment/had treatment

  NHS Waiting Lists

  Group discussions/interviews

  Sample of general public

  Health Information Service

  Group discussions/interviews

  Sample of general public

  The companies commissioned to carry out these projects were Research Surveys of Great Britain, the Qualitative Consultancy, Counterpoint Research and Craig Ross Davidson.
  324
  Since 1990 the Department has contributed towards the cost of the British social attitudes survey carried out by social and community planning research, which monitors trends in social attitudes towards a range of issues including health and health services.

  The Department has also had questions included in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys general household survey on general practitioner attendances, hospital in-patient stays, out-patient visits and day cases.

  Care Plans
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of national health service patients had written community care plans at the time of their discharge from hospital in 1992–93.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mentally Ill People
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the changes in the number of places in staffed residential care homes catering primarily for people who are mentally ill or have learning disabilities(a) in the South Birmingham health authority area, (b) in the West Midlands health authority area and (c) in England in each of the last five years divided into publicly owned, privately owned and voluntary sector owned.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of places in staffed residential care homes catering primarily for people who are mentally ill or have learning disabilities by sector, at 31 March 1988 to 31 March 1992

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  South Birmingham district health authority1

  Local authority

  168

  164

  190

  150

  206

  Voluntary

  109

  124

  113

  135

  152

  Private

  57

  66

  74

  72

  104

  West Midlands regional health authority

  Local authority

  2,265

  2,275

  2,222

  2,173

  2,184

  Voluntary

  971

  1,015

  1,107

  1,276

  1,466

  Private

  1,500

  1,470

  1,674

  1,796

  1,825

  England

  Local authority

  19,650

  20,130

  19,770

  19,500

  18,960

  Voluntary

  8,150

  9,490

  10,970

  13,010

  15,500

  Private

  13,090

  15,270

  17,450

  19,110

  20,420

  1On 1 April 1991 South Birmingham merged with Central Birmingham to produce the single district health authority. South Birmingham. To reflect this, the combined figures have been given for each year prior to the merger.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each health authority in England as at July 1993, whether it had published a guaranteed maximum waiting time for patients seeking(a) hip and knee replacements and (b) cataract removals; and what waiting times were guaranteed by each authority that had done so.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under the patients charter, local health authorities are expected to make available detailed information on health services, including quality standards and maximum waiting times. Local standards are not
  325
  monitored separately, but as a minimum all must meet the national guarantee that all patients waiting for a hip or knee replacement or a cataract operation are treated within 18 months.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the subjects on which her Department or its predecessors formerly answered parliamentary questions but which are now referred by her to an executive agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  Next steps agency chief executives are usually asked to reply to parliamentary questions about day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  Whooping Cough
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about any recent change in the incidence of whooping cough; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Although the current winter is one in the epidemic cycle when increases would have been expected in whooping cough notifications, they have remained at exceptionally low levels.

  Provisional notifications in 1993 were 4,030 against 11,663 in 1989, the comparable year in the epidemic cycle. These very low notifications reflect the very high immunisation coverage of 93 per cent. at November 1993.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has taken to ensure that all those children who were not vaccinated for whooping cough but who, following the change in medical advice, might be considered suitable for vaccination, have been contacted and given the opportunity to receive the vaccination.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for individual general practitioners to identify children who in the past did not complete their whooping cough immunisation.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directions she has issued, following the change in medical advice given three years ago on the use of the whooping cough vaccination for children with a family history of fits.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice on whooping cough immunisation was issued to all doctors in the United Kingdom in July 1992 in the memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", copies of which are available in the Library. This provides guidance for doctors, practice nurses and health visitors on the use of the vaccine in children with a variety of family or personal histories.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practising orthodontists work in the NHS in each health authority area in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Any dentist who has the necessary facilities, experience or expertise may provide orthodontic treatment.
  326
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average waiting time for orthodontic treatment for each health authority area in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A full comparison of average in-patient and day case waiting times for the orthodontic specialty is not possible because health authorities may record orthodontic treatment under different categories, for example, out-patient activity or general surgery.

  Benzene
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's assessment of the health hazard posed by benzene vapour releases from petrol.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Jackson) on 26 January at columns 297–98.

  Leeds Healthcare
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure that the circumstances identified in the health service commissioner's report on Leeds healthcare failure to provide long-term health care to a patient seriously incapacitated after a stroke are not repeated elsewhere; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  As part of the new community care arrangements we have required health and local authorities to agree their respective responsibilities for long-term care. This should be done in the light of their assessment of the best way to provide a comprehensive service to meet the needs of their local populations. We have also required them to agree co-ordinated hospital discharge arrangements. In addition, the chief executive of the National Health Service Management Executive wrote to all health authority managers, trust chief executives and unit general managers on 20 January 1994, EL(94)8, to remind them of the importance of having in place explicit and comprehensive discharge procedures which should be reviewed regularly. Copies of the letter are available in the Library.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births there were in 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  A provisional estimate of the number of live births occurring in England and Wales in 1993 is 674,000.

  West Midlands Patient Transport Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the West Midlands health authority received a request for arbitration concerning the patient transport service; and from whom.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for West Midlands Health. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Bryan Baker, chairman of that authority, for details.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prospects of the pharmaceutical industry.
  327
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The pharmaceutical industry has a long record of success in the United Kingdom. The industry employs about 80,000 people in the United Kingdom and has a positive balance of trade—estimated at about £1·5 billion for 1993, the second largest contribution to the United Kingdom balance of trade. We expect the industry to continue to be successful in the years to come.

  James Paget Hospital, Gorleston
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the guarantees she has given on the presumption that following the dismantling of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney district health authority on 1 April, the James Paget hospital, Gorleston, shall be deemed the local hospital for the people of north Suffolk; and what qualifications to these guarantees she now expects to make.

  Mr. Sackville
  The East Anglian regional health authority has given a comprehensive package of guarantees to the people of Great Yarmouth and Waveney. Ministers would expect the guarantees to be honoured or to have explained, in clear terms, why that was not possible. Copies of the guarantees will be placed in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those topics on which it is not her practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if she will list any recent changes in the practice of her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

SCOTLAND

  Mr. Douglas Mason
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what way Mr. Douglas Mason has been commissioned, employed or retained by his Department, or any agency, organisation, company or body appointed or funded by his Department, at any time during the last three years; what were his functions, responsibilities and duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Mr. Douglas Mason has been a member of Glenrothes development corporation board since 1 January 1985, when he was appointed as a local authority member; he was last reappointed on 1 January 1992 and his current period of office is expected to run until 31 December 1995 when the corporation is due to be wound up. The duties involved are attendance at the corporation's meetings, which are normally held once a month, and any such tasks as may from time to time be allotted to individual members. The responsibilities of the development corporation are laid out in section 3 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 and the constitution and proceedings of development corporations covered by schedule 2 of the Act. Appointees to a development corporation also receive a copy of the code of conduct for board members. I have arranged for a copy of that code of conduct to be placed in the Library of the House. Mr. Mason has not been commissioned, employed or retained otherwise by my 328
  Department or any of its agencies. I am not aware if he has been so engaged by any other body funded by my Department.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State in 1990–91 after 28 November 1990, 1991–92, 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  My ministerial colleagues and I have a single travel budget so I am unable to provide a budgetary figure. Details of actual expenditure from the use of public transport for the period 28 November 1990 until 31 January 1994 are as follows:

  Internal (£)

  Overseas (£)

  28 November 1990 to 31 March 1991

  3,180

  375

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  8,066

  5,636

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  6,495

  5,045

  1 April 1993 to 31 January 1994

  5,144

  11,406

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the terms of reference of the public inquiry on the electricity interconnector with England.

  Mr. Stewart
  The application by ScottishPower to upgrade the existing 275 KV transmission line between Strathaven and Harker to 400 KV was referred to a public inquiry in 1991. This was conducted by a reporter from the Scottish Office inquiry reporters unit. His minute of appointment required him to report to my right hon. Friend on the placing above ground of transmission lines in certain defined areas for the reason that the proprietors had refused to give consent to the placing thereover of the said lines and to consider the objections to the erection of the said lines.

  Children in Hospital
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the number of children at present inappropriately placed in long-stay hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  Excluding those on respite care, there are currently 21 children aged 15 or under who are long-term residents in NHS facilities, of which only five are located in a hospital. It is for individual health boards, as purchasers of health care, together with the other care agencies to assess whether continuing in-patient care is appropriate to an individual child's needs.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what target date he has set for the discharge of those children with disabilities who are being inappropriately cared for, at present, in long-stay hospitals; and what progress has been made since the publication of the White Paper, "Scotland's Children", on finding appropriate accommodation and support for such children.

  Mr. Stewart
  We have established that there is only a small number of children under 16 who are long stay

  329
  residents in national health service facilities. Many have complex needs and we will be discussing with health boards and social work departments the best form of facilities for them.

  Renfrew Health Care Trust
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the responsibilities of the Renfrew Health Care Trust; if he will list the members of the trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Renfrewshire Healthcare was established as an NHS trust on 6 December 1993 and as a "shadow" trust has the limited functions of entering into NHS contracts and other contracts including contracts of employment, acquiring or disposing of land and other property, and doing such other things as are necessary to prepare the Trust for full operation from 1 April 1994. From that date the Trust's functions will be to own and manage Dykebar, Hawkhead, Bridge of Weir, Merchiston, Johnstone and Ravenscraig hospitals and any establishments, facilities and support services associated with those hospitals. In so doing the Trust will be responsible for achieving such financial objectives as are set for it by the Secretary of State.

  The members of the Trust are:

  Chairman

  Dr. John Moffat

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. Basil Baird

  Mrs. Margaret Foggie

  Mrs. Jean Goldie

  Mr. John Hornibrook

  Mr. David McNiven

  Chief Executive

  Mr. Ken Brewer

  Medical Director

  Dr. John McCurley

  Director of Finance

  Mrs. Lyn Hollis

  Director of Personnel

  Mr. Malcolm Dickinson

  Director of Nursing

  Still to be appointed.

  Exports
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the value of exports which derive from each local authority district in Scotland, expressed both in cash terms and as a percentage of the total; if he will also show the estimated per capita value of these exports for each district; and if he will make a statement on the variations between districts.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available. However, the Scottish Council Development and Industry, which produces the Annual Survey of Scottish Manufactured Exports, also compiles reports commissioned by a number of local enterprise companies. These reports are published and are available from SCDI.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the executive agencies which are responsible to his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  I am responsible for five executive agencies in the Scottish Office. These are:330

  Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Historic Scotland

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  In addition, I am responsible for two independent departments which are also executive agencies. These are the Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Record Office.

  I have announced that the student awards branch of the Scottish Office will become an executive agency from 5 April 1994. The fisheries research service and roads directorate of the Scottish Office and the Scottish Court Service, part of the Scottish Courts Administration, are currently under consideration for executive agency status.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of Alzheimer's disease have been identified within Scotland; how many of those affected are(a) hospitalised, (b) in residential care and (c) being cared for in the community; and what further assistance he proposes to provide to carers.

  Mr. Stewart
  The figures requested are not available. However, there were 4,666 patients with dementia in mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units at the end of 1992. There were 4,145 people in residential homes for the elderly reported by the homes as being mentally confused at 31 March 1992. Estimates suggest that there are up to about 90,000 people suffering from some form of dementia. An estimated 60 per cent. of these suffer from Alzheimer's disease.

  Local authorities have lead responsibility for assisting carers. It is for authorities to decide the particular services which they provide, drawing on the substantial resources provided for the implementation of community care.

  Stoddard's Carpet Factory
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited Stoddard's carpet factory in Elderslie; what plans he has to make a ministerial visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend visited Stoddard's factory in 1987 as the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for industry and home affairs. He has no plans to re-visit the factory. There have been more recent visits to the factory by our officials.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ban fox hunting on all land over which he has jurisdiction.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department now recognises the classification of myalgic encephalomyelitis as a disease by the World Health Organisation; what plans he has to give health boards guidance on the treatment of this disease; what funds he will make available for research into its prevention and cure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The version of the international classification of diseases currently in operation in Scotland
  331
  is the ninth revision, ICD9, which does not have a specific code for myalgic encephalomyelitis, ME, although it can be recorded under "unspecified encephalopathy". The next revision, ICD10, which has a code for "Benign Myalgic Encephalomyelitis", is expected to come into operation in Scotland in spring 1996.

  As a matter of principle, the Government do not issue clinical guidance, since that is the responsibility of the medical profession.

  The chief scientist office of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department is always prepared to give consideration to applications for scientifically bases research projects related to ME.

  CPC (United Kingdom) Ltd.
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of CPC (United Kingdom) Ltd., to discuss the continuance and development of their food manufacturing operation in Paisley; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has had no meeting with representatives of CPC (United Kingdom) Ltd. to discuss the future of the company's operation in Paisley, and he has no plans for such a meeting. Our officials in Locate in Scotland, however, have met representatives of the company and are maintaining contact.

  Co-operative Movement
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans Her Majesty's Government have to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the founding of the co-operative movement by the Rochdale pioneers.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government have no such plans.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the places which are being considered as future venues for meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Grand Committee is a Committee of the House of Commons and accordingly responsibility for arranging meeting venues lies with the authorities of the House.

  OPEN Project, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide funding which will allow the one person employment network project in Paisley,

  Scottish Ambulance Service Operational Staff Establishment 1984–1994—Whole Time Equivalents

  1984–85

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  168

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  219

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  418

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  268

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  125

  Greater Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  303

  Highland and Western Isles

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  95

  Tayside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  124

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,720

  332
  operated by ENABLE from urban aid funding services, to extend its catchment area beyond areas of priority treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The area covered by the OPEN project was defined in the application for urban programme support submitted by Strathclyde regional council in November 1991. Extending the project's boundaries would be a matter for the regional council. Urban programme support is available only in those areas designated as eligible for such funding.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the shortfall of provision of sheltered housing to meet known needs in Renfrew district; how long it will take at current expenditure levels to match provision to need; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A comparison between the actual number of sheltered housing units in Renfrew district notified by the district council and the guideline figure of need estimated in accordance with the Scottish Office Environment Department circular 8191 "Housing and Community Care" suggests that there may be a shortfall of 466 units in the district. It is, however, for the local authority to make its own estimate of the level of need and set targets for meeting that need based on its knowledge of local circumstances and other competing priorities for investment.

  Local Housing authorities are not expected to provide all sheltered housing in their district, but to work with other housing agencies, including Scottish Homes, to meet local needs. Renfrew District Council should take into account the contribution of Scottish Homes and other housing providers when setting targets for meeting their estimated need for sheltered housing.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number and grades of the operational staff employed by the Scottish ambulance service in each area or division in each year since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The whole-time equivalent number of operational staff has risen from 1,720 in 1984 to 2,195 in 1994—an increase of nearly 28 per cent.
  333

  1985—–86

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  167

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  225

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  433

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  267

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  130

  Greater Glasgow

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  302

  Highland and Western Isles

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  97

  Tayside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  130

  Total

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,751

  1986–87

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  13

  147

  10

  170

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  201

  10

  224

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  16

  331

  91

  438

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  8

  252

  14

  274

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  14

  107

  10

  131

  Greater Glasgow

  18

  201

  91

  310

  Highland and Western Isles

  15

  82

  —

  97

  Tayside

  8

  103

  20

  126

  Total

  105

  1,424

  246

  1,775

  1987–88

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  12

  121

  42

  175

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  11

  173

  49

  233

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  12

  301

  129

  442

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  8

  189

  76

  273

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  15

  104

  22

  141

  Greater Glasgow

  11

  159

  122

  292

  Highland and Western Isles

  16

  85

  1

  102

  Tayside

  8

  101

  21

  130

  Total

  93

  1,233

  462

  1,788

  1988–89

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Baric grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  10

  96

  64

  170

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  142

  88

  243

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  19

  243

  191

  453

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  8

  151

  111

  270

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  14

  82

  46

  142

  Greater Glasgow

  11

  96

  176

  283

  Highland and Western Isles

  15

  70

  21

  106

  Tayside

  8

  78

  55

  141

  Total

  98

  958

  752

  1,808

  1989–90

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  6

  135

  36·6

  177·6

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  190

  39·1

  237·1

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  16

  321

  99·4

  436·4

  334 335

  1989–90

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  7

  196

  43·2

  246·2

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  4

  117

  24·6

  145·6

  Greater Glasgow

  14

  151

  117·9

  282·9

  Highland and Western Isles

  8

  95

  10·0

  113·0

  Tayside

  9

  93

  44·0

  141·0

  Total

  72

  1,298

  414·8

  1,784·8

  1990–91

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  6

  134

  38·8

  178·8

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  9

  187

  50·1

  246·1

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  17

  327

  109·6

  453·6

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  9

  196

  71·5

  276·5

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  4

  128

  32·4

  164·4

  Greater Glasgow

  15

  153

  107·6

  275·6

  Highland and Western Isles

  7

  98

  14·7

  119·7

  Tayside

  9

  94

  40·8

  143·8

  Total

  76

  1,317

  465·5

  1,858·5

  1991–92

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  6

  140

  56·9

  202·9

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  8

  197

  79·5

  284·5

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  15

  380

  131·1

  526·1

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  7

  195

  74·6

  276·6

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  3

  137

  48·7

  188·7

  Greater Glasgow

  14

  160

  91·4

  265·4

  Highland and Western Isles

  7

  126

  20·5

  265·5

  Tayside

  7

  101

  43·7

  151·7

  Total

  67

  1,436

  546·4

  2,049·4

  1992–93

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  28

  125

  56·6

  209·6

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  48

  171

  69·5

  288·5

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  70

  319

  142·3

  531·5

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  43

  157

  81·4

  281·4

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  25

  125

  46·7

  196·7

  Greater Glasgow

  25

  135

  122·7

  282·7

  Highland and Western Isles

  27

  110

  19·0

  156·0

  Tayside

  22

  88

  45·2

  155·2

  Total

  288

  1,230

  583·4

  2,101·4

  1993–94

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  27

  127

  57·4

  211·4

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  49

  171

  76·5

  296·5

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  70

  325

  159·8

  554·8

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  43

  162

  82·4

  287·4

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  25

  131

  45·9

  201·9

  336 337

  1993–94

  Area

  Leading ambulance person

  Qualified ambulance technician

  Basic grade

  Total

  Greater Glasgow

  32

  159

  125·8

  316·8

  Highland and Western Isles

  27

  122

  18·8

  167·8

  Tayside

  22

  88

  48·6

  158·6

  Total

  295

  1,285

  615·2

  2,195·2

  n/a denotes not available.

  The figures relate to vehicle crews.

  Carpet Manufacturing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the state of the carpet manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The latest full year figures show that the output of the Scottish carpet industry increased by almost 6·5 per cent. between 1991 and 1992. However this was against the background of a downward trend in output since 1989. Employment in the industry has been broadly stable since 1991 at around 1,500 employees.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote on the international market carpets designed and manufactured in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish carpet industry can benefit from a wide range of advice and assistance available from Scottish trade international, including the Government's overseas trade services. These include support for participation in industry specific overseas trade fairs. The Scottish Enterprise-funded Scottish textile design development scheme places design graduates with Scottish textile companies to assist in improving their design awareness and capabilities. The Scottish carpet industry has benefited from this scheme.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the precise duties and responsibilities of each Minister in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested by the hon. Member is included in the Cabinet Office publication "List of Ministerial Responsibilities". Copies are distributed to hon. Members by the Vote Office.

  Councillors (Expenses)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the(a) special responsibility payments, (b) allowances, (c) subsistence allowances and (d) travelling expense rates of elected members of Scottish local authorities in the forthcoming financial year.

  Mr. Stewart
  The system of councillors' allowances and the travel and subsistence allowances scheme are currently under review.
  338

  Coylton-Ballantrae Power Line
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the organisations which have submitted objections to the proposal by Scottish Power to construct a power line from Coylton to Ballantrae, and the total number of members of the public and hon. Members of both Houses of Parliament who have submitted objections by the final date designated for the submission by such non-statutory bodies and individuals.

  Mr. Stewart
  The 17 organisations listed below have submitted objections to the proposals.

  Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland

  Ayrshire Tourist Board

  Barr Community Council

  Barhill Community Council

  Burns Country Tourist Association

  Coylton Branch SNP

  Coylton Community Council

  Crosshill, Straiton and Kirkmichael Community Council

  The Grey Man Hillwalking Club

  Leitrum Stop the Pylons Movement (Republic of Ireland)

  National Farmers Union—Ayr Area

  Pinwherry Community Association

  Pinwherry Community Council

  Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd.

  Scottish Landowners Federation

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Stonehouse Heritage Group

  In addition, approximately 5,500 representations have been received from members of the public and hon. Members of both Houses of Parliament.

  Scottish Co-operative Development Company
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of the Scottish Co-operative Development Company in economic development; what support is offered by his Department and by Scottish Enterprise; what guidelines he has issued to local enterprise companies on their relationships with the Scottish Co-operative Development Company; and if he will allocate additional funding to the Scottish Co-operative Development Company for the development of a phoenix unit.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government acknowledge that the Scottish Co-operative Development Company has performed a valuable role in helping to establish business co-operatives. One of the company's main sources of income is the urban programme, which is funded by the Scottish Office. The company currently receives no funding from Scottish Enterprise. It is open to local enterprise companies to contract with the Scottish Co-operative Development Company as they see fit; my right hon. Friend has issued no guidelines on this matter.

  The question of funding for a phoenix unit will be considered when the company submits its proposals to the Scottish Office.
  339

  Co-operatives
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage the development of retail, wholesale and manufacturing co-operatives.

  Mr. Stewart
  Co-operatives have benefited and will continue to benefit from the range of Government policies designed to encourage the development of small and medium-sized businesses. Scottish Office funding for a number of co-operative projects has been made available through the urban programme, and applications for funding for other such projects can still be made.

  Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many patients have been treated in national health service hospitals' private facilities in each year since 1987–88;

  (2) how much income has been generated by private patient facilities in national health service hospitals in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of private patients and the income generated are as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  Income £

  1987–88

  1,300

  1,060,660

  1988–89

  1,139

  1,078,452

  1989–90

  1,301

  1,224,720

  1990–91

  1,430

  1,354,542

  1991–92

  1,567

  1,935,616

  1992–93

  11,209

  1,357,570

  1 Provisional figure.

  Dementia
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds are provided for people with dementia by each health board in Scotland and expressed as a percentage of the elderly population.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of patients in psychogeriatric beds in hospital with a diagnosis of dementia as at 31 March 1993, the latest date for which complete information is available is shown in the following table.

  As at 31 March 1993

  Patients in hospital with a diagnosis of dementia

  Percentage of population 65+

  SCOTLAND

  5,364

  0·7

  Argyll and Clyde

  393

  0·6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  298

  0·5

  Borders

  157

  0·8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  188

  0·7

  Fife

  430

  0·8

  Forth Valley

  223

  0·6

  Grampian

  658

  0·9

  Greater Glasgow

  1,003

  0·7

  Highland

  217

  0·7

  Lanarkshire

  417

  0·6

  Lothian

  716

  0·6

  Orknéy

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  599

  0·9

  Western Isles

  65

  1·2

  340
  These figures exclude those in geriatric units with diagnosis of dementia for whom separate information is not centrally held.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish targets for the reduction of NHS continuing care provision for elderly people and people with dementia for each health board by(a) 1996 and (b) 2001; and if he will explain the criteria on which these targets are based.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are no set targets for the reduction of NHS continuing care provision. It is for individual health boards to determine future in-patient bed numbers, based on assessment of patients who are likely to require continuing specialist medical and nursing supervision.

  The scale and pace of any patient transfer programme is subject to local negotiation and agreement between the health and local authorities and founded on the basis of individual patient assessment.

  Hospital Staff Redundancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of redundancies among national health service hospital staff(a) by grade and (b) by reason for each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Stewart
  Statistics on the redundancies in the NHS in Scotland are not collected centrally other than in respect of staff who are both over 50 years of age and have at least five years' reckonable service for superannuation purposes where a benefit is immediately payable under the National Health Service (Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Regulations 1981. The total number of such premature retirement awards for the years since 1988–89 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1988–89

  354

  1989–90

  1,040

  1990–91

  480

  1991–92

  625

  1992–93

  759

  A breakdown by hospital staff only and by grade and by reason of redundancy is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Homicides (Firearms)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homicides involving(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms have taken place as a result of domestic incidents in each police force area in each of the last 10 years; and how many of the victims in each case were women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information held on homicides gives details of the relationship between the victim and the accused but does not separately identify incidents involving shotguns from those involving other firearms.

  The available information is given in the table:

  341

  Total victims of homicide where the method of killing was shooting and the victim was a sibling, parent, spouse, whether separated or otherwise, cohabitee, lover or boyfriend etc., 1983–921

  Police force area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lothians and Borders

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  5

  —

  2

  2

  1 Information as at 4 February 1994. The number of incidents identified as homicides may change as a result of subsequent court proceedings.

  Female victims of homicide where the method of killing was shooting and the victim was a sibling, parent, spouse, whether separated or otherwise, cohabitee, lover or boyfriend etc., 1983–921

  Police force area

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothians and Borders

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  1 Information as at 4 February 1994. The number of incidents identified as homicides may change as a result of subsequent court proceedings.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has to give to local authorities on enhancing the pensions of senior local government officers who choose to retire early; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The arrangements under which local authorities can make compensation payments to enhance the pensions of staff who retire prematurely on redundancy or in the interests of the efficiency of the service are set out in the Local Government (Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Regulations 1979, as amended.

  These arrangements are currently being reviewed, in consultation with the local authorities.

  Cumbernauld Airport
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the sum realised from the sale of Cumbernauld airport.

  Mr. Stewart
  The airport was advertised for sale by Cumbernauld development corporation in 1993. Two formal offers were received and the development corporation sold the airport at a price of £71,000 to the existing operator and sitting tenant. The new owner is legally bound for the next 10 years to repay to the corporation any financial gains achieved from a change in use of the airport or 50 per cent. of any financial gains if the new owner extends at his cost the runway within five

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Berwickshire

  1·264

  0·860

  0·705

  0·824

  0·988

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1·686

  1·631

  1·020

  0·936

  1·018

  Roxburgh

  2·225

  1·626

  1·184

  1·401

  1·260

  342
  years from the date of sale. These conditions are intended to ensure that the new owner continues to operate and develop the airport for the benefit of the Cumbernauld area.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of constructing Cumbernauld airport.

  Mr. Stewart
  A grass-surfaced airstrip was constructed by Cumbernauld development corporation in the 1950s. Information about the costs of construction and minor improvements in the period to 1986 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In 1987 the corporation constructed an asphalt runway, apron and taxi-ways, hangarage and terminal buildings at a cost of £2·27 million, £0·97 million of which was provided by the European regional development fund.

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total income received by each district council from the sales of council houses in each of the past five years; what percentage of these have been reclaimed by his Department, and what is the projected figure, from each council, for the building of new council housing in the next financial year.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The following table gives details of district council receipts from the sale of council houses for the years 1988–89 to 1992–93. The Department does not reclaim any such receipts.

  Information on the numbers of new council houses which district councils plan to build in the next financial year is not held centrally.
  343

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–95

  Tweeddale

  0·532

  0·581

  0·346

  0·315

  0·527

  Clackmannan

  3·668

  3·889

  2·762

  2·461

  3·273

  Falkirk

  11·963

  10·241

  8·301

  8·302

  10·604

  Stirling

  4·716

  5·714

  4·748

  4·691

  5·678

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1·891

  2·418

  1·796

  1·762

  2·193

  Nithsdale

  3·824

  2·876

  1·953

  1·890

  2·288

  Stewartry

  0·861

  0·950

  0·675

  0·931

  0·988

  Wigtown

  1·249

  1·003

  1·054

  1·233

  2·367

  Dunfermline

  8·187

  7·993

  6·186

  5·517

  5·261

  Kirkcaldy

  6·752

  7·515

  6·982

  7·247

  6·991

  North East Fife

  2·901

  3·958

  2·224

  2·778

  2·529

  Aberdeen

  8·328

  7·964

  9·596

  10·047

  18·989

  Banff and Buchan

  3·465

  3·275

  2·729

  4·007

  4·919

  Gordon

  1·073

  1·709

  1·897

  2·683

  2·984

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0·860

  0·718

  0·853

  1·442

  2·048

  Moray

  4·238

  4·693

  3·196

  3·933

  3·813

  Badenooh and Strathspey

  0·612

  0·807

  0·390

  0·516

  0·471

  Caithness

  0·819

  0·452

  0·505

  0·487

  0·812

  Inverness

  1·985

  3·111

  2·705

  2·446

  3·839

  Lochaber

  1·389

  1·858

  1·700

  1·266

  1·348

  Nairn

  0·245

  0·277

  0·367

  0·453

  0·470

  Ross and Cromarty

  1·353

  1·346

  1·633

  2·469

  3·135

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·346

  0·199

  0·400

  0·334

  0·398

  Sutherland

  0·420

  0·362

  0·327

  0·706

  0·730

  East Lothian

  10·633

  8·239

  5·545

  6·849

  6·271

  Edinburgh

  21·016

  27·512

  23·952

  18·923

  13·956

  Midlothian

  7·123

  6·585

  5·854

  3·951

  3·855

  West Lothian

  5·904

  9·709

  6·293

  5·608

  7·471

  Argyll and Bute

  1·635

  2·369

  2·898

  3·818

  3·226

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0·605

  0·943

  1·319

  1·057

  0·820

  Clydebank

  4·355

  4·689

  5·964

  4·539

  4·855

  Clydesdale

  3·742

  4·415

  2·191

  2·180

  2·287

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1·787

  1·744

  1·130

  1·348

  1·439

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2·624

  2·043

  1·589

  1·945

  2·243

  Cunninghame

  7·714

  9·658

  6·458

  5·724

  4·917

  Dumbarton

  4·775

  6·915

  4·758

  2·802

  4·319

  East Kilbride

  1·028

  0·881

  0·645

  0·625

  0·774

  Eastwood

  0·895

  0·787

  0·731

  0·334

  0·720

  Glasgow

  29·199

  45·912

  46·957

  41·513

  39·163

  Hamilton

  7·870

  10·427

  9·317

  6·473

  10·166

  Inverclyde

  2·510

  3·138

  2·922

  3·498

  5·000

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  6·184

  7·317

  3·850

  4·059

  4·037

  Kyle and Carrick

  8·015

  8·195

  5·983

  5·395

  6·921

  Monklande

  6·452

  10·853

  8·306

  6·256

  9·661

  Motherwell

  9·531

  11·530

  12·600

  9·383

  10·415

  Renfrew

  13·306

  15·964

  11·584

  10·432

  11·984

  Strathkelvin

  5·513

  4·474

  3·358

  3·808

  4·228

  Angus

  4·096

  3·837

  2·999

  3·809

  3·306

  Dundee

  8·120

  14·661

  18·405

  11·007

  9·392

  Perth and Kinross

  4·999

  6·147

  5·369

  5·537

  5·835

  Torness (Spent Fuel)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 1025, when he expects to make an announcement on the public inquiry into the spent fuel store at Torness.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have nothing to add to my earlier answer.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the present members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland; and for what terms they have been appointed.

  Mr. Lang
  The members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland are:

  Madam Speaker, ex-officio, Chairman.

  The Hon. Lord Davidson—appointed as deputy chairman by the Lord President of the Court of Session on 25 September 1985 and subsequently re-appointed.

  Professor Urlan A. Wannop—appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 6 June 1983 and subsequently re-appointed.

  Mr. Adam R. Napier-appointed by the Secretary of State on 2 May 1985 and subsequently re-appointed.

  344
  The appointed member's terms of office expire on 31 December 1996.

  Community Action Volunteers Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if child care provision or payments for the cost of child care or care of infirm relatives will be made available for participants on the community action volunteers scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 9 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Employment has asked met to reply to your question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about Community Action as this programme is being delivered by the Employment Service.

  345
  In line with other Employment Service programmes, there are no specific arrangements to provide child care or expenses to cover the cost of child care or care of infirm relatives for Community Action participants.
  Community Action is, though, a part-time programme consisting of a minimum of 18 hours work experience and three hours jobsearch activity each week. This allows some flexibility in participation and programme providers are encouraged to exercise this flexibility in order to allow people with caring responsibilities to attend. At their discretion, providers are able to make child care facilities available to participants. A part of the payment made to providers can be used as a contribution for this purpose.
  Participation in the programme is, though, in all cases, voluntary.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Business Bureaucracy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives his Department have undertaken to reduce bureaucracy for businesses in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The Scottish Office, in common with all Government Departments, actively pursues the objectives of the deregulation initiative. These include the removal or streamlining of regulations which add to business costs and threaten competitiveness. It is intended that the regulatory burden on business be as light as possible without reducing important standards of protection for individuals, business or the environment. The current main elements of the deregulation initiative include the publication of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. Details of other measures are contained in a variety of booklets published by, and available from, the Department of Trade and Industry deregulation unit. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many landowners in Scotland are receiving annual payments under the arable area payments scheme in the latest financial year of(a) up to £100,000, (b) between £100,000 and £500,000, (c) between £500,000 and £1,000,000 and (d) over £1,000,000; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: Under the arable area payments scheme in the current financial year, 9,401 payments of up to £100,000 were made to Scottish producers and a further seven payments of between £100,000 and £500,000. There have been no payments in excess of £500,000.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases payments to farmers and landowners under the arable area payments scheme have been withheld or recovered in Scotland; what is the amount of money withheld or recovered in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: Every case in which payments have to be withheld or recovered, for whatever reason, is examined very carefully and applicants have an opportunity to comment before a final decision is taken. This means that it is only possible to provide very provisional figures at this stage. Over 20
  346
  cases have so far been reduced or withheld entirely but there are further cases still under consideration. These figures exclude penalties for late applications and adjustments made following corrections notified by the applicant under the special arrangements which applied in 1993 for dealing with genuine errors in the completion of the IACS forms. The total amounts withheld in individual cases vary considerably.

  Abortion
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures for the number of terminations of pregnancies occurring in Scotland in 1992(a) by age, (b) by district health authority and (c) by gestation and the numbers being carried out within and outside the national health service.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: The information requested is published in "Scottish Health Statistics 1993", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Roman Catholic Schools
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Archbishop of Glasgow, in respect of a meeting to discuss the implications for Roman Catholic schools of local government reorganisation; and what response he has made.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend and I have corresponded on a number of occasions with the Roman Catholic Church authorities, including the Archbishop of Glasgow, about representations which the Church has made about local government re-organisation and we have indicated our willingness to meet to discuss matters further.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Security Commission.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The members of the Security Commission are:

  The right hon. the Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Chairman)

  The right hon. Lord Justice Butler-Sloss (Alternative Chairman)

  Sir John Blelloch, KCB

  Lieutenant General Sir Derek Boorman, KCB

  Sir Christopher Curwen, KCMG

  Lord Tombs of Brailes

  Sir Patrick Wright, GCMG

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Advertising.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The current membership of the Advisory Committee on Advertising is:

  Mr. Brian Nicholson (Chairman)

  Mr. Charles Auld

  Mrs. Anne Ferguson

  347

  Mr. Howard Mann

  Mr. John Mellon

  Mr. Eric Nicoli

  Mr. Nick Phillips

  Mr. Richard Spelman

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the subjects on which the Office of Public Service and Science or its predecessors answered parliamentary questions but which are not referred by him to an executive agency.

  Mr. David Davis
  Next steps agency chief executives would usually be asked to reply to parliamentary questions about the day-to-day operational matters of their agency and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in their agency's framework document.

  Bills (Drafting)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider allowing hon. Members to seek advice from parliamentary counsel on the drafting of parliamentary Bills which have been duly presented to the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent him on 10 January.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the Departments and agencies for which I am responsible, and in other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote, the figures are:

  Employees judged to be guilty of fraud

  Employees dismissed

  1989

  Nil

  —

  1990

  1Nil

  —

  1991

  2

  1

  1992

  Nil

  —

  1993

  2

  2

  1Two loaned officers were included in the response of their parent Department.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.
  348
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Employees found guilty of fraud in my Departments are dealt with under their disciplinary procedures and where appropriate the criminal code. The disciplinary procedures provide for a range of penalties including dismissal.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the National Film and Television School.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current governors of the board of the National Film and Television School are:

  Mr. David Puttnam (Chairman)

  Mr. Andy Allan

  Ms Moria Armstrong

  Lord Brabourne CBE

  Ms Barbara Grigor

  Ms Linda James

  Ms Sue Lawley

  Mr. Gus MacDonald

  Mr. Frank McGettigan

  Mr. Jonathan Powell

  Ms Sarah Radclyffe

  Mr. Alan Sapper

  Ms Noella Smith

  Mr. Brian Tesler CBE

  Ms Christine Walker

  Mr. Charles Wesoky

  Mr. Michael William-Jones

  Mr. Euryn Ogwen Williams

  Mr. Will Wyatt

  Mr. Alan Yentob

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the regional councils for sport and recreation.

  Mr. Brooke
  I appoint seven members of each of the regional councils for sport and recreation, including the chairman and one vice-chairman. The current appointees are:

  Northern

  Sam Stoker (Chairman)

  Michael Berry (Vice-Chairman)

  Steve Cram MBE

  Mrs. Joan Harrison

  Ms Irene Lucas

  Bobby Moncur

  Ted Wrangham

  North West

  Jim Cochrane CBE (Chairman)

  Richard Greenwood (Vice-Chairman)

  Councillor Marie Birkenhead

  Tony Cann

  Alan Pearson

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  David Oxley OBE (Chairman)

  Brigadier Dennis Shuttleworth (Vice-Chairman)

  John Cornwell

  Roger Greenwood

  Brian Hayhurst

  Mrs. Stephanie Park

  Professor Margaret Talbot OBE

  East Midlands

  Andrew Hancock (Chairman)

  Chris Simpson (Vice-Chairman)

  Ms Eileen Langsley

  Cohn Rains

  349

  James Rawson

  Peter Wright

  Eastern

  Trevor Brooking MBE (Chairman)

  Mike Turner (Vice-Chairman)

  Dr. Thomas Crisp

  Peter Edwards

  Ms Liz Hobbs MBE

  Tom McNab

  Ms Fatima Whitbread MBE

  London

  Fred Smallbone (Chairman)

  John Lelliott (Vice-Chairman)

  Peter Nathan

  Andy Ripley

  Reverend Theo Samuel

  Reg Scarlett

  Raman Subba Row CBE

  South East

  Geoffrey Dunn (Chairman)

  Dr. Ida Webb (Vice-Chairman)

  John Barclay

  Miss Suzanne Law

  Roger Quinton

  Ms Dinah Simmons

  Mike Whittingham

  Southern

  Mrs. Phyllis Avery (Chairman)

  David Duckham MBE

  Brian Hall

  John Leaning

  Mrs. Rosalie Monbiot OBE

  Steven Redgrave MBE

  South Western

  Don Perry (Chairman)

  Professor Neil Armstrong (Vice-Chairman)

  Mrs. Linda Bishop-Bailey

  Mrs. Christina Cahill

  Robert Reeves

  Dr. Ann Trotman MBE

  West Midlands

  Jim Munn MBE (Chairman)

  David Moorcroft (Vice-Chairman)

  Richard Callicott

  Mrs Zabida Choudhry

  Roger Pask

  Harry Wrublewski

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Crafts Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Crafts Council are as follows:

  Sir Nigel Broakes (Chairman)

  Tony Doggart (Vice-Chairman)

  Brian Asquith

  Polly Binns

  Michaela Butter

  Elizabeth Esteve-Coll

  Janet Fitch

  Ewen Henderson

  Luke Hughes

  Jonathan Lane

  Jeremy Newton

  Professor Eric Spiller

  Lady Vaizey

  Professor David Vaughan

  Moria Vincentelli

  350
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who are the members currently appointed to the board of the Arts Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  The current members of the Arts Council of Great Britain are as follows:

  Lord Palumbo of Walbrook (Chairman)

  Denys Hodson (Vice Chairman)

  Beverley Anderson

  William Brown

  Professor Christopher Frayling

  Peter Gummer

  Sir Ernest Hal

  Michael Holroyd

  Thelma Holt

  Clare Mulholland

  Mathew Prichard

  Clive Priestley

  Stella Robinson

  Prudence Skene

  Anthony Smith

  Robert Southgate

  Professor Colin St. John Wilson

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind persons was first introduced; when it was set at £1·25; and what plans he has to increase it.

  Mr. Brooke
  The reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people dates from the introduction of combined television and radio licences in 1946, when registered blind people became entitled to a reduction equivalent to the amount of the radio licence fee. This reduction replaced free radio licences for registered blind people, a concession believed to have been first introduced in 1926. Radio licences were abolished in 1971. The reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people has remained at £1·25 ever since. The Government have no plans at present to increase the value of the concession.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he proposes to take to ensure that tickets for the national lottery are not sold to children, or in inappropriate places.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have today laid before this House regulations under section 12 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to establish a number of restrictions on the manner in which national lottery tickets may be sold. Specifically, these regulations prohibit:

  the sale of tickets to any person under the age of 16;

  the sale of tickets in the street or at a person's home;

  sales of tickets in licensed betting offices, at racetracks, in amusement arcades, and in any bingo or gaming club;

  the sale of tickets by unattended vending machines.

  These regulations will ensure that the sale of national lottery tickets is properly controlled without creating unnecessary restrictions which would interfere with the selected operator's ability to make the lottery the great success we all expect.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made as to the adequacy of the administrative arrangements for the Arts Council as a channel for distributing money flowing from the proposed national lottery.
  351
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The Arts Council has been selected as a channel for distributing national lottery money, because of its experience and expertise in arts funding. The council is currently setting in place the necessary administrative arrangements, which I have no doubt will be adequate to discharge its responsibilities effectively.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  There has been no change in this Department from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, columns 513–14, regarding accommodation at the occupied royal palaces, on what basis and by whom it is determined which staff pay rent, how it is assessed and reviewed and by whom; to whom it is paid; and how many pay rent for accommodation relating to each of the households.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: As a general rule, more senior staff pay rent and more junior staff have the benefit of accommodation taken into account in determining wage levels. The postholders who pay rent were determined in discussion with the Treasury some years ago.

  Rent, referred to as official accommodation deduction, is paid by 35 of the 220 employees to whom accommodation is provided. The rent or OAD is set at 8·5 per cent. of pre-tax salary, as notified by the Treasury. The amount deducted therefore increases automatically in line with salary increases. Those who pay rent are all employees of the Queen's household. The benefit of paying the reduced salary—the gross salary less the OAD -accrues to the account from which the salary is paid, principally the Queen's civil list or the grant in aid.

  For other employees, the value of accommodation is taken into account in determining wage salary levels. In the past, this was not done on a consistent basis for all employees. However, since the revised civil list arrangements were entered into with effect from 1 January 1991, the household has undertaken a complete review of its grading and salary structure, including the introduction of performance-related pay, and pay levels for each post now take into account the value of the benefit of accommodation on a formalised basis. For the majority of the residences, which are modest flats or cottages, the value is taken as the local authority rent for a similar-sized property. The account from which the salary is paid again benefits from the reduced salary cost.
  352

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the maximum permitted speeds and minimum permitted altitudes for Royal Air Force Vulcan aircraft, prior to their withdrawal from the strike/attack role, during low-level sorties while deployed to Nellis air force base, Nevada, for Red Flag exercises.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although records of heights and speeds flown by RAF Vulcan aircraft overseas are not available, inquiries indicate that the maximum permitted speed of 350 knots and minimum height of 300ft, which applied in the United Kingdom low-flying system, were also observed by Vulcan aircrew participating in red flag exercises; where appropriate aircraft would, however, have been authorised to fly down to 100ft to allow them to take full advantage of the weather conditions and facilities offered by these exercises.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of recording the noise level generated by Hawk aircraft flying at 150ft during Exercise Luce Belle.

  Mr. Hanley
  A recording of the noise generated by the Hawk aircraft at 150ft was taken during Exercise Luce Belle on the basis that the minimum authorised altitude for the aircraft is 100ft above ground level as explained in my answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 819, to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-level sorties were flown over the United Kingdom by each specified foreign air arm in each month since September 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of sorties flown by aircraft of foreign air forces in the United Kingdom low-flying system in each month since September 1993 to December 1993, the most recent month for which figures are available, were as follows:

  October

  November

  December

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  —

  France

  —

  2

  —

  Italy

  —

  8

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  3

  United States of America

  —

  —

  —

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  2

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  2

  10

  3

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of low-flying sorties carried out by each aircraft type in each month since June 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of low-flying sorties by aircraft type carried out in the United Kingdom for the period July 1993 to December 1993, the most recent month for which figures are available, were as follows:
  353

  Aircraft Type

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Buccaneer

  100

  139

  115

  137

  74

  54

  Harrier

  733

  406

  388

  543

  486

  471

  Hawk

  1,793

  1,400

  1,474

  1,101

  1,137

  486

  Jaguar

  625

  505

  444

  617

  301

  390

  Jet Provost

  76

  69

  50

  43

  —

  —

  Tornado

  2,045

  1,953

  1,893

  1,958

  1,504

  1,280

  Tucano

  871

  939

  801

  636

  468

  380

  F-15

  235

  325

  352

  178

  279

  288

  F-111

  266

  205

  130

  62

  34

  5

  Other Aircraft (including helicopters)

  4,887

  3,712

  4,871

  3,613

  3,984

  2,315

  Total

  11,631

  9,653

  10,518

  8,888

  8,267

  5,669

  The figures in the table do not include the number of sorties flown within LFA 10 as the information is not yet available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information was available to his Department on the frequency of night low flying over the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland when the decision was made not to include those areas in the system of numbered night low-flying areas; and if he will make a statement on the means used(a) to deconflict aircraft flying at low level at night over these areas and (b) to identify the aircraft involved in the event of a public complaint about military low flying at night over these areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information available to my Department indicates that only a small amount of night low flying is carried out in these areas, the majority of which is conducted during exercises. Deconflicting arrangements are made during the planning and briefing for such exercises. No complaints about night low flying over these areas have been received in the last five years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of complaints received from addresses in each of the low flying areas in the United Kingdom in 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Low flying area

  Numbers of complaints or inquiries

  1

  278

  2

  836

  3

  19

  4

  368

  5

  516

  6

  374

  7

  556

  8

  232

  9

  69

  10

  14

  11

  388

  12

  230

  13

  25

  14

  459

  16

  583

  17

  531

  18

  205

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum annual number of low-level flying hours required for combat ready Tornado GR1 pilots to maintain their currency to fly at 250ft; and 354
  what is the specified period of time beyond which pilots who have not flown at 250ft are required to carry out requalification.

  Mr. Hanley
  A Tornado GR1 pilot is required to complete a minimum of 80 low level sorties during annual training. Each low level sortie must include a minimum of 20 minutes of low flying at 250ft. There is no specified period of time beyond which re-qualification becomes necessary. However, if a combat ready pilot is unable to fly at low level for a period of time his squadron will implement a programme of workdown training prior to authorising him to resume unrestricted low flying at 250ft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which document contains the regulation requiring that fixed low-flying routes are(a) used as little as possible and (b) replaced are regular intervals; and what maximum interval between such replacements is stipulated.

  Mr. Hanley
  The regulation requiring fixed routes to be used as little as possible and to be replaced at regular intervals is contained in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook. The stipulation is that fixed routes must be replaced at least twice a year.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the maximum permitted speeds and minimum permitted altitudes for Royal Air Force Vulcan aircraft, prior to their withdrawal from the strike/attack role, while conducting low-level training from Goose Bay, Canada; and if any such training was conducted outside fixed low level training routes.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although records of heights and speeds flown by RAF Vulcan aircraft overseas are not available, inquiries indicate that the maximum permitted speeds of 350 knots and the minimum height of 300ft, which applied to the United Kingdom low flying system, were also observed at Goose bay, apart from rare occasions when Vulcans were permitted to fly down to 100ft in preparation for red flag exercises. None of these sorties would have taken place outside fixed low-level training routes.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the operating authorities of low flying areas 2P, 3, 9 and 10 are permitted to allow fast jet aircraft to enter their low flying area when helicopters are also operating in the area at low level.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes, the co-ordinating authorities of low-flying areas 2P, 3, 9 and 10 may, at their discretion, authorise fixed wing aircraft to enter the areas when helicopters are operating at low level.
  355
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of low-flying movements in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of low-flying movements carried out in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1993 was 262,973. These figures do not include the number of movements flown within the newly created low-flying area 10. Statistics for this area are not yet available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were flown over the United Kingdom by (a) Hercules aircraft and(b) all types of helicopters during 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of low-flying sorties carried out in the United Kingdom by Hercules aircraft and helicopters during 1993 were as follows:

  Year

  Hercules

  Helicopters

  1993

  2,242

  41,493

  These figures do not include the number of sorties flown within low-flying area 10 as this information is not yet available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to restricting the low flying avoidance area status of gliding sites on weekdays to those locations whose operators have been advised by his Department of specific weekday activity.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Civil Aviation Authority provide the location and operating times of all glider sites to the headquarters, military air traffic operations. Sites operating on a weekday are granted avoidance status on the basis of the information provided.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum annual number of flying hours required for combat-ready Tornado GR1 pilots to maintain their currency to fly using terrain-following radar in instrument meteorological conditions(a) in daylight and (b) at night; what is the specified period of time beyond which a qualification to fly in these conditions lapses; and what changes have taken place in these requirements since 1989.

  Mr. Hanley
  A combat ready Tornado GR1 pilot is required to complete a minimum of eight hours automatic terrain following radar—T14R—flying per year. No distinction is made between TFR flying in instrument meteorological conditions—IMC—by day or night. IMC TFR currency lapses if no qualifying sortie has been flown in the last 30 days. Once a pilot's TFR currency has lapsed he is required to complete a single 20 minute TFR sortie in visual meteorological conditions—VMC—prior to recommencing IMC training. Since 1989 the currency requirement for IMC TFR flying has reduced from 60 days to 30 days.

  USAF F-15E
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on the recent noise measurement trial involving the US air force F-15E aircraft.
  356
  Mr. Hanley
  A final analysis of the results of the F-15E noise trial is not yet available. A copy of the report of the trial will be placed in the Library of the House when it has been completed.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, location, aircraft type involved, altitude and joint airmiss working group determination of risk category and cause, for each air miss involving a military aircraft in 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will arrange for a copy of the list of all airmiss reports involving military aircraft in 1993, and which have been investigated to date by the joint airmiss working group, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint airmiss working group report on the air miss between an RAF Tornado and a Jet Ranger helicopter over Caithness on 8 April 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of the report is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Salisbury (Disturbance)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement in respect of the disturbance caused by troops from the 22 Royal Engineers and the 1 Battalion Irish Guards in Salisbury.

  Mr. Hanley
  On the night of 20–21 January in Salisbury two groups of soldiers were involved in a fight near a taxi rank. The military authorities are taking appropriate disciplinary action.

  No civilians were involved in the incident, no serious injuries were sustained and there was no damage to property.

  HMS Birmingham (Sabotage)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the results of the investigations carried out in respect of the suspected sabotage on HMS Birmingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The investigations into the alleged sabotage onboard HMS Birmingham are continuing. I will write to the hon. Member once these have been completed.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence is not allocated his own individual budget for travel purposes.

  From our records, the costs of his internal and overseas travel from 11 April 1992 to 31 January 1994 can be assessed as follows:

  Internal £

  Overseas £

  1992–93 (from 11 April 1992)

  37,146

  222,464

  1993–94 (to date)

  43,365

  187,153

  357
  Figures are approximate and cover the costs of Royal Air Force and civil flights. The 'internal' column includes some flights to Europe which it has not possible to identify separately in the time available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ministerial visits have been made by representatives of his Department, over each of the last three years to(a) Indonesia, (b) Jordan, (c) Oman, (d) Nigeria, (e) Ecuador, (f) Malaysia and (g) India; and what was their main purpose in each case.

  Mr. Hanley
  Official visits by Ministers to the countries listed have been as follows:

  Indonesia

  Secretary of State—1991, 1993

  Under-Secretary of State (Armed Forces)—1991

  Jordan

  None

  Oman

  Secretary of State—1992, 1994

  Minister (Defence Procurement)—1991, 1992, 1993

  Nigeria

  None

  Ecuador

  Minister (Defence Procurement)—1992

  Malaysia

  Secretary of State—1991, 1993

  Minister (Defence Procurement)—1991

  Under-Secretary of State—1992, 1993

  Under-Secretary of State (Armed Forces)—1991

  India

  Under-Secretary of State—1993

  Ministerial visits are generally made to maintain and improve our defence relations with the host country. In each case a broad range of issues was discussed.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of all refurbishment, upgrading and new build work carried out at RAF Chivenor over the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 16 December 1993,Official Report, columns 918–19.

  HMS Britannia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and places visited by HMS Britannia during its 1993 Mediterranean, Gulf and Indian ocean tour; which United Kingdom companies used the tour to promote their wares; what was the total cost of the tour; and what percentage of this cost was met by the companies.

  Mr. Hanley
  During HM Yacht Britannia's 1993 tour of the Mediterranean, Gulf and Indian ocean, port visits were made on the following occasions:

  Gibraltar—20–21 September

  Malta—24 September-1 October

  Souda Bay—3 October

  Istanbul—5–9 October

  358

  Piraeus—11–14 October

  Cyprus—16–25 October

  Djibouti—1 November

  Dammam—7–9 November

  Abu Dhabi—10–12 November

  Bombay—15–19 November

  Aden—24–25 November

  Suez—30 November

  Souda Bay—2 December

  Gibraltar—6 December

  Opportunities were taken to promote British business during the vists to Istanbul and Bombay. At Istanbul the following companies attended, under the auspices of British invisibles:

  Barclays de Zoete Wedd

  Barings International Finance

  Barings PLC

  Barings Security Ltd

  Clyde and Co

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Hill Samuel Bank

  Kleinwort Benson PLC

  McKenna and Co

  SG Warburg and Co Ltd

  SG Warburg Group PLC

  At Bombay, the royal yacht hosted 95 British companies; I shall place a copy of the list of these companies in the Library of the House.

  We do not maintain information on the costs of individual tours. Companies are required to pay additional costs associated with the hospitality afforded them.

  Belize
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are currently in Belize: and what plans there are to change this level in the next three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Plans to evolve the British garrison in Belize into a training presence were announced to Parliament on 13 May 1993 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford at column 561. The draw-down of the garrison accordingly began on 1 January 1994 and there are currently around 1,300 service and civilian personnel in Belize. The draw-down will be completed by the end of September 1994. Thereafter, we plan to begin a programme of jungle training deployments from the United Kingdom, hosted by a resident training team in Belize.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent assessment has been made of persistence in the oceanic environment of chemical weapon agents used in(a) Operation Harness, (b) Operation Ozone and (c) Operation Negation in the Bahamas in the 1940s and 1950s;

  (2) what recent assessments have been made by his Department into the persistence in the environment of chemical pathogens used in Operation Cauldron in Scottish waters off Stornaway in 1952 and Operation Hesperus in Scottish waters in 1953.

  Mr. Hanley
  These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment—CBDE—under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 9 February 1994:
  359
  Parliamentary Questions 26 and 519, Order Papers 2 and 3 February 1994

  1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment has been made of the persistence in the environment of the biological agents used in Operations HARNESS, OZONE and NEGATION in the Bahamas in the 1940s and 1950s and in Operations CAULDRON and HESPERUS in the Scottish waters in 1952 and 1953 have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The biological agents in these trials were disseminated from point sources either instantaneously or for a few minutes. As soon as the agents began their down-wind travel as an aerosol, the living microorganisms started to die naturally as a result of exposure to such factors as solar radiation. In addition, the agent would be diluted continuously to an increasing extent in the atmosphere so that the concentration rapidly dropped below one that might present any danger. Finally, gravitational forces would cause agent particles to be deposited on the sea. Any agent particles falling into the sea would be massively diluted as well as killed by the bactericidal and virucidal effects of the sea water.

  3. Thus dilution into the atmosphere, deposition of particles into the sea and the progressive decay of the microorganisms with ensuing loss of viability and infectivity meant that the biological agent aerosols have a finite life. In effect, the biological agents ceased to exist after some period of time and distance down-wind.

  4. Conditions were selected for these trials and downwind safety areas delineated from which shipping was kept away to ensure that there was no hazard to the public or to the environment.

  Service Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the numbers of service personnel stationed in Scotland during each of the last 15 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of United Kingdom regular forces stationed in Scotland, as at 1 July 1993, were as follows:

  Number

  1979

  19,016

  1980

  18,088

  1981

  18,943

  1982

  19,005

  1983

  18,732

  1984

  20,646

  1985

  20,108

  1986

  19,701

  1987

  19,627

  1988

  19,288

  1989

  20,035

  1990

  19,253

  1991

  18,246

  1992

  18,760

  1993

  19,000

  Gulf War (Foreign Government Payments)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what payments the British Government received from foreign Governments following the conclusion of the Gulf war; on what conditions the money was paid out; and on what it was spent;

  Total dwellings

  London

  Birmingham

  Lancashire

  Berkshire

  Service married quarters

  3,764

  102

  425

  1,245

  MOD Civilian Houses

  0

  0

  0

  219

  Total

  3,764

  102

  425

  1,464

  Vacant Dwellings

  Service married quarters

  567

  40

  46

  71

  360
  (2) if he will list the items on which the £660 million donated by the Kuwaiti Government to the British Government following the conclusion of the Gulf war was spent;

  (3) whether any of the £660 million paid by the Kuwaiti Government to the British Government following the conclusion of the Gulf war was given on the understanding that it would be paid to British service men as a bonus; and what amount was so paid;

  (4) what conditions were attached to the payment by the Kuwaiti Government to the British Government of £660 million following the conclusion of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  Cash contributions made by other Governments towards the cost of the Gulf conflict are detailed in the answer given my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) on 16 November 1992,Official Report, columns 46–47. These contributions, including that of the Government of Kuwait, were made unconditionally, save for those from Japan and Norway, who requested that their contributions be for logistical costs.

  Apart from £25,000,000 contributed by Japan taken as an appropriation-in-aid of the Defence Budget in 1990–91, cash contributions were accounted for as consolidated fund extra receipts in the defence appropriation accounts, and thus offset the Government's increased expenditure arising from the conflict. Details of the Government's additional costs are listed in the minutes of evidence, pages 2 and 3, of the fifty-fifth report of the Committee of Public Accounts.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Dwellings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number and location of(a) dwellings and (b) vacant dwellings by his Department in (i) London, (ii) Birmingham, (iii) Lancashire and (iv) Berkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 December 1993 the Ministry of Defence owned the following dwellings and vacant dwellings in London, Birmingham, Lancashire and Berkshire.
  361

  Total dwellings

  London

  Birmingham

  Lancashire

  Berkshire

  MOD Civilian Houses

  0

  0

  0

  44

  Total

  567

  40

  46

  115

  The majority of the vacant married quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation or were already allocated to Service families who were due to move in shortly. In addition 229 vacant married quarters in London and 206 tenanted civilian houses in Berkshire were in the process of being sold.

  Service Pay Award
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings will result from the decision to award pay rises to service personnel in two stages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost in 1994–95 of implementing in full the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body from 1 April 1994, which were higher than for any other of the report groups, would be some £206,000,000. Staging of the award with all personnel receiving an increase of 2·7 per cent. on 1 April and the balance of the award on 1 January 1995, is estimaed to cost £166,000,000 in 1994–95. The saving is therefore £40,000,000.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to review pay, allowances, and terms of employment for service personnel; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has for the appointment of an independent body who will review pay, allowances, and terms of employment for service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the light of changes in military commitments and deployment patterns, plans are in hand for a major independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service, to ensure that we have arrangements which are appropriate to the early part of the 21st century. We envisage that a review team comprising an independent Chairman and some three or four independent members should undertake such a study, which is expected to last about a year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, hopes to make appointments to the team shortly. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body will separately make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the normal way on the levels of service pay in 1995–96.

  Performance Pay
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which management consultants have been appointed to examine performance pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The MOD like other Government Departments, has introduced a system of performance related pay for its civilian staff based on overall annual staff report markings. This has been entirely achieved by the effective use of my Department's manpower and expertise, as well as through consultation with other 362
  Government Departments undergoing the same process. The use of external management consultants was unnecessary.

  Paper Shredders
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many paper shredding machines there are(a) in his private office and (b) in his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has one paper shredding machine in his private office. Records of the number of such machines in my Department are not held centrally and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  RAF Expenditure (Curtains)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by the RAF on curtains in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: In common with many other Defence accommodation stores, curtains are purchased on a tri-service basis; expenditure on those bought for the RAF is not recorded separately and could not be made available without disproportionate cost.

  RAF Innsworth (Accommodation)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on improving accommodation assigned to(a) commanding officers, (b) other officers and (c) other ranks at RAF Innsworth in each year for the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: At RAF Innsworth, in financial year 1992–93 some £38,000 was spent on improving accommodation assigned to commanding officers and some £7,000 on improving accommodation assigned to other officers; there was no such expenditure on accommodation assigned to other ranks. There was no expenditure on improving accommodation in financial year 1991–92 and there has been no such expenditure in financial year 1993–94.

  Haymes Garth
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what money has been spent on new curtains for Ministry of Defence property near Cheltenham known as Haymes Garth in each of the last three years;

  (2) how much money has been spent on improving Ministry of Defence property near Cheltenham known as Haymes Garth in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: Expenditure at Haymes Garth in financial year 1991–92 comprises some £3,000 on maintenance; in financial year 1992–93 comprised some £250,000 on maintenance,

  363
  fittings and improvements, which included some £33,000 on new curtains and window treatments and some £31,000 on improvements to the property. There has been no such expenditure in Financial Year 1993–94.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the Occupational Pensions board.

  Mr. Hague
  Members currently appointed to the Occupational Pensions Board are:

  Mr. Peter D. Carr, CBE—chairman

  Miss Harriet Dawes—deputy chairman

  Mr. Ron Amy

  Mrs. Rosemary Brown

  Mr. Robin Ellison

  Mr. Alan Herbert

  Mr. Andrew Lyburn

  Mr. Alan Pickering

  Mr. William Ramsay

  Mr. Martin Slack

  Mr. Ken Thomas

  Miss Patricia Triggs

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.

  Mr. Scott
  The current members of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council are:

  Professor J. M. Harrington CBE, chairman—Professor of occupational health, university of Birmingham.

  Mr. P. E. Arscott OBE—Health and safety consultant.

  Dr. J. Asherson—Head of health and safety and land use, CBI.

  Miss J. C. Brown—Independent researcher in social policy.

  Mrs. J. Carter—Member of TUC general council.

  Professor M. J. Cinnamond—Professor of otorhinolaryngology, Queen's university of Belfast.

  Dr. D. N. M. Coggon—Reader in occupational and environmental medicine, MRC environmental epidemiology unit.

  Professor A. D. Dayan—Professor of toxicology, St. Bartholomews hospital medical college.

  Dr. C. P. Juniper—Senior medical adviser, Unilever plc.

  Mr. T. Mawer—Lawyer.

  Professor A. J. Newman Taylor OBE—Consultant physician, National Heart and Lung Institute.

  Mr. R. Pickering—National president, GMB.

  Dr. L. Rushton—Senior lecturer in medical statistics, university of Nottingham.

  Dr. C. Taylor—Chief medical officer, British Steel.

  March 1992

  June 1992

  September 1992

  December 1992

  March 1993

  June 1993

  September 1993

  Total references cleared

  222,000

  201,000

  219,000

  227,000

  225,000

  210,000

  262,000

  Where examinations took place

  76,000

  76,000

  75,000

  78,000

  72,000

  65,000

  87,000

  Capable of alternative work

  15,000

  14,000

  15,000

  15,000

  18,000

  19,000

  28,000

  Capable of normal occupation

  9,000

  10,000

  9,000

  11,000

  8,000

  6,000

  6,000

  Incapable of work after examination

  52,000

  51,000

  51,000

  51,000

  46,000

  40,000

  52,000

  No examination

  146,000

  125,000

  144,000

  149,000

  153,000

  145,000

  176,000

  Incapable of work—not examined

  128,000

  106,000

  125,000

  130,000

  134,000

  127,000

  152,000

  Failed to attend examination

  15,000

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  16,000

  15,000

  20,000

  Claim terminated before examination

  4,000

  4,000

  3,000

  2,000

  3,000

  3,000

  4,000

  Notes:

  1. Based upon a 100 per cent. count of cases, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures for England and Wales include severe disablement allowance references.
  364

  Mr. O. D. Tudor—Assistant secretary, TUC.

  Mrs. M. Twomey—Member of TUC.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who are the members currently appointed to the Central Adjudication Services.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints the chief adjudication officer, CAO, and the chief child support officer, CCSO. Mr. Ken Bellamy CBE, a full-time civil servant, is currently appointed as both CAO and CCSO. He heads Central Adjudication Services and is responsible for the recruitment of his support staff, who are also civil servants.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) budgeted and (b) actual expenditure by his Department on (1) internal and (2) overseas travel by the Secretary of State in 1992–93 after 11 April 1992 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hague
  The travel and subsistence budget for all Department of social security Ministers and their private office staff was set at £364,817 for 1992–93 and £381,234 for 1993–94. There is not a separate allocation for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State within that.

  Actual expenditure on the Secretary of State's travel within this country was £512·50 between 11 April 1992 and 10 April 1993 and £349·30 from 11 April 1993 to date. The expenditure on overseas travel for the same periods was £4,788·51 and £184·54 respectively.

  In addition, the Secretary of State has the use of a car from the Government car service. The cost of this service was £48,642·40 for 1992–93 and £37,425·50 for 1993–94 up to the end of December 1993.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for sickness and incapacity benefits were referred to the regional medical services in each quarter since January 1992; how many of these cases resulted in medical examinations; and what were the outcomes(a) where examinations took place and (b) where they did not.

  Mr. Scott
  Latest available figures are in the table.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to receive and respond formally to letters from right hon. and hon. Members
  365
  marked for his personal attention; if he will make it his policy to ensure that letters to him are not referred to the chief executives of executive agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Next steps agency chief executives are asked to reply on operational matters of their agencies and on subjects for which they have delegated responsibility, as set out in the agency's framework document. Before letters are transferred to chief executives they are always seen by Ministers to decide whether or not a ministerial response is appropriate.

  Retirement Pensions (Women)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of women who could have received 25 per cent. retirement pension for some years before their husbands retired if they had revoked their election timeously and paid modest class 1 contributions.

  Mr. Hague
  Records are not kept in a way which would enable a reliable estimate to be made.

  Benefits Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in what circumstances the Benefits Agency informs citizens of gaps in their contributions; and if it is practice to inform citizens in time to make up these contributions before the year in which they reach pensionable age;

  (2) what policy or guidelines his Department has laid down for the executive agency on advising married women who have elected to pay reduced contributions about the state of their contribution record;

  (3) if he will issue new instructions that married women or widows paying reduced contributions are advised about their records several years before reaching pensionable age in order to be in time to make a choice on changing to full contributions.

  Mr. Hague
  Approximately 18 months after the end of each tax year the Contributions Agency issues statements to those people who, according to their records, have paid insufficient national insurance contributions for that year to count towards entitlement for the basic state retirement pension or widows pension.

  The statement gives details about the amount of voluntary contributions the person needs to pay to make up the deficiency for that year. Voluntary contributions must be paid within six years of the end of the tax year in question, but in any case they should be paid before the date of claim to retirement pension in order to maximise benefit entitlement.

  The statements are targeted towards those who are most likely to benefit from information about the deficiency in their contribution record. There are therefore a number of circumstances where the statements are not issued, for example where the person is aged 59 or over for a woman or aged 64 or over for a man, where no currrent address is held or the person is known to be abroad or where no contributions were received for the year in question and the preceding year. Even so, the latest issue entailed some 3·5 million statements.

  Married women who have elected to pay reduced rate contributions were exercising a free choice, no longer
  366
  available, and would usually expect to rely on their husband's national insurance contribution record in order to qualify for a basic retirement pension. The implications of that choice were set out in an explanatory leaflet accompanying the election form.

  This Department does not inform such women of deficiencies in their contribution record because they have exercised a choice not to pay standard rate contributions. It is however open to any person, including women who have elected to pay reduced rate contributions, to request information about their contribution record or a forecast of their expected state retirement pension from the Benefits Agency. If a woman has elected to pay reduced rate contributions, the pension forecast will tell her that if she wishes to improve her benefit position by paying more years of full contributions, she will have to cancel her election to pay reduced rate contributions. From then on she would be able to pay contributions which do count towards retirement pension, subject always to her achieving a minimum entitlement of 25 per cent.

  The Department is continually looking at ways of developing procedures to make information even more readily available to people about benefits and contributions.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each year since 1989, by institution or individual the total level of award, all research grants awarded by the DSS/DHSS which have involved research into occupational diseases.

  Mr. Scott
  Since 1989 this Department has commissioned one piece of research into occupational diseases, a study of lung cancer risk in pottery, refractory and sandstone workers. The value of the award is £36,400 to the department of occupational medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, and the centre for occupational health at the university of Manchester. Further details are in the Department's research yearbook, for 1992–93, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the industrial injuries benefit scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  Last year, the Government announced a long-term review of social security expenditure. Under the long-term review, each part of the social security programme will be examined to ensure that the objectives are right for the 1990s. Nothing is exempt from that review.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 628, how many Christmas cards he and his Ministers sent out in 1993; and at what cost.

  Mr. Hague
  Seven hundred and ten cards were obtained from the Charity Christmas Card Council at a cost of £282·49. Most of the cards were sent out by second-class post.
  367

  Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the results of studies carried out in the course of developing the new incapacity for work test for incapacity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 31 January,Official Report, columns 583–84.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that attendance at rehabilitation courses will be regarded as a period of incapacity to work in relation to eligibility for disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration his Department has given to defining unemployment benefit as a passport for disability working allowance for otherwise eligible people.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Alfred Moris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to increase the margin above family credit to provide an incentive for appropriate persons to claim disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the difference between the current number of disabled people receiving the disability working allowance and his Department's original forecast; and how he accounts for the difference.

  Mr. Scott
  The current caseload is 3,405. The original estimate was that about 50,000 people might be entitled to disability working allowance, which was introduced as a completely new benefit in April 1992 and can, of course, be expected to take a number of years to become established. We have commissioned extensive independent research to help evaluation and this is expected to be completed in 1996.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his present estimate of the number of people now receiving invalidity benefit who will not qualify for the benefit by which it is being replaced;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of people now receiving invalidity benefit who will not qualify for the proposed new incapacity benefit and who, being unable to work full time, will have to seek income support.

  Mr. Scott
  Our current estimate is that around 200,000 people receiving invalidity benefit in April 1995 may be excluded from receiving incapacity benefit by the proposed new medical test during the first two years. It is not possible to give an accurate assessment of how many will have to seek income support.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from 368
  national organisations of and for disabled people about his proposal to discontinue invalidity benefit; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a large number of comments on our proposals, mainly in response to the consultation document on the proposed new medical incapacity test. We will be publishing a report on the outcome of the consultation exercise, which ends on 11 February. The national disability organisations which have responded include the following:

  Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund

  The Churches Council for Health and Healing

  The Disabled Living Foundation

  The Disability Alliance

  The Disability Benefits Consortium

  The Disablement Income Group

  Ileostomy Association of Great Britain and Ireland

  The Mental Health Foundation

  Mobility Trust

  The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

  Pensioners and Disabled Alliance

  National Back Pain Association

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  The Neurofibromatosis Association

  The Pain Society

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  The Stroke Association

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for each of the administrative regions of the Benefits Agency in the United Kingdom, how many women have(a) had an increase of invalidity benefit suspended, (b) applied for that suspension to be lifted and (c) had the suspension lifted;

  (2) for each of the Benefits Agency district offices in Wales, how many women have (a) had an increase of invalidity benefit suspended, (b) applied for that suspension to be lifted and (c) had the suspension lifted.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 8 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about women in receipt of invalidity Benefit (IVB) in the United Kingdom, and more specifically Wales, who, at age 60, have had an increase of IVB suspended.
  The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because the statistics provided are for Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom (the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland). I have therefore appended the information that is available for the United Kingdom which has been collated into Benefits Agency Area Directorates, within which there are a number of District and Benefit Offices. The information for Wales has been broken down by Benefit Agency District, each District comprising of a District Office and one or more Benefit Offices.
  The information given is that available at the last working day of August 1993, the last for which detailed information is, at present, held.
  369

  Benefits Agency Scotland and Northern Territory

  Benefits Agency area directorate

  Number of IVB cases suspended

  Applications for suspension to be lifted

  Number of cases where suspension lifted

  Tyne Tees

  3,237

  258

  230

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  997

  33

  29

  North and West Yorkshire

  1,604

  28

  20

  Scotland and Northern

  2,585

  37

  1

  North, Central and West Scotland

  4,151

  267

  218

  East of Scotland

  1,630

  18

  12

  Totals

  14,204

  641

  510

  Benefits Agency Wales and Central Territory

  Benefits Agency area directorate

  Number of IVB cases suspended

  Applications for suspension to be lifted

  Number of cases where suspension lifted

  East Midlands

  855

  28

  18

  Midlands South West

  637

  9

  3

  West Mercia

  1,843

  20

  7

  Wales

  2,906

  44

  19

  Merseyside

  1,779

  81

  71

  Greater Manchester

  1,590

  63

  18

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  2,244

  34

  21

  Totals

  11,854

  279

  157

  Benefits Agency southern territory

  Benefits Agency area directorate

  Number of IVB cases suspended

  Applications for suspension to be lifted

  Number of cases where suspension lifted

  Anglia

  580

  16

  8

  Chilterns

  1,146

  12

  7

  South London and West Sussex

  658

  16

  12

  West Country

  811

  31

  9

  East London and Essex

  508

  3

  1

  South East

  548

  20

  10

  Wessex

  960

  5

  0

  TOTALS

  5,211

  103

  47

  Wales area directorate

  District

  Number of IVB cases suspended

  Applications for suspension to be lifted

  Number of cases where suspension lifted

  Gwyneddigion

  176

  9

  5

  North Wales Coast

  307

  13

  3

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  9

  2

  1

  West Wales

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  0

  0

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  405

  4

  0

  South Glamorgan

  434

  6

  1

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  254

  8

  8

  Cynon, Merthyr and Rhymney Valley

  687

  0

  0

  Taff Rhonda

  282

  1

  0

  North Gwent and Brecon

  352

  1

  1

  TOTALS

  2,906

  44

  19

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what basis he will assess extreme hardship in individual cases of women over 60 years whose invalidity benefit increase is being suspended;

  (2) what discretion he has to lift the suspension of invalidity benefit increase for women over 60 years in
  370
  Wales in cases of extreme hardship; and what are the limits on the lifting of the suspension in terms of the income of the women concerned.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's discretion to take account of extreme hardship in deciding whether to impose or lift suspension of benefit is exercised on his behalf by Benefits Agency staff. Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency will write to the hon. Member with further information.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 8 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Services has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about women in receipt of Invalidity Benefit (IVB), who at age 60 have had an increase of IVB suspended.
  Regulation 37A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations provides that where a decision by a Social Security Commissioner is being appealed to the Courts, payment of benefit in any cases affected by the decision may be suspended by the Secretary of State (SoS) pending the outcome of the appeal. Payments of Invalidity Benefit to women over 60 are currently being suspended under this regulation pending the resolution of a case which is before the Court of Appeal.
  The power to suspend is discretionary. The SoS therefore also has discretion not to susped if it would be inappropriate to do so, for example if it would cause exceptional hardship in an individual case. This discretion is exercised on the SoS's behalf by Benefits Agency (BA) staff.
  There are no set criteria for lifting suspensions. Each case is considered in relation to the personal circumstances of the customer. However, the BA, conscious of the requirement to treat all customers fairly, has recently issued guidelines on the question of hardship to all local offices. They stress that cases have to be looked at individually and that, while it is not possible to state in hard and fast terms what constitutes exceptional hardship, a number of factors need to be borne in mind by staff considering hardship applications.
  These include the fact that hardship will arise only in exceptional circumstancses; that prior to the Commissioner's decision IVB would have been reduced to the rate of the Retirement Pension that would otherwise have been payable; that Income Support and Social Fund are available to meet financial hardship; and that the onus is on the customer to prove that hardship exists rather than on the Agency Department to disprove hardship.
  The guidance also gives two examples of circumstances in which exceptional hardship might be considered. These are:—

  (i.) where it is already known or suspected that a customer has a terminal illness and is likely to die before the outcome of the appeal is known; and

  (ii.) where the customer has been led to believe that benefit will continue at the higher rate and has entered into a financial commitment on that basis.

  It is not inevitable that exceptional hardship would be found to exist in these sort of situations. Nor are they the only situations in which exceptional hardships would be considered. Nevertheless they provide examples of what "exceptional hardship" might mean and indicate that such cases can be expected to arise only rarely.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those topics on which it is not his practice to answer parliamentary questions; and if he will list any recent changes in the practice of his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  There has been no change from the practice of this and previous Administrations, as described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".
  371

  Overseas Pensions
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many United Kingdom citizens are entitled to overseas pensions not exceeding £500 per annum to which contributions were made before 1970 and which are not remitted to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Benefits Office, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the planned operational opening date of the new Benefits Agency office in Paisley; how many staff will be deployed to this office; how many new(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs will be created; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The opening of a new Benefits Agency office in Paisley is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 8 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the new Benefits Agency office in Paisley.
  The planned operational opening date of the new office is Spring 1995. At this stage I cannot give a more specific date as work on the site commenced in November 1993 and we have assumed approximately 18 months for a new building from start to finish.
  As the 1995/96 resource allocations are not yet known it is not possible to be precise about the number of staff in the new office. However, on current projections, the new office is expected to house around 245 staff in total—around 220 Benefits Agency staff (including Sector Fraud), around 15 Contributions Agency staff and around 10 Child Support Agency staff.
  It is not anticipated that any new jobs, either full time or part time, will be created in Benefits Agency, Contributions Agency or Child Support Agency. This is a move of an existing organisation from a very poor and inadequate building to a new custom built premises to provide improved quality services for customers and staff alike.
  The Renfrew District Manager, Colin Wright, will be happy to provide you with any further progress reports should you require them.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more precise with the information I have provided at this stage, but I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many Benefits Agency local offices displayed information on their local performance in July 1993; and what indicators were used;

  (2) what new national targets for benefit services were published in 1992–93; and what reports were published by the Benefits Agency on how it performed against existing targets;

  (3) how many Benefits Agency districts had published local performance targets by July 1993; and to what extent they were being met.

  Mr. Burt
  Performance targets within the Benefits Agency are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the agency's chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.
  372
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 8 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking about local and national performance targets within the Benefits Agency (BA).
  I am pleased to say that by the end of January 1993 all BA districts had published Local Charter Standard Statements which included local performance targets. Information as to how individual districts performed against these targets is not available as it is not collated centrally. I have, however, provided at appendix A the national year to date performance against targets, as at December 1993, for District benefits.
  Local Charter Standard Statements are displayed in all local offices and contain local standards of service. As many local standards are focused on the specific needs of the local customer population it is not possible to give a complete list of all indicators used. However, in general, Income Support clearance targets, Social Fund clearance targets, and waiting times are the most likely, and most usually displayed.
  From April 1994 we will be collecting centrally information on how districts are performing against national targets.
  Details of the new national targets for benefit services published in 1992–93 are provided at appendix B. These include targets for new benefits introduced, and new targets for existing benefits. The Benefits Agency Annual Report and Account published in July 1993 provides details on how the Agency performed against existing targets.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Appendix A

  Field operations—year to date performance 1993–94

  Target

  Achievement to December 1993

  Income support

  Claims

  71 per cent. in 5 days

  74·3

  90 per cent. in 13 days

  89·9

  Accuracy

  96 per cent.

  90·8

  Changes

  65 per cent. in 2 days

  91·3

  95 per cent. in 6 days

  96·2

  Appeals

  68 per cent. in 28 days

  72·1

  95 per cent. in 90 days

  94·5

  Social Fund

  Crisis Loans

  on the day the need arises

  96·3

  Community Care Grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  78·7

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  96·7

  Budget Loans

  65 per cent. in 6 days

  75·3

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  97·3

  Incapacity Benefits

  Sickness Benefit/Invalidity Benefit Claims

  65 per cent. in 10 days

  72·2

  95 per cent. in 30 days

  94·2

  Accuracy

  96·5 per cent.

  96·1

  Retirement Pension

  Claims

  65 per cent. in 60 days

  68·7

  95 per cent. in 60 days

  94·5

  Changes

  65 per cent. in 5 days

  83·4

  95 per cent. in 15 days

  96·1

  Appendix B

  New Target Areas—1992–93—Plus improvements to 1991–92 Targets

  Benefit Area

  Per cent.

  Target Days

  Retirement Pension Post Award System Activity

  65

  5

  (PASA)

  95

  15

  Disability Living Allowance Claims

  60

  30

  95

  55

  Disability Living Allowance Accuracy

  96

  —

  Disability Living Allowance Special Rules Cases

  80

  10

  90

  15

  Disability Living Allowance Reviews

  60

  55

  95

  75

  373

  Benefit Area

  Per cent.

  Target Days

  Disability Working Allowance Claims

  95

  5

  Disability Working Allowance Accuracy

  95

  —

  Disability Working Allowance Renewal Claims—

  60

  15

  Employed

  75

  25

  Disability Working Allowance Renewal Claims—

  60

  20

  Self Employed

  90

  30

  Disability Working Allowance Reviews

  75

  10

  90

  20

  Disability Working Allowance Appeals

  30

  15

  60

  25

  90

  35

  Attendance Allowance 65+ Claims

  60

  35

  95

  60

  Attendance Allowance 65+ Reviews

  60

  61

  95

  81

  Attendance Allowance 65+ Special Rules Cases

  80

  10

  90

  15

  Income Support Claims

  —

  4

  Income Support Accuracy

  94

  —

  Family Credit Claims

  60

  13

  Family Credit Accuracy

  94

  —

  Social Fund Budget Loans

  —

  5

  Invalid Care Allowance Claims

  60

  29

  95

  129

  Legal Aid Applications

  80

  20

  Central Pensions Branch Appeals

  65

  30

  Overseas Branch Appeals

  55

  30

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of local offices have been refurbished since June 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  The refurbishment of DSS local offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 8 Feburary 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the proportion of local offices which have been refurbished since June 1991.
  All local offices will undergo some form of refurbishment in the course of the year. This can range from simple redecoration, through the upgrading of specific areas, to large scale works involving the decanting of staff whilst major structural work is carried out.
  Minor refurbishment (costing less than £5,000), to improve both staff and public areas as part of general building management, is carried out at the discretion of local management. Records of this type of work are not collated centrally, and it is not therefore possible to give details of this work since June 1991.
  However, figures for refurbishment projects costing more than £5,000, ie the refurbishment of a public caller area, are collated centrally, and are available. Records of these projects indicate that since the start of the 1991–92 financial year 68 per cent. of DSS local offices have been refurbished in some way or another since April 1991.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Visits to Employers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many special educational visits to employers were made by the Contributions Agency for the year 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of national insurance is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.
  374
  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 8 February 1994:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I am responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I have been asked to reply to your question about how many educational visits the Agency made to employers between 1 July 1992 and 30 June 1993.
  The Agency makes two types of visits to employers for educational purposes—educational visits and educational surveys. An educational visit is normally undertaken at an employer's request to provide assistance and advice on any aspects of the National Insurance (NI), Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) and Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) schemes. An educational survey, in addition to providing such assistance and advice, also includes a detailed examination of the employers NI, SSP and SMP records. Educational surveys are usually initiated by the Agency and are undertaken where employers are considered, in the light of the Agency's experience, likely to be at a greater risk of making mistakes in fulfilling their NI, SSP or SMP responsibilities. They can also be undertaken in response to an employer's request.
  In the year between 1 July 1992 and 30 June 1993 the Agency made 2,318 educational visits and 27,569 educational surveys.

  Service by Telephone
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new measures the Benefits Agency took in 1992–93 to improve service by telephone.

  Mr. Burt
  Measures to improve the standard of telephone service within the Benefits Agency are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the agency's chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 8 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about measures taken by the Benefits Agency took in 1992–93 to improve service by telephone.

  On 9 September last year the Secretary of State announced a national programme whereby all Benefits Agency District Offices will provide a One Place service by July 1994, and part of this service includes customers being able to obtain, by telephone, advice and information on Benefit Agency benefits from their local office.
  The National Customer Service Definition issued to all managers states the minimum hours that local office switchboards must be open, and offices are required to publish these hours. Offices will also make provision for dealing with customers who contact the office outside normal switchboard hours.
  The Benefits Agency is committed to improving accessibility for all our customers, including those who are hard of hearing. All offices/units have been encouraged to install the Minicom and/or Typetalk facilities (both are text telephone services).
  The Department has, for some years, operated a policy of replacing old and new inadequate telecommunications equipment. In April 1992 this was turned into a formal roll out programme which identified and replaced ageing and substandard switchboards in offices, with modern, digital switchboards. These replacement switchboards provide the technical platform and facilities to support the customer services and organisational initiatives developed in other areas of the Benefits Agency.
  In April 1993 this roll out programme was integrated with Benefits Agency Estates' programme and the implementation of IT equipment, to provide a comprehensive technical base from which to provide a uniform service. This integrated programme is ongoing and will continue for the next 3–5 years.
  At the Fylde Benefit Directorate there has been an enhancement to the telephone service provided during 1992–93. Measures undertaken include an increase in the number of consoles on the Fylde switchboard together with requisite staffing, and also the introduction of Direct Dial IN (DDI) to the 8,000 or so telephone extensions located on sites occupied by the directorate lines. The Central Inquiry Handling Service (CEHS),

  375
  renamed Customer Care Helpline in early October 1993, has had line capacity increased from 120 to 192 with staffing to match. Additionally opening hours were extended in March 1993 to cover the timeband 07.30 to 18.30.
  The Family Credit helpline launched in April 1993 deals with an average of 35,000 calls per week and on average 85 per cent. of those calls are answered within five rings.
  The Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL) was also extended in April 1993 to provide a form completion service for a range of incapacity and disability benefits. Its opening hours were extended to cover the time band 8.30–18.30 Monday to Friday and 9.00–13.00 Saturday. The equipment was further enhanced in March 1993 and now has the capacity to cope with over 100 work stations. In April 1992 40 advisers were employed with the number rising to 81 by March 1993. During 1992–93 approximately 17,000 customers telephoned BEL and used the Forms Completion Service.
  The Child Benefit Centre ran a pilot study last year offering a more personalised and complete service for its customers. Following the success of this pilot, the Centre embarked on a major overhaul of its internal structure, and widely publicising a list of direct dial numbers. The Child Benefit Centre is now handling three times as many calls compared to this time last year.
  Following a review of the Freeline service, a project manager was appointed last year to take forward a programme of improvements aimed at making the service more widely available to customers. Five Freeline centres have installed Automatic Call Distribution (ACD), which allocates calls to lines on a strictly first come first served basis. The indications are that the ACD has been effective in reducing call waiting times. It is hoped to install ACD equipment in the remaining five centres, and to open an 11th Freeline centre later this year, which will improve the service still further.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 15, regarding firms which do not comply with his department's guidelines over privatisation bids, what plans he has to disqualify CNN Data Company from tendering for the DSS Longbenton national insurance computor processing contract.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of national insurance is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Nicholas Brown, dated 8 February 1994:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  Offset of occupational pension against unemployment benefit

  -15

  -63

  -66

  —

  —

  —

  -173

  Unemployment benefit rules changes

  —

  -21

  -49

  -55

  —

  —

  -141

  Widows benefit measures

  —

  22

  13

  13

  13

  —

  69

  Abolition of pensioners earnings rule

  —

  190

  386

  401

  412

  —

  1,529

  Statutory sick pay measures

  —

  —

  -72

  -86

  -92

  —

  -269

  New RMO procedures

  —

  —

  —

  -8

  -8

  -8

  -25

  Statutory sick pay: 80 per cent, reimbursement

  —

  —

  —

  -181

  -190

  -197

  -587

  Statutory sick pay higher rate freeze

  —

  —

  —

  -109

  -119

  -125

  -365

  Statutory sick pay/child benefit measures

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  3

  9

  Statutory sick pay standard rate freeze

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -20

  -21

  -42

  Carer's package

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Invalidity benefit: new medical control procedures

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -108

  -108

  Statutory sick pay higher rate freeze

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -21

  -21

  Notes:

  (a) All figures are expressed in millions. They are in cash terms except for the totals which are expressed in real terms (1993–94 prices).

  (b) It should be noted that only the costs/savings to National Insurance benefits have been shown. The figures therefore should not be regarded as the actual costs/savings arising from individual policy measures.

  376
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency I am responsible for answering questions about relevant operational matters. I have been asked to reply to your question about possible plans to disqualify CCN Datacom BV from tendering for the computer processing of National Insurance records.
  When I wrote to you on 24 January 1994 in response to your earlier question I explained the procurement policy adopted by this Agency in its Market Testing (not privatisation) activities. CCN Datacom BV were invited to tender for the Contributions Agency's Data Entry operation along with the current In-House service provider and 3 other private sector companies. As part of that process, everyone invited to tender is entitled to seek clarification of the Agency's requirements.
  A representative of CCN Datacom BV, apparently acting on her own initiative, telephoned an ex-colleague who now works within the data Entry Group of this Agency, seeking information about the current operations. This approach was not in accord with the Agency's requirements for the supply of information. The incident was immediately and thoroughly investigated. It was concluded that no evidence exists that any information of a confidential nature or which could give the company an unfair advantage had been disclosed.
  CCN Datacom BV has stated that it was unaware of the action of the employee and has apologised for the breach of procedure.
  After a careful review of the facts it was decided that there were insufficient grounds for excluding the company from the tender exercise. The 2 key issues in reaching this decision were that the approach was at a level where information of any significance was unlikely to be forthcoming and in fact no information of any importance was passed over to the company. Nevertheless, CCN Datacom are now well aware of the Agency's view on the matter, and that even relatively minor breaches of the correct procedure will be taken extremely seriously.
  I hope that I have clarified the facts of the matter but if you do have any further queries I would be pleased to discuss them with you.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an estimate of the cumulative spending and savings made on the various changes to national insurance benefits since 1979, in the format of his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) of 6 July 1992,Official Report, columns 85–86.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 25 January 1994]: Such information as is readily available is given in the table. Meaningful estimates of the cumulative expenditure effects of earlier policy measures could not be derived; except at disproportionate cost.
  377

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what rate the Child Support Agency charges interest on arrears.

  Mr. Burt
  Where an absent parent does not within 28 days enter into an arrears agreement or where he does not keep to the terms of the agreement interest is charged on the arrears of child maintenance at a rate of 1 per cent. above the base rate current at the time. Where an agreement is entered into and for as long as its terms are adhered to no interest is payable.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of the applications to the Child Support Agency between April and December 1993 involved absent parents on income support; and how many of these absent parents on income support are now having £2·20 deductions made from their benefit;

  (2) how many section 18 reviews of child support officers' decisions had been requested by the end of 1993; how many of these had been resolved by that date; in how many of those the decision had been advised; and what is the average number of weeks that the outstanding reviews have been awaiting decision in each Child Support Agency centre;

  (3) how many section 6 child support applicants have argued that they are at risk of harm or undue distress to date; in how many of these cases the reasons were accepted by the Child Support Agency; in how many of those cases the reasons were accepted by the Secretary of State without the need for an interview, by the Secretary of State after interviewing the parent with care, or by the child support officer; how many parents with care subsequently gave the authorisation or information; and how many reduced benefit directions have been issued in the first nine months of the Child Support Agency's activity;

  (4) how many maintenance applications had been terminated without a maintenance assessment by the end of 1993; and if he will give a breakdown of these cases, in particular giving the numbers due to section 6 applicants withdrawing claims for income support and family credit;

  (5) how many child support accounts had been set up by the Child Support Agency by 31 December 1993; how many of these accounts had arrears outstanding at that point; how many arrears notices had been issued; and how many deductions of earnings orders had been issued by the Child Support Agency by the same date;

  (6) how many maintenance application forms have been issued to family credit claimants to date; how many of these have resulted in a maintenance assessment to date; and of those how many of the accounts are in arrears;

  (7) what proportion of the existing income support parent with care caseload has been taken on by the Child Support Agency by the end of 1993; and what proportion he estimates will be taken on by April 1994;

  (8) how many maintenance assessments had been issued by the end of December 1993; how many of these were category A interim assessments; how many category B interim assessments; and how many were nil assessments;

  (9) how many of the letters requesting appeals against child support officers' decisions to child support appeal tribunals have been received within the 28-day limit; and how many of those received after the 28-day limit were accepted because of special reasons;
  378
  (10) how many appeals had been made to child support appeal tribunals by the end of 1993; how many of these appeals have been heard by that date; and in how many of those the child support officer's decision has been overturned.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 8 February 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security on a number of aspects about the operations of the Child Support Agency.
  The number of maintenance assessments made in the period from 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 involving absent parents who were in receipt of income support was 24,300. I understand that to the quarter ending 30 November 1993, the Benefits Agency had made deductions from income support in 6,330 cases.
  From 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, section 18 reviews had been requested in 12,000 cases. 2,100 of these had been cleared and the decision revised in 1,100, of them. The 9,900 cases in action reflects a rise in numbers in recent weeks. Information on clearance times is being collected but, because of relatively low volumes of cleared cases, is not yet statistically valid.
  From 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, the cases of 35,600 parents with care were considered in relation to the requirement to cooperate. Of cases so far completed, good cause was accepted in 20,500, the absent parent was named in 7,100, and 160 were referred to the Benefits Agency to consider implementation of a Reduced Benefit Direction. No information is kept as to the numbers of cases where good cause was accepted without any interview of the parent with care by a member of the Agency's staff.
  From 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, 79,800 cases were cleared without a maintenance assessment. Of these, 32,600 were withdrawn. As, to date, 96 per cent. of parents with care have been in receipt of a prescribed benefit, it can be assumed that this will apply to nearly all the withdrawn applications.
  From 5 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, 183,000 maintenance application forms were issued to parents with care on family credit. You also asked how many of these have resulted in a maintenance assessment, and how many of the accounts are in arrears. I am afraid that we do not collect information that breaks down maintenance assessments or account activity according to the benefit status of the parent with care.
  At 31 December 1993 the Agency had taken on 275,700 existing income support cases. It is estimated that by April 1994, around 290,000 cases will have been taken on.
  At 31 December 1993, a total of 121,600 maintenance assessments had been completed. Of these 41,000 were interim maintenance assessments, where the Agency did not have sufficient information to make a full assessment, and 28,300 were assessments where the absent parent was assessed as having insufficient income to pay any maintenance other than the £2·20 deduction from benefit. It is not possible to provide separate figures for Category A and Category B interm maintenance assessments.
  At 31 December 1993, I understand that the Child Support Appeal Tribunal Central Office (CSATCO) had received 577 valid letters of appeal within the 28 days time limit. A total of 81 letters of appeal had been received that were outside the 28 day time limit, and all of these were accepted as valid by the resident chairman of the Child Support Appeals Tribunal.
  At 31 December 1993, the Agency had received 535 appeals from CSATCO and 48 resulted in tribunal hearings. Of those heard, 10 resulted in the Child Support Officer's decision being overturned.
  You also requested information on child support accounts, arrears and deductions from earnings orders. I regret that the information is not currently available.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.
  379
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of replies issued by the Child Support Agency in response to individual inquiries from right hon. and hon. Members are in standardised format; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  380
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 9 February 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the use of standardised replies from the Child Support Agency to Members' letters.
  The Agency does not issue standardised replies to Members although standard paragraphs may be included, for example, to explain the provisions of legislation or to give some background to the Agency's operations. Where correspondence concerns an individual client, the Agency seeks to address the specific concerns raised by the Member on behalf of the constituent.
  I hope that you find this reply useful.

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

Sarajevo
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people were killed or wounded by Serb shelling or sniper fire in Sarajevo during the past week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we do not yet have the United Nations figures for the whole of last week. The House will be aware that at least 65 people were killed in one incident in Sarajevo's central market on 5th February. We unreservedly condemn that callous and brutal act.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome the moves being made to do something about the situation. Is the Minister aware that the efforts of Europe and of NATO are held in contempt in many places, and that they arouse feelings of shame in many citizens of Europe, including in this country? This is the last opportunity to restore credibility to both the United Nations and the European Union.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that even in this country the efforts of Europe, NATO and this country are, as the noble Lord puts it, held in contempt. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. I believe that we have contributed a great deal and our soldiers and our civilians have put themselves at considerable risk in providing help to the people of former Yugoslavia. Ultimately, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, peace will only come at the negotiating table but, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the North Atlantic Council will today consider on the advice of military commanders what pressure can most effectively be applied and how. He went on to say further that if we use air power we must be clear about the objectives of that action.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was not referring to the volunteers or our troops serving there. I was referring to the Governments of Europe.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept that. I think the Government have put in a great deal and I further repeat the fact that our soldiers and our civilians have put themselves at considerable risk.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the Government will do everything possible and take great care not to be drawn into one side in a three-sided civil war?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the end, as my noble friend said, it is a civil war and therefore it has to be a matter for the various parties to resolve these matters. We will do what we can to provide help and succour, particularly to the people in Sarajevo, and to provide aid but in the end we cannot impose a peace on the three parties.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, if close support aircraft are to be authorised—as is stated in the newspapers, I presume as a result of briefing—against guns and mortars around Sarajevo, can we be assured that they will be used properly and that they will be controlled by ground controllers in sight of the target? I ask that question because there has been talk of radar-controlled aircraft flying from north-eastern Italy. However, that will lead to casualties not only among our air crews but among people on the ground. We were horrified at the events of last week, but if these radar-controlled aircraft are used we will suffer casualties among our air crews.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the dangers of the use of air power and that is why I made perfectly clear—and my right honourable friend in another place made perfectly clear —that we will only use air support on the advice of the military commanders on the ground.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in the event that air power is used, would it be the Government's intention to continue to make air power available until such time as a peaceful outcome has been negotiated? If so, how long do the Government estimate that period might be?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord brings great expertise to these matters but I think he would not expect me to be drawn on them. We have made quite clear that, if necessary, we will use air support on the advice of military commanders on the ground.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, further to my question last Monday about the United Nations' capacity impartially to identify distant weapons, is my noble friend aware that 50 years ago units in the British Army could have pinpointed the offending mortar of last Saturday within minutes of its being fired? Examination of shell holes and craters can only provide a very rough indication of direction. Clearly that is not good enough when the faction forces are occupying miscellaneous areas.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend made that point when I repeated the Statement on Monday. Certainly we can take into consideration whether it would be possible by the use of modern technology to bring greater certainty to our knowledge as to where any mortars or shells come from.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer two questions? First, has it been confirmed without any shadow of doubt that the shelling came from Serb guns? Secondly, since Mr. Hurd criticised the "must do something" tendency at the end of last year and again last weekend when he firmly disavowed such sentiments, what has happened for him to change his mind and for the Government to change their mind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, first, as I made clear on Monday, it is fairly certain that the shell involved in the atrocity at the weekend came from Serb positions, but I cannot say that without any shadow of a doubt. One can only say that that seems to be the case but not that one is 100 per cent. certain.
The noble Lord went on to suggest that my right honourable friend had changed his mind. I do not accept that. We have never believed that external intervention could simply settle the conflict and we do not believe it now. We do believe that the United Nations faces a deteriorating situation and may have to use more muscle to achieve its objectives of providing relief to civilians, deterring attacks on civilians and convincing the parties that a lasting settlement can only be achieved at the negotiating table.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the agreement of the United Nations is necessary before air support commences?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we believe that it will be possible to make use of air support under the existing United Nations mandate.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not be drawn into the "something must be done" school of foreign policy which hounds the whole of the agenda of foreign policy projected by television cameras and producers? Can he also assure us that if we take part in any military action in Yugoslavia we will know how it is going to end and not just how it is going to begin?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers of any unwise intervention and the consequent escalation that might result. However, I cannot speculate further on exactly what might be decided at the North Atlantic Council this afternoon and what the council might decide we should do on the advice of our military commanders.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the atrocity last Saturday which has caused people to rethink is only one in a series of horrifying massacres perpetrated largely, though not exclusively, by the Serbs? Does he further agree that the Government are now facing the problem created by their own and their allies' intervention in preventing the Bosnian Moslems from defending themselves through the ill-advised and foolish arms embargo?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what my noble friend said about the embargo. Further, we have never ruled out lifting that embargo if all else fails. But
1568
one ought to stress that that might easily do more harm than good and might easily further escalate the fighting and seriously jeopardise the relief effort mounted by this country and many others.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if there is to be an ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs in the near future, as has been reported, can the Minister assure the House that it will be for real and not another empty gesture? Assuming that the Bosnian Serbs accept such an ultimatum, can he also tell the House what plans there are for ensuring that Sarajevo then becomes a demilitarised area?
Lord Henley: My Lords, these matters are being considered by the North Atlantic Council today. I am confident that that meeting will take decisions but I do not think that it would be wise at this moment to speculate as to exactly what those decisions might be.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the great interest taken by the Russians in their compatriots the Serbs and the obvious dangers for the Balkans, can my noble friend assure the House that the Russians will be thoroughly consulted so that we do not fall into something much bigger than we expect?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point and I take that on board.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps we ought to move on.

EC Budget
2.47 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the amount of the European Community budget in 1990 and 1993.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the outturn figures for the 1990 European Community budget are 45,808 million ecus in commitments and 43,324 million ecus in payments; the 1993 amended budget totalled 70,408 million ecus in commitments and 66,858 million ecus in payments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is that not an astonishing increase, amounting to about 20 per cent. compound increase every year, bearing in mind that our own Government are putting restrictions on public spending? Is it not a fact that most of that expenditure is on the common agricultural policy, which goes on growing and growing like Topsy, in spite of the fact that the Government have promised from time to time to prevent additional spending? Is he further aware that every British family is now paying £28 per week more than they need because of the common agricultural policy? When will the Government press the EC to stop this awful squander mania by the institutions of that organisation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that expenditure is high, and I accept in particular that expenditure on the CAP is high. It is by far the biggest component of EC expenditure. It is though constrained by the agricultural guideline—a legally binding ceiling negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Further, it is fair to say that all of us agree—well, the noble Lord probably does not agree—that we gain considerable benefits from our membership of the Community. Having said that, it is important that we pay our fair share. That is why my noble friend Lady Thatcher negotiated the abatement. That abatement cannot be changed or cancelled without our agreement. That is why we continue to be at the forefront of the fight against fraud in the Community —I do not think that I can repeat that yet again —despite the fact that the noble Lord accuses us of complacency. That is why at the Edinburgh Summit we negotiated a freeze in our own resources ceiling of 1.2 per cent. of GNP to 1994, rising to 1.27 per cent. in 1999, which is less than half of what the Commission proposed.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would it be fair to say that the policy of Her Majesty's Government appears to be to hold down spending at home but to allow substantial increases in spending of British taxpayers' money through Brussels? Does that not lead to the premise that Her Majesty's Government have concluded that the Commissioners in Brussels obtain better value for taxpayers' money than we do out of our own Government in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I do not think that he listened to my answer to the first supplementary question. I stressed that at Edinburgh we negotiated a ceiling on our own resources of 1.2 per cent., rising to 1.27 per cent., which was less than half of what the Commission originally proposed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the four-year span covered by the period referred to in the Question on the Order Paper a sum of no less than £7 billion net after all receipts was transferred to the European Community out of the Consolidated Fund? Is he further aware that, as freely acknowledged, a good deal of the expenditure was fraudulent and irregular? If the Government are misguided enough to believe that they can get the Bill through Parliament which provides for increased expenditure under the new own-resources decision made at Edinburgh, there will be a further burden per annum on the British taxpayer, net again, of some £200 million a year. What does the noble Lord propose to do about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I propose to continue appearing at the Dispatch Box answering Questions that noble Lords will continue to put down. I do not think that I can repeat this enough. This country has been very much at the forefront of the fight against fraud. We accept that there has been fraud. However, we shall continue to fight against fraud. We consider that there are considerable benefits to be gained from the money that we have expended on membership of the Community. I acknowledge that the noble Lord does not
1570
accept that. However, I believe that virtually everyone else agrees that it would be unthinkable that we should withdraw from the Community. As I have said, there have been and are now considerable benefits from staying in.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the great majority of British businesses, large and small, believe that they would be much worse off if we were not in the Common Market? They believe that they would make lower profits and employ fewer people. Might that not put the British taxpayer under even greater strain?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a perfectly valid point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, listens to it. Obviously the well-being of British industry and the jobs dependent on it are not of concern to the noble Lord.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in their attempts to curb the growth of the Community budget, will the Government adopt the proposal advanced yesterday evening by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in his customarily modest way, to campaign at the European elections for the abolition of the common agricultural policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not speculate as to what will or will not be in our manifesto for the European elections.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that we obtain a great deal of benefit from the EC. I challenge him to mention one benefit that we could not receive if we were outside the EC. With regard to his noble friend's question, is the Minister aware that our overall deficit of £100,000 million in trade with the EC since we joined represents a loss rather than a gain in jobs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, over 60 per cent. of our trade is with the EC. We now receive something of the order of 40 per cent. of Japanese and 40 per cent. of American inward investment into the EC. All the inward investment which we have received over the years comes about largely because we are members of the EC. It would not have materialised without that. Further, the single market will bring further considerable and untold opportunities to British business and enterprise throughout the Community.

Turkey
2.55 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What subjects were discussed with the Foreign Minister of Turkey by the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Ankara.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed regional and other issues of joint interest including Turkey's relations with the European Union, the problem of the PKK and human rights.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Foreign Secretary re-emphasise the need for Turkey to comply with her obligations under the CSCE Declaration at Copenhagen in November 1990? In particular, did he express concern about the conditions under which local elections are due to be held on 27th March? I refer to the bombardment of civilian areas which resulted in the displacement of tens of thousands of voters who would thereby be disfranchised and the systematic intimidation and harassment of candidates and activists of the Democracy Party.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on behalf of the European Community, the United Kingdom delivered the statement on freedom of expression and free media which included a reference to Turkey as one of the participating states whose performance gave cause for concern. We certainly remain concerned at allegations of human rights violations by Turkish authorities during the evacuation of villages in the South East, in particular, if, as the noble Lord suggests, this is done to impede the democratic process.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say whether the Foreign Secretary took advantage of the situation to discuss what is happening in Cyprus at present? Did he ask the Foreign Secretary of Turkey what pressure he may be able to exert on his colleagues to bring some solution to the Cyprus problem?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear only the other day when I answered a Question on the subject of Cyprus, my right honourable friend took the opportunity to raise our concerns, as I stated them, on the question of Cyprus.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am glad to hear that human rights were discussed. Will the Government take all opportunities not only of raising the situation of the Kurdish minorities but also of the very small Syriac Orthodox Christian community in the Mardin Province?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there has been widespread international concern about human rights violations in Turkey, in particular, as I have been stressing, those in the South East. I note what my noble friend says. We share those concerns.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the Government make representations to the Turkish Government about the persecution of the editorial staff of the legally published Kurdish language newspaper, Ozgur Gundem? Is he aware that in the past year or two more than 20 of the journalists and editorial staff of that newspaper as well as news boys who distribute the paper, have been killed by unnamed assassins, and that none of them has been brought to justice? Is he aware that a number of editorial staff are still in detention, having been arrested on 10th December? They still await trial.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was not aware of the particular instance to which the noble Lord refers. My right honourable friend spoke in Ankara of our concerns about the free expression of political opinion. I am sure that he would have been aware of the particular anxieties that the noble Lord expressed.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of the Turkish Government's deplorable human rights record, will the Minister tell the House what position the Secretary of State took in his recent discussions with that government on its wish to join the European Union?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Council of Ministers endorsed the Commission's opinion in 1989 which concluded that Turkey's application was premature. It noted that respect for human rights fell below EC standards. Turkish authorities are aware of our legitimate Community interests in its human rights record. The Council will continue to take into account all relevant factors including obviously, as the noble Baroness puts it, Turkey's record on human rights.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the meeting discussed the action of Turkey, in total defiance of its obligations under the Helsinki Treaty, by blockading another neighbouring country, Armenia, also a signatory to that treaty?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware whether that specific subject came up. My right honourable friend discussed regional matters. I therefore imagine that that particular concern was voiced.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary's expressions of concern are most welcome? Will the Minister go further and say whether it is possible that the European Union or the CSCE might be able to send a mission to the South East of Turkey to observe the conditions under which the elections are due to be held on 27th March?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no plans to monitor the municipal elections in March. We would certainly consider any request from the Turkish Government.
As regards non-official monitors, we believe that they should inform the British Embassy in Ankara and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of their movements. The Foreign Office travel advice warns against going to South East Turkey.

Car Theft Prevention
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have appraised recent results since tracking devices were installed in motor vehicles to locate them quickly when stolen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): No, my Lords. Such appraisal will be a matter for the police service.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, I hope that he and his department noted that among other successful recoveries there was one last month when a vehicle was tracked and retrieved and about 20 other stolen vehicles

1573
were found with it in a secret hideaway. Is progress at last in sight against the excess of car crimes which is the cause of constant worry and nuisance to many people in this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in response to my noble friend, I did indeed notice that one of the tracking devices led the police to a veritable Aladdin's cave of stolen vehicles. That is obviously an important aspect of tracking devices and it ought to encourage more people to fit them to their cars.
The Viscountof Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that recently a British product in this technology has been developed and is now on the market? It not only tracks vehicles, but is able, through the vehicle control systems of the tracked car, to limit the car's power output. That is surely bad news for opportunist crooks known as "joyriders".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am aware that there are four systems currently on the market but I was not aware of quite the refinement which the noble Viscount points out to me. Clearly, if by electronic means the power can be removed from the engine of the car, that would have to be bad news for the thief.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, effective as these devices may be for tracking cars, the most important objective is to stop the car being stolen in the first place? Therefore, appraisal of immobilisers is much more important.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in response to my noble friend, I think that the motorist ought to take a number of steps to prevent his or her car being stolen. That includes, dare I say it, making sure that they lock their cars. I believe that immobilisers are one aspect, alarms are another and a further one is undoubtedly the tracking devices, the subject of my noble friend's Question today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, will the Minister agree that, in seeking to prevent motor theft, one of the most effective ways has been shown to be motor projects whereby young people are encouraged to work legally with motors? What action are the Government taking to increase expenditure and activity on motor projects?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord last time we discussed the matter, in 1992–93 the Home Office spent something like £450,000 on projects of that kind. We have commissioned research in order to evaluate the effectiveness of such projects and we look forward to the results of that research.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that some of us are extraordinarily encouraged to find that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is not the only Minister from the Government Front Benches to answer questions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that my noble friend shares that sentiment!

The Dependent Territories
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to call attention to the current status of the United Kingdom's dependent territories and plans for their long-term future; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in spite of the fact that a number of our dependent territories have become independent or opted for some other political status over the last few decades, a surprising number remain. The purpose of the debate is to remind ourselves and, we hope, a wider audience, of their continuing existence; to draw attention to some particular issues and to hear from the Government what plans they may have for these tiny territories in the changing world order.
In preparing what I should say in the limited time today, it occurred to me that a study of the dependent territories could well form an entire subject of the national curriculum in our schools, since one has to focus on geography, history, social needs, cultural and religious diversity, trade and economic development and constitutional law in order to comprehend all the issues.
We currently remain responsible for the peoples of some 13 or 15—depending on how we count them—dependencies, ranging from big bustling up-front Hong Kong through to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, to Bermuda and the five Caribbean dependencies, to St. Helena and the Pitcairn Islands with its population of 58 people. In addition, we have the uninhabited British Antarctic territory and British Indian Ocean territory.
Common factors are that they are virtually all island communities, English-speaking and essentially they have the same legal systems and democratic processes. However, from then on their needs and aspirations are diverse. There can be no blanket answer, I realise, to all their needs, but there are points of similarity and common interest between them.
I know that other speakers in this debate intend to talk in depth about individual territories, with the possible exception of Hong Kong. That is in part because we already know the Government's plans for that territory, but also because it has been well debated in the past and I understand that there is due to be another major debate about Hong Kong shortly. But even St. Helena and its associated territories were by coincidence the subject of an Unstarred Question only last week. I know, too, that my noble friend Lady Young very much regrets that she cannot be here to speak about the Caribbean dependencies today, some of which she visited very recently. I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Waddington will be listening carefully over there in Bermuda to what we have to say today about that dependency.
There are general questions which arise and which will, 1 feel sure, be developed and illustrated by others

1575
in the course of the debate. But given the rapidly changing world scene—and yesterday's statement by the President of Argentina is evidence of that—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us some answers and reassurance, for example, as regards the economic development and investment needs of the territories. Are the Government satisfied, for example, that funding of projects in less viable economies, such as that of Montserrat, is adequate and properly applied? The Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands have buoyant economies built on financial services, but that is certainly not the case in all dependencies where financial aid and support are required.
What about the enforcement of law and order? Again, the Caribbean has particular difficulties in dealing with drugs cartels since they lie on the major drug routes from Latin America. Given the review of the Caribbean independent territories initiated by Foreign Office Ministers in late 1991, what developments have taken place to promote a closer working relationship between the elected governments of the territories and between them and HMG? What is the relationship between the dependent territories and the European Community? We all know that France solves the problem by making its overseas territories part of metropolitan France. But apart from Gibraltar, which is part of the European Community, do our independent territories have any preferential status vis-à-vis the European Community?
Conversely, what would be the Government's attitude to a dependent territory linking into a regional association in another part of the world—a West Indian federation, for example, or the groupings of the Pacific rim countries? Furthermore, are any changes envisaged relating to employment rights, to nationality issues, to residents' rights? Those are all questions that arise in the dependent territories themselves.
Finally, how do the United Kingdom Government take into account the needs of the dependent territories in relation to global environment issues and establishing educational links? I was interested, in that respect, to learn that there is a special dependent territories input to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge.
From those general questions, I wish to turn specifically to Gibraltar. Indeed, it was my interest in Gibraltar which prompted me to table this Motion and inaugurate today's wider debate. Each of the dependent territories is special in its own way. Gibraltar is special because it is the only one of our dependencies which is situated in Europe. It is special also because mere mention of the Rock of Gibraltar evokes memories of safe harbour and refuge for so many sailors, soldiers and individuals who had wartime and service experience there. It is also a place in the sun for holiday-makers, whether they descend on main street shops from their cruise liners or see it as a holiday centre in itself. Increasingly, it is fighting for recognition as a centre for financial services. Furthermore, like the people of the Falkland Islands, the people of Gibraltar have entitlement to British citizenship.
1576
It is a well-known historical fact that we became responsible for Gibraltar following the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. That makes 281 years of allegiance. In the old days Gibraltar's strategic significance was all important. Nowadays, however, there are many issues which affect Gibraltar and its relationship with the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.
The case for Gibraltar was very eloquently made by the chief Minister, Joe Bassano, at the recent dependent territories conference which was held in London and co-hosted by Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. I recommend to anyone who wishes to delve further and wider the synopsis of Mr. Bassano's spontaneous speech on that occasion.
I shall now focus particularly on European Community issues, since my involvement and interest in Gibraltar stem in part from the fact that after I was elected to the European Parliament in the first direct elections held in 1979 I was one of the six British MEPs (three Conservative and three Labour) to be asked by the Gibraltar Government to look to Gibraltar's interests.
Gibraltarians, although themselves members of the European Community, could not vote in those direct elections—and they still cannot vote in European parliamentary elections in spite of further rights which have now been conferred on British non-residents enabling them to vote from abroad. I know that were my noble friend Lord Bethell here, he would reiterate this point.
To give some of the background, Gibraltar entered the European Community on 1st January 1973, at the time of the United Kingdom's accession. There is specific reference in the Treaty of Accession. It is the only European territory for whose external relations a member state is responsible under Article 227(4) of the European Communities Treaty. Article 28 of the Act of Accession provides that there shall be certain exceptions from Community measures with respect to Gibraltar. For example, because of Gibraltar's size and territory, the common agricultural policy does not apply; neither does the common Community tariff system. But subject to those explicit exceptions, all legislation adopted by the Community since 1973 has been applicable to Gibraltar. All the treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, services and persons therefore apply fully. The fourth freedom on movement of goods is restricted by Gibraltar's position outside the customs territory, although in effect that is mitigated by the application of the generalised system of preferences.
Under the 1969 Gibraltar constitution, the United Kingdom Government have responsibility for Gibraltar's defence, internal security and external affairs, while the Gibraltar Government have, both by definition and convention, responsibility for all domestic matters. Because of that constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom the application of Community law in Gibraltar is legislated by Gibraltar's parliament, the House of Assembly. Between 1973 and 1985 Gibraltar's position within the European Community was not questioned. That changed with the advent of the single market and the accession of Spain. As the United Kingdom has become more integrated within the European Community, the constitutional

1577
relationship between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar has been distorted. Community measures increasingly impinge on domestic matters which have normally been the exclusive competence of the Gibraltar Government but are now entering the domain of the United Kingdom Government as the member state ultimately responsible for Gibraltar's compliance with EC obligations. The distortion is unfortunately compounded by the line taken by Spain against Gibraltar whenever new Community measures are produced or proposed. In addition, there are problems over banking and financial services in the single market and similar difficulties over insurance. In 1989 a major insurance company established itself and was licensed in Gibraltar to sell its products into Spain. Spain blocked that on the basis that the licence had been issued by an authority in Gibraltar and it was therefore not a competent authority of the member state, the United Kingdom. More recently, a major Spanish insurance company was not allowed to undertake business from Spain into Gibraltar because the Spanish authorities considered that there is no competent authority in Gibraltar and that the relevant supervisory authority is the DTI in the United Kingdom.
In all these matters the relationship with Spain is all important. Clearly, during the period of Franco's undemocratic leadership of Spain there could be no question of the British Government making concessions. It must be said that Franco used the Gibraltar issue literally as a red rag to a bull, as a distraction whenever home affairs were going through a difficult phase. Many of my Spanish friends admit that Franco made a mistake when he closed the frontier; it led to a hardening of attitudes on both sides as well as a separation of interests which could otherwise have naturally grown together. But we cannot ignore history and its consequences—although I would point out that many Spanish people do not agree with the Spanish Government's approach either; particularly the Catalans who, incidentally, also see aspects of their different identity as being safeguarded by the Treaty of Utrecht. The question is therefore: do the British Government intend to leave things to drift, or will they commit themselves to unblocking this futile impasse? No one wants to rock the boat so far as relationships with one of our European partners is concerned, but when the boat is being rocked in so one-sided a fashion what is needed is not a soothing lullaby but a firm hand.
I should like to make one further point. Since 1988 Gibraltar has invested heavily, without any development aid from the United Kingdom, in diversifying its economy to create a new base largely aimed at the development of an international finance centre. That strategy was geared to offsetting the impact of continuing defence cuts. The Ministry of Defence now accounts for around 10 per cent. of GDP in Gibraltar, compared to around 75 per cent. in the late 1970s. Only a week or so ago news was leaked of further cuts which, if confirmed, will have a disastrous impact, with the loss over three years of over 1,000 civilian jobs in an economy where employment levels total 13,000 jobs and are falling. In addition to Spanish pressure, Her Majesty's Government are perceived to be preventing Gibraltar from developing its new markets. On banking
1578
and financial services Gibraltar is excluded, unlike the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and even Liechtenstein, from having its credit institutions passporting into the United Kingdom.
There are therefore concrete examples of where United Kingdom policy impinges to the very great disadvantage of the people of Gibraltar. Although my enthusiasm for the theme outstrips the time available, I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend the Minister some concrete responses to those issues. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for giving us this opportunity to discuss the dependent territories. I shall concentrate on the Caribbean because that is the part of the world that I know best. I feel that I know something about what is going on there and have ideas for dealing with it.
We ought to be encouraging the Caribbean territories to be part of the Caribbean community. There is in existence already a Caribbean community. Admittedly, it is not very effective but it shows a movement in the right direction. The Caribbean is a difficult area. There are many colonies but also many small, independent states. For example, I believe that Bermuda is better equipped to be an independent state than is my native Grenada. But my native Grenada has been an independent state for 20 years. That area can only be safe—I use the word "safe" advisedly—if it is united economically and politically.
This country has governed most of those territories as colonies. It should be using some of the influence that it must still have to encourage a union of those territories. One of the levers that this country could use is the fact that those dependent territories need a home. We should be helping to provide such a home.
A dependent territory has more or less internal self-government but Britain is responsible for its foreign policy, defence and judicial system and has some control of its finances. All those things can be provided effectively in a union. If those states are part of a united Caribbean, then that united Caribbean can provide an effective foreign policy for the area. I cannot say that it would provide an effective defence. Even now the defence of many so-called independent countries depends on support from this country and the United States. So the defence requirement will still be the same.
There has been a long-standing proposal—one hopes that one day it will come to fruition—for a Caribbean court of justice which should become the Caribbean Court of Appeal dealing with issues concerning the territories and their relationships with each other. That would provide the judicial requirement for the dependent territories. An overall influence should enable the financial services to be properly controlled. Therefore the services that are now provided by Britain sending a governor to those territories can be provided more effectively through those territories being a part of the bigger union.
I can hear noble Lords who know something about the Caribbean asking me, "What union?" I accept that

1579
that is a nice question. I left Grenada in 1933 to study medicine in Edinburgh. When I left Grenada, I was quite certain that there would soon be a federated West Indies because at that time there was a conference taking place in Roseau, Dominica to consider closer union of the islands. That was 60 years ago and we still do not have that closer union.
There is much worse. In 1992 I attended a conference in Grenada which tried to form a new Windward Islands Union. What is strange is that when I left Grenada in 1933 there was a Windward Islands Government. There was a governor in Grenada and all the other islands had administrators. So 60 years ago the Windward Islands was one government and today they are finding it difficult to become a government. So I accept any kind of criticism levelled along those lines.
However, I should like to point out that real efforts are being made to create a union. As noble Lords will know, the area was federated between 1958 and 1962. Then the federation broke up. It has never been able to get a proper union going since. But there is the Caribbean community. Recently, a commission chaired by Sir Shridath Ramphal, who is a former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, went into the question of increasing the integration of those territories. The commission made recommendations, some of which would be quite useful for our purpose because what I have just said about those small dependent territories forming part of a bigger union fits into them.
For example, the commission recommended that there should be a Caribbean Assembly and that in that assembly there should be members from the dependent territories. It even suggests that there may be members from the French and Dutch territories. That is not so peculiar. When I was a young man and we spoke about federation, the federal state that we envisaged always included Martinique and Guadeloupe. At that time they were all colonies, so it did not matter. Now Martinique and Guadeloupe are departments of France, which must make it much more difficult. So if there is to be any kind of deepening relationship between Martinique and Guadeloupe and the other states, there has to be a lot of negotiation at international level.
I merely brought that example in to illustrate the extent of current thinking. What is now recognised by all the thinkers in the Caribbean is that the Caribbean needs economic and political union in order to survive. As a result of the free trade area negotiated between Canada, the United States and Mexico, there is right above the Caribbean a big area which, as usual, will be supportive of the central American and southern American states. The little states in the Caribbean can easily be ignored and find themselves in difficulties. For example, the noble Baroness did not mention the problem of the area in its relationship with drug trafficking and crime.
Unless there is real union, a government which can deal with the problems of the area as a whole, that area may prove to be a problem to the world. Therefore in my contribution to the debate I ask the United Kingdom Government to concentrate their activities on helping the integration process; in other words, to support the
1580
territories in the area to enable them to form one political and economic union. I ask the Government to use their lever of having dependent territories in the area for that purpose.
My view is that can be done. Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean. Nearly every year the Canadian Prime Minister attends conferences to meet the Caribbean Prime Ministers. A conference is usually held with representatives from all the states plus representatives from the United States. We do not hold similar get-togethers in Britain. That is where we are falling down. The UK Government ought to be regularly co-operating with the territories in that area and in so doing provide a home for their dependent territories.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that we must be grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for making this debate possible and for introducing it with such a wide ranging but sensitive, well-informed speech. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who speaks with special knowledge of a part of the world that I love very much.
Our dependencies can be found in every quarter of the globe. They vary greatly in size, population and resources. It is interesting to note that they are all democratically governed and generally value their membership of the Commonwealth, and in particular the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. By now independence has been obtained by the larger dependencies, and those that remain continue to need aid of one kind or another. As president of the Falkland Islands Association, I wish to address myself to the problems and prospects of a relatively small and vulnerable but distinctly British territory in the South Atlantic and one which we all now know has considerable potential.
Certain facts in regard to the Falklands must be recognised from the start. The islanders are British almost to a man and have never had any desire to be anything else. They have been British for a long time. We live in an uncertain world; but we need never doubt that the Falkland Islanders want to be anything but British. However, there is now a new element in the situation. They have the prospect of significant development of resources in their territorial waters—immensely rich fisheries and significant oil resources.
I rely on what I read in the newspapers, of course, but I understand that the oil resources in the Falkland waters are believed to be 50 per cent. larger than those discovered in the North Sea. At the end of last year the British Geological Survey felt able to state that the 200-mile exploration zone around the islands has "enormous oil potentialities". The area surveyed is 50 per cent. larger than the British sector in the North Sea. We can therefore look forward to highly promising development some years ahead.
This then is the time to reflect on what that will mean for the islands and their people. It is not too early to start reflecting on that aspect of the matter because development requires people—managers, skilled workers—and special skills. It is plainly time to start considering—now, not at some vague date in the future

1581
—how we can encourage the building up of the islands' small population. It is encouraging that Argentina, the islands' nearest neighbour, possesses similar substantial resources in its own waters. Therefore the scene is set, if common sense prevails—another word for statesmanship—for co-operation; not rivalry and the continuance of the threats of the past.
Last week we debated the dependent territory of St. Helena and its associated island, Ascension. I hope the Government took the message that some of us who, for a long time, have taken an interest in the Atlantic dependencies, are highly critical of the restraints on immigration to this country of the loyal, hardworking St. Helenians. The first St. Helenians were refugees from the Great Fire of London. The population only developed from the latter part of the 17th century. Wherever those people go to work in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, importance is attached to the high quality of their work; for example, by our American friends. Here also in this country they have a good reputation.
It is not too early to see what role the St. Helenians might play in building up the workforce in the Falklands. As economic activity quickens in the Falklands, as undoubtedly it will, they will need reliable workers. Because of their British connections they should look for some of them in St. Helena—to a people who are proud to call themselves British.
My message to this House is that we in this country should cease to think of the dependent territories as a problem, or even an irritation. We should see them wherever possible—it is certainly possible in the cases I mentioned—as an asset in developing new resources not merely for themselves and this country but for the whole world. I respectfully suggest that the Government should set up an expert inquiry into the possibility of developing the undoubted resources of the Falklands, and to see what can be done to develop the manpower resources of St. Helena and possibly some of the smaller islands in the West Indies.
The presence of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, reminds me of the great worth of the Caribbean peoples and the opportunity may well exist for some of them to take part in the massive developments that I foresee in the Falklands. We must not neglect the opportunity which the development in the Falklands will make possible in the relatively near future.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is conventional in your Lordships' House to say how grateful one is to the noble Lord—the noble Baroness in this case—who initiates a debate. But I think that there are very special reasons for saying that this afternoon. It is extremely important from two separate points of view that your Lordships' House should concern itself with the future and with the well-being of these territories. First, it is very easy in the controversy of English politics to forget the interests and concerns of these, in many cases quite small, territories for which we are ultimately responsible and which look to us for guidance and for help. At the same time, if we do not show an interest in them and in their future, it increases the risk, to which
1582
one or two of them are exposed, of aggression from those who would seek to take them over, if necessary by force. I shall mention two such places in a moment. Therefore, I think that your Lordships' House is doing a very good public service by debating the future of these territories this afternoon.
It is impossible in the course of a short speech in a short debate to cover the very wide variety of territories involved, but I hope that the fact that your Lordships think it right to devote time and energy to discussing the future of dependent territories generally will be observed outside, will be observed in the territories concerned and will also be observed in the case of those countries—and there are some—who have designs upon them.
For my part, I want to take two cases only. The Falklands have been so well dealt with by my noble friend Lord Braine. Perhaps I may say how nice it was, having heard him speak for years in the House of Commons, to hear him make that delightful speech here this afternoon. I am sure that we all greatly enjoyed it. I should like to add just a little in respect of the Falklands. They are, as my noble friend said, geographically very vulnerable, at the far end of the world. The fact that they are today a British territory is of course due, among other things, to the courage and determination of our former Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who took very considerable risks and faced very considerable dangers and difficulties in using very proper military force to repel Argentine aggression.
One must remember, when we are discussing the 12 years of the Thatcher regime, that very conspicuous act of courage. Not everyone would have had the courage to face a military conflict at the far end of the world with another country closely located at the scene of the activities. It was a remarkable achievement, not only for the Prime Minister and the Government, but for the Armed Forces of the Crown, that we were able, at the cost of some lives, to subdue the Argentine aggression. I should like to hear from my noble friend the Minister what now are the relations with the Argentine over this matter.
Recently there have certainly been one or two speeches in that country which have not looked altogether friendly and which have not altogether created the impression that the Argentine has abandoned its ambitions. Yet if the Falklands are really to develop —my noble friend Lord Braine suggested that they have enormous possibilities of development—it must be made plain to all concerned, including those who are being asked to invest in them, that if necessary we shall protect again these islands from aggression and that their British character is one which the British people and British Government are pledged to preserve and will preserve whatever events may happen.
I know that in these diplomatic matters Ministers have to exercise delicate diplomacy and I know that in this case my noble friend the Minister will always do that. But it is a fact that if the islands are to be developed, if their very great resources of oil and fish are to be developed and if we are to attract the massive investment that is needed, it must be made absolutely

1583
clear that the whole strength, power and force of this country are behind them and that we are determined to preserve their British character.
The only other territory that I should like to say a word about is Gibraltar. I have, as it were, an old family connection there. Your Lordships may not be too bored to know that I had a forebear who was Lieutenant-Governor during the great four-year siege and who later succeeded as Governor of Gibraltar. In those happy days when no ages of retirement were imposed he continued as governor until a very mature age. He died there and is buried there. I have seen his grave. Therefore, I have an old family connection with the Rock and indeed with the defence of the Rock.
We discovered as recently as the last war how important that defence could be. Gibraltar and its naval establishment and defences were of crucial importance to our access to the Mediterranean during that time. I myself recall how, when we were going through the Straits in a troop ship, we were trailed out from the Spanish coast by a German reconnaissance boat which had been accommodated, thanks to Spanish friendship with Germany, and which tried to trace us. There was a certain feeling of security when we came within the reach of the cover of the guns of the Fortress of Gibraltar. The convoy, though it was later attacked, passed through the Straits effectively. Gibraltar therefore has great military significance. Even though, perhaps regrettably, the dockyard has been closed, Gibraltar is still part of our defence system and is in a crucially important position.
The Gibraltarians are firmly pro-British. They are an admirable set of people. I should again like to hear from my noble friend the Minister what are the relations in this connection with Spain. It is, I believe, the fact that the Spanish Government, for no very obvious or respectable reason, have refused to allow what used to be the very useful ferry service between Gibraltar and Algeciras to operate. I do not know whether that was due to antagonism to Gibraltar or simply economic obscurantism. But I should be glad to hear from my noble friend whether this ban has now been raised and whether it will now be possible to take the boat between Algeciras and Gibraltar. It seems a great pity that Gibraltar should be deprived of this facility and indeed that Algeciras should be so deprived, since one of the pleasanter holidays in the delightful climate of those parts is perhaps to stay at Algeciras and go over on the boat regularly to Gibraltar.
Gibraltar has a tremendous historic tradition. Government House—the Convent—is a splendid historic house. Gibraltar has had the good fortune to have a series of excellent governors, many of them soldiers of great distinction, who have governed extremely well and who have helped the Gibraltar Government with the many tasks that face them.
I understand that there are still complications as regards relations with Europe. Some of them seem to me to be unnecessarily created, perhaps as a by-product of Spanish ambitions. But here again, I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would bring us up to date on Spanish relations with Gibraltar and in particular in
1584
connection with the very important Gibraltar airport. As my noble friend the Minister knows only too well, great difficulty arose over the opening of the airport as regards relations with the Spanish authorities. I shall be glad to know whether these have now been cleared up.
I have dealt with only two of our dependent territories because that is all that is possible within the time limit. I am sure that it is extremely useful that this House should discuss in detail the problems, dangers, difficulties and tremendous opportunities of the British dependent territories.
3.51 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, when my noble friend Lady Hooper told me that she was going to introduce this debate today, which I know we all consider to be a great service, I found myself being informed by my noble friend Lord Ironside at almost precisely the same moment that I had been selected as part of a team of your Lordships to go down to the Falklands next month to talk to the military personnel and the islanders.
I suppose that as a lover of wild places I have always wanted to go to the Falkland Islands. It is a desire which goes back long before the South Atlantic conflict. It has been slightly heightened by the fact that in the past couple of years I have come to know Argentina a little.
I appreciate that the Falklanders suffered a very unpleasant experience some 12 years ago. Their peaceful little island was the subject of unprovoked aggression and an unpleasant little war in which a large number of British servicemen lost their lives in order to restore the position. As my noble friend Lord Braine said, the Falklanders are British through and through.
But I feel that the time has come when realism says that there has to be more contact with Argentina. Argentina today is a very different country under Dr. Carlos Menem, with very different preoccupations and interests, compared with the Argentina that existed under Galtieri and the Junta. Argentine democracy shows every prospect of being reasonably firmly rooted and, as between Britain and Argentina, the vexed question of sovereignty of the Falklands has been put on one side, it would seem, by mutual consent notwithstanding the remarks which one speaker made earlier.
Ties between Britain and Argentina have warmed to such a degree that in Autumn 1992 the Union flag appeared "undefaced" all over Buenos Aires, advertising British Week. I myself had the privilege of standing on a platform with the British ambassador and Dr. Menem to open British Week. I do not suppose anybody will be opening Argentina Week in Port Stanley in the near future, but I believe it is important that relations should be normalised as much as possible.
My noble friend Lord Braine touched on the oil prospects of the Falklands. If we are to have a major oil province one-and-a-half times the size of the North Sea, it is completely impractical to consider that that can be developed using the islands as the only base, shipping in labour from this country, St. Helena or wherever. The environmental damage would be absolutely appalling.

1585
After the development of an oil province, the Falklands would resemble some kind of ghastly construction yard if we were not careful.
At the same time it appears as though Argentina will also have a major oil province near the median line. So it will be ridiculous to duplicate all the facilities. I have no doubt that there will be some facilities which will be better handled in the Falklands and some better handled on the mainland. There must be an effective opening of the frontier for legal reasons as well, if the oil province is to happen.
When I go down there I have no desire to say to the Falklanders that they should be friends with Argentina against their will, but I believe that simple logic says that they will have to talk more to the Argentinians and at least normalise relations to the extent of normal commercial relationships which exist between any two adjacent, or almost adjacent, states.
I hope that the Government will also be encouraging the islanders to think along these lines. I very much look forward to the Government's response. I look forward next month to talking to the islanders, their leaders and the military personnel who guarantee their security.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for her initiative in tabling this Motion and also for very kindly arranging for some of us to receive briefing papers in this matter.
The populated countries which are still formally dependent on the United Kingdom can be counted on our fingers and toes. As I said when I asked an Unstarred Question on St. Helena last week, and which has already been referred to, we can no longer treat them just as a class. It is convenient to have a subject for debate framed in this way, but when it comes to discussion and, above all, to the answers that the Government will give, every case has to be treated separately. It has been one of the encouraging factors about this debate so far that we have had treatment in depth of some of the particular problems.
Very crudely speaking, the attitude of the party on these Benches is that the UK should act like good parents with grown up children. The children should be encouraged to set up in jobs and flats of their own, and the right to make up their own minds as to what they do does not, for their own sake and that of their parents, include the right to stay at home indefinitely except in special circumstances.
Hong Kong is in a case of its own which we are rightly constantly considering. The only thing I say here is that the tragedy of Hong Kong is not that we are abandoning it but that we are abandoning it to a totalitarian state. Here I underline what previous speakers have said about the democratic nature of the dependent territories.
The implication of the model of parents and grown children is that we encourage independence where it is viable; and I believe that it is going to be viable for smaller and smaller countries in future, just as today we are seeing independence working in countries which, 30 years ago, were regarded as too small to be viable.
1586
Where independence is rejected we encourage marriage or possibly even settlement in a commune, with partners a great deal nearer to them than is the UK. That last pattern would be the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred in his very interesting speech.
The dependent territories are, I repeat, all special cases —every single one of them. But the Falkland Islands is extra special. Suffice it for me to say that many of us who supported our Government in the recent war did so because we thought it important to resist international piracy by dictators and not because we thought that the Falklands should continue to belong to Britain indefinitely. I believe it is quite clear that the future of the Falklands eventually (I underline "eventually") and particularly today, is either in some kind of liaison with a democratic and law-abiding Argentina—here I was very interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, had to say about the future oil province—or independence with appropriate defence provisions.
Gibraltar is now incorporated in the European Union. Many of us who believe in the growing importance of that institution look forward to the day when any dispute between us and Spain is settled in that arena, although I admit that I was a little depressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said on that particular subject. Similarly, as some of us have been saying for some time, it is possible that we may be able to find in that framework of Europe an eventual solution to the problem of Northern Ireland.
We dealt with St. Helena fully last week and I should like to thank those of your Lordships who took part in that debate and the Government for their reply. St. Helena and its dependencies are possibly the special cases which we must continue to look after for a considerable while, for reasons that I outlined last week, bearing in mind that as we manage to make arrangements for the other territories the case for giving the inhabitants of St. Helena full British citizenship (which should never have been taken away from them) increases.
That leaves us, more or less, with the Caribbean territories. In a neat and tidy world, we should still be striving, in spite of all setbacks, for a confederation. I was heartened by what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said on that matter and I hope that headway can be made. But we do not live in a neat and tidy world —the noble Lord has already pointed out the problems caused by the fact that two of the Caribbean islands are now departements of France—and the solutions may be messy. Nevertheless, that is the area in which we should press further.
In dealing with those separate problems (and I repeat that they are all separate and distinct), we must work within a framework of support and encouragement of democracy—how deeply we must regret not having embarked on a democratic programme in Hong Kong 30 years ago—and of self-determination within limits; the limits being that any possible partner, such as the United Kingdom, also has its own rights of self-determination.
Penultimately, I cannot close without paying tribute to the governors and expatriate administrators of the territories. I am not one who denigrates our empire.

1587
Although we often acquired and administered it in the belief that it enriched us (which in the short term it did, although the economic chickens are now coming home to roost) we brought some vital gifts in the shape of good, uncorrupt and selfless administration to a large part of the world. The present governors and administrators of the dependent territories are worthy heirs to that tradition. Like many parents, as we nudge our fledglings out of the nest we can do so in the knowledge that at least we gave them a good upbringing.
Finally, it would be good—and I think necessary if we are to do our duty by these many thousands of people for whom we are responsible—if we were to have a similar debate every year. I think that we, the authorities of the House and the Government should consider such a commitment. It cannot be right that we have to depend entirely on fortune and on the individual admirable initiatives of those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to make it certain that we consider the fate of these people for whom we are ultimately responsible. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this important but often neglected subject. There are many different dependent territories and they are in many different stages of economic development. We can cover only a few of them today. I hope to visit the Falklands next month and shall reserve judgment on that area until I have been there.
I intervene briefly to refer specifically to Bermuda which, as we all know, is an island not in the Caribbean but stuck out in the middle of the Atlantic. It is now governed by my noble friend Lord Waddington who I believe is not only having an enjoyable time there but is extremely popular and successful. I have been very lucky to have visited Bermuda many times. It is a lovely island. It is peaceful; almost sleepy at times. It is slightly old fashioned. There is no unemployment. It is very British in many ways: they drive on the left.
However, Bermuda has very superior financial institutions and traditions, which is evidenced by a large reinsurance market. I believe that 3 billion American dollars have gone into Bermuda's reinsurance market since June 1993. Bermuda has the second oldest Parliament in the Commonwealth. I did not know that until I started to look into this subject. Most of Bermuda's income comes from tourism and offshore company businesses, both of which are thriving. Its main trading partner is the United States, which also provides about 63 per cent. of the tourists. However, British influence is very strong and there is good co-operation between Bermuda and this country. Bermuda has flourished over many years to become a very successful island. In fact, its per capita income is in the world's top 10 at about £15,500 per year. Relations with the United Kingdom are excellent, with high level visits both ways over recent years.
However, two problems face Bermuda today, and they are the principal reasons why I wish to concentrate
1588
on the island. The first problem relates to potential independence. Bermuda is quite capable of becoming independent. On 4th February this year the issue was discussed in the Parliament in Bermuda. Since that date the Premier, Sir John Swan, has announced his intention to produce a Bill for a referendum on the subject of independence, which I understand will be debated in nine days' time on 18th February. The Bill will have to go through both Houses of Parliament there. It is also proposed to set up a commission of inquiry to look into all the issues surrounding the possibility of independence. I know that Her Majesty's Government will be neutral in this, but I hope that they will ensure that all the advantages of remaining alongside the United Kingdom will be spelled out in detail. This is a very important problem to solve.
The second problem is that the naval bases on the island are going to close. Bermuda's civil airport is a United States military facility, operated by the United States Navy. The Americans have maintained bases in Bermuda since 1941 on a 99-year lease. In 1989, the US naval air station contributed 88 million dollars to the economy and provides air traffic control, emergency services, airfield maintenance, meteorological services and all the things that go with running an airfield. It also has responsibility for search and rescue at sea. Last year the Americans said that they would withdraw their naval station and all their forces from Bermuda by the end of 1995. Canada closed its base in May 1993 and it was decided that the United Kingdom's naval base is also of no further strategic significance.
As noble Lords will appreciate, that will put some strain on the economy of Bermuda. In the short term, it will cause some unemployment and costs for operating the civil airport and doing all the jobs that the naval bases have been doing over the years. No doubt the United Kingdom and the United States will assist greatly in the transition, but initially it will be difficult for Bermuda. On the other hand, Bermuda is a small island and land is in short supply. The release of the bases will undoubtedly release some land, which could be beneficial to the island.
I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Cranborne can assure the House that as far as Bermuda is concerned Her Majesty's Government will pay very close attention to helping the government there to overcome these two problems, particularly by providing the very best help and advice, and that they will assist Bermuda to continue on its successful road to increased profitability and continued tranquillity, whether or not it decides to go independent.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, while being grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper, I should like to refer to Gibraltar, a metropolitan power and the only British dependent territory within the European Union. It is "a particular case", to quote the Foreign Secretary's recent words in respect of self-determination.
On this same issue, my noble friend Lady Chalker said on 18th October and 1st December that Her Majesty's Government took into account the Treaty of Utrecht and particularly the rights and responsibilities in

1589
Chapter XI of the UN Charter. Article 73 recognises that the interests of the inhabitants of such territories are paramount and that "due account" shall be taken of the political aspirations of the peoples. So would my noble friend agree that the United Nations Charter, with its rights and responsibilities, should take precedence over the Treaty of Utrecht?
I turn to the problem of Spain, which presently does not recognise the laws and competence of Gibraltar, and I refer to the Financial Services Act 1986, in particular to Section 208. Gibraltar is specified as though it were a separate member state. On Monday 31st January my noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned "primary legislation" in relation to banking. Am I therefore correct in saying, as I have been advised, that if subsection (2) of the section is incorporated into the Banking Act 1987 Gibraltar's licensed banks will be able to passport into the United Kingdom and the 11 other member states? If that is correct, can this process be expedited?
On that same Monday my noble friend Lady Chalker said:
"We are seeking to ensure that there is proper regulation of financial services in Gibraltar".—[Official Report, 31/1/94; col. 1110.1
Will the Minister therefore agree that the supervision from London and in Gibraltar has been considerably tightened since the Barlow-Clowes affair? Bearing that in mind, does the Minister also agree that it is some time since the first commissioner, Bill Penman Brown, was appointed by the governor? Three weeks after Penman Brown's departure, an acting commissioner, Michael Constantine, took over and he still seems to be doing an excellent job.
Recently, on 20th January, under the chairmanship of Sir Joshua Hassan, QC, the General Council of the Bar came out strongly against the delay in appointing a commissioner. Taking into account the Foreign Secretary's words on 24th November, which were:
"We no longer believe in the idea of a colonial office which simply issues instructions",
should not the commissioner be under Gibraltar's control?
I turn from banking to insurance. I understand that since 1989 there have been two cases of Spain's refusal to allow business to be carried out in a neighbouring Community territory. A major insurance company, which was established and licensed in Gibraltar to sell its products in Spain, was blocked by the Spanish Government and a major Spanish insurance company was not allowed to do business with Gibraltar.
I mention Section 31, which deals with authorisation in other member states, and Part II of the Financial Services Act 1986, which deals with insurance business, with a view to seeking information as to whether amendment of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, in line with an amendment to the Banking Act 1987, will rectify the present situation brought about by Spain's attitude towards the laws of Gibraltar while recognising the UK's laws and competence.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all not only conventionally grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for raising this interesting question of the British dependent territories, but also grateful to her for her excellent and comprehensive speech. Miss Sukey Cameron, the Falkland Islands' representative, has asked me to speak about the Falklands. I do so rather reluctantly, in view of the splendid, amusing and comprehensive speeches of my noble friends Lord Braine and Lord Boyd-Carpenter and other noble Lords. As your Lordships will be well aware, I shall speak only briefly.
To some extent I have connections with the Falklands in that my son served in the campaign there, which was so gallantly fought by all our forces. Furthermore, I was lucky enough to visit the islands four years ago with the All-Party Parliamentary Defence Group.
Before the Falklands War the main income of the islanders came from wool from the islands' sheep. It is very good wool, too—my husband has a pair of socks knitted from it. However, with the 200-mile exclusion zone a new source of income arose from granting fishing licences. When I was in Port Stanley four years ago I saw the splendid new hospital which had been built from some of this income. It not only treated patients from the 2,000 Falkland Islanders, but also foreign seamen from the fishing fleets. I noticed an injured Chinese when I was there. I also saw the hydroponic farm where in a vast greenhouse lettuces, tomatoes and cucumbers were grown. For us, buying fresh vegetables like that is only a walk to the corner shop. If almost every item of food has to be flown in by a Tristar, fresh lettuces are not such a priority and are therefore much appreciated.
Since then, the new secondary school has been built and the new swimming pool. Roads are being improved. These are all projects done by the Falkland Islanders themselves from their own income. We have constructed the massive new airport at Mount Pleasant, with all its hangars and other facilities, where upland geese stalk importantly past the windows.
Now there is the exciting possibility that oil may be harvested. This would of course be of great financial benefit to the islanders, but they are concerned that they should have as much control over the operations as possible with special reference to the environmental concerns. Their islands are no bigger than the Principality of Wales, their population is far less, but they are just as British. I remember sitting in the council chamber at Port Stanley and looking out of the window at the Union Jack flying outside while an albatross glided past in the wind. The Falklands, while seeking hands-on control of their own affairs, are very much and very proudly British dependent territories.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating the debate on this very important subject. She rightly alluded to the dependent territories conference which was held in London some weeks ago and which I am glad I attended.

1591
The points of similarity rather than the disparities appealed to me and were mentioned by my noble friend. Some were mentioned and some were not. One of the most striking is that except for the few territories such as Hong Kong and Antarctica, they are all islands. That similarity is very important because it predicates a need for the protecting territory—I prefer the term "protectorate" rather than "dependency", although it too has its disadvantages—to keep up to strength a proper strategic Royal Naval reserve. I shall return to that.
The other point is that the cultural, jurisprudential and linguistic ties are the similarities which are of vital importance. That brings me straight to my noble friend Lord Torrington. I was delighted to learn that he is to visit the Falkland Islands with my noble friend Lord Newall. I assure my noble friend Lord Torrington that if he states what he believes to be the very strong case for the Argentinian view with regard to the future of the Falkland Islands, he will be assured of a very warm welcome there.
The point is that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are the only wishes that are important with regard to their future. That is found in a very important principle, the one important principle that has flowed since the formation of the United Nations after the last war—that is, the principle of self-determination. That is absolutely key. It is not for Her Majesty's Government, still less for the people of the United Kingdom and still less for my noble friend, to suggest to the Falkland Islanders what should be their future. That is why that point, raised by so many noble Lords, is so important. Her Majesty's Government must continue to consult those people—and, God knows!, it is easy enough with small territories —with regard to their future.
For the second time in a fortnight, my fox has been most elegantly shot by my noble friend Lord Braine and other noble Lords. I do not hold that against him at all because it is always a delight to go hunting with him at any time. But he has been a great help to me because I can restrict my remarks to only one or two aspects with regard to the Falkland Islands.
One issue worries me considerably—that is, the recent news that the Government of Argentina have acquired from the United States of America some 36 Skyhawk fighter bombers. I can quite understand that Her Majesty's Government have been unable to deduce the purpose seen by the Argentine Government for acquiring those military weapons. Even if they have not been able to find that out, do the Government have a view as to why Argentina should need those weapons? I should be extremely interested to know also what is the view of Argentina's neighbours with regard to the acquisition of those weapons.
My noble friend Lord Torrington suggested that democracy is reasonably firmly rooted in Argentina. Democracy is a very, very tender plant. It must be rooted for century upon century until it grows into a massive and immovable oak. That must be understood. It is vitally important that we should treat our duties as the protecting power for all our dependent territories
1592
with great responsibility and care. I know that we do. For that reason, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating the debate.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing a debate on the dependent territories. I suspect that most people are unaware of them as a group, although everyone will know something about Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the Falklands. But how many people know anything about Anguilla or Pitcairn or Ascension?
When Churchill was Colonial Secretary, he was asked in a debate in another place,
"if the honourable Member could tell the House where the Virgin Islands are"
Not having a clue, he replied:
"I can assure the House that they are a long way from the Isle of Man".
To generalise about those far flung territories in the Caribbean, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean is difficult. Leaving out Hong Kong, as most noble Lords have done in the debate—in any event it will cease to be dependent territory in three years' time —the one thing which the remaining territories have in common is their very small populations. Indeed, the combined populations of the rest is less than 150,000. With the possible exception of Bermuda, few of them would really be viable as independent countries. Therefore, they are likely to retain their existing status for the foreseeable future. I have no doubt that when the noble Viscount replies he will tell the House whether he sees any likely change in the status of the dependent territories. I hope that he will reply in particular to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Pitt.
Because of the remoteness of some of them and their small size, the per capita costs of maintaining them can be high, although the absolute cost is of course small. Noble Lords will recall that at the time of the Falklands war it was claimed by some commentators that if each inhabitant were to be given £0.5 million and transferred to a Commonwealth country of his or her choice, it would be much cheaper than continuing to maintain the islands as a dependent territory. That is true, but it is not a very practical or desirable proposition in the circumstances.
As well as being directly responsible for their defence and external affairs, in some cases we are also responsible for their policing and their systems of justice. The UK also provides capital aid and technical assistance.
The Labour Party recognises the close historical links between the UK and its dependencies, but believes that relations with them need to develop according to changing circumstances. Meanwhile, we accept that we have a continuing responsibility to them, and believe that the aid programme should promote their sustainable development. Perhaps the Minister could outline the objectives and priorities of our aid programme in the territories and tell the House what the total level of our aid to them is in 1993–94 and what it is expected to be in 1994–95?

1593
I understand that the constitutions of several of the dependent territories have been reviewed over the past 10 years. I believe that the constitution of the British Virgin Islands is currently being reviewed. It is important that the political development of each dependency should be based on democracy and respect for human rights. One aspect of human rights that is of concern to us on these Benches is the continuing use of the death penalty in Bermuda. Can the Minister confirm that in spite of a decision to abolish capital punishment in the dependent territories, it has been retained in Bermuda? If so, can he explain why, what offences are still punishable by death in Bermuda and what plans there are, if any, to abolish the death sentence? I understand that a debate in the Bermuda Parliament on this matter has been pending for some time.
Having made some general points, I should now like to raise some questions concerning individual territories. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and others, I begin with the Falklands. As has already been mentioned, since the change in government in Argentina in 1989, relations have improved and by 1990 all the remaining obstacles to the establishment of normal diplomatic relations have been removed. Equally important, a new security system for the South Atlantic has been established which is now firmly in place. That new framework has allowed the lifting of the Falkland Islands protection zone and has, I am glad to say, taken the tension out of the area. Like the noble Lord, Lord Torrington, we greatly welcome that. We welcome also the improvement in our relations with Argentina and the recent agreements on the conservation of fish stocks. The more intensive system of data exchange with Argentina, monitoring fish populations, and agreements on permits for foreign vessels are also helpful, as is the agreed establishment of a conservation zone where fishing is banned. Perhaps the Minister could comment on projections of fishing revenue, and say how much of the revenues, if any, are received by the UK.
Building on such agreements we hope that talks on the future of the Falklands can take place, without prejudging the outcome, in order to try to find a solution acceptable to both governments, though I recognise that the gap between us on the sovereignty question is still large. I also accept that any such settlement must protect the interests of the Falkland Islanders—as other speakers have already said—and that they should be represented in any such negotiations.
There is still a large garrison of British troops in the Falklands. Can the Minister tell the House what the future plans are for the garrison and whether, in the light of our better relations with Argentina, there are any plans to reduce it? Can he also tell the House what is the current annual cost of maintaining it? The Falkland Islands economy must continue to be developed. The major question on the economic future of the Falklands concerns oil. Surveys round the islands suggest there may be substantial reserves, capable of producing perhaps as many as 500,000 barrels a day. Can the Minister tell the House what plans there are to start
1594
drilling and what the revenue position for the UK would be were there to be substantial oil finds, given the UK's considerable defence expenditure on the Falklands?
I shall now turn to Gibraltar which, again, a number of other noble Lords have already mentioned. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, focused on Gibraltar in her speech. While supporting the 1969 constitution which was drawn up after 96 per cent. of Gibraltarians voted to stay British, the Labour Party favours continuing negotiations with Spain. We therefore support the Brussels agreement which enables the three governments to meet to discuss a range of issues. It was rightly accepted that sovereignty would also be discussed. I regret that the Prime Minister of Gibraltar has not accepted this agreement and that since he came to power he and his government have not participated in any of these meetings. I hope, however, the Minister will be able to confirm that they will continue.
After many years of dispute with Spain over the airport and over ferry services to Algeciras, progress was made with an agreement in 1987 but unfortunately opposition from the Gibraltar Government to implementation of the airport agreement has blocked progress, leading the Spanish Government to retaliate by suspending the ferry service. Can the Minister tell the House what pressures are being brought on the Gibraltar Government to reconsider their position on the airport?
Although I have no particular wish to visit British Antarctica—it is a little too cold for me—a tour of many of our dependent territories would be an enticing prospect. I would particularly like to call on the Pitcairn Islands, which have a population of 58—descendants of the mutineers on the "Bounty". According to an article in the Guardian the islands,
"are kissed by unwavering trade winds and bathed by warm seas of translucent blue. The sunshine gives way every few days to brief periods of dramatic winds and downpours of sweet-smelling rain … Tropical fruits … grow in wild abundance, and are free for the taking".
Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately depending on your perspective—tourism is not on as the Pitcairns are 1400 miles from Tahiti and there is no airstrip. Much of the revenue of the Pitcairns has derived, I understand, from stamp collectors and from selling curios to passing ships. But ships seem to pass less frequently and in the Guardian's words,
"philately is a dying pastime".
Apparently, as a result the islanders are feeling neglected and when the governor last visited—he is otherwise our High Commissioner in Wellington—they presented a petition raising the possibility of transferring their allegiance to France. Can the Minister confirm that story and say what has happened since?
Unlike the Pitcairns, tourism is central to the economies of all the Caribbean dependent territories, with the possible exception of Anguilla. There is, however, a further important and growing source of economic development in the shape of offshore banking. The Cayman Islands are well established as a tax haven and now boast the fifth largest banking business in the world. Offshore finance will soon overtake tourism in the Virgins and in the Turks and

1595
Caicos Islands. While this may contribute to the wealth of these islands, it raises serious questions which I hope the Minister will address in his reply.
There is a desperate need for proper regulatory procedures to cover not just banks but also insurance, trusts and company managers. I hope it will be tackled as a matter of urgency. Can the Minister tell the House what the timetable is for enforcing guidelines for the licensing of offshore banks? Further, there is a serious problem as regards money laundering, particularly in the Caymans. Although standards may now be higher, are they high enough? Further, there is an associated problem surrounding the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking. If they are not resisted, in the medium term powerful drug interests will serve only to destabilise the countries concerned.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is reported to have told a conference on the dependent territories last autumn that Britain seeks an equal partnership with its dependencies through what he called "qualified nationhood". I cannot dispute that. Clearly they must have as much self-government as possible. At the same time, this requires a responsible approach by the local governments, including a willingness to react reasonably to proposals made by their neighbours—for example, for improved communications—in spite of the territorial claims that these neighbours may be making.
The dependent territories themselves must recognise that compared with many rather larger former colonies which are independent, they are in an enviable position. As the world grows smaller some of the remoter islands such as St. Helena or Tristan da Cunha, and even the Pitcairns may be able to follow the Caribbean dependencies into tourism. They will, however, understandably want to protect their special environments from being spoilt by unthinking and unplanned development. We, too, have a responsibility to try to help them achieve that. If we succeed, future generations will be grateful to us.
4.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, like everyone else I have found this debate particularly interesting if only because it strays somewhat outside my usual patrolling range in your Lordships' House. I must say that it makes a most agreeable change—a busman's holiday—from the usual defence matters which I attempt to answer for your Lordships.
I am all too conscious of a difficulty which I believe faces me this afternoon. It is the following. This is a short debate—a two-and-a-half hour debate—and your Lordships have this afternoon raised a great many questions. I must endeavour, with your Lordships' permission, to steer a difficult course as regards attempting to answer all the questions that your Lordships have asked, given that I have a little under an hour, theoretically, in which to do so subject to what my noble friend Lady Hooper would wish, and given the proper strictures which many of your Lordships have already delivered to me saying how disgraceful it is if
1596
anyone speaks for more than a quarter of an hour in your Lordships' House. I will expect the usual grumbles from your Lordships if I stray too much into the realm of detail in my attempts to answer the questions that your Lordships have asked me.
First, I agreed with my noble friends Lady Hooper and Lord Braine when they commented on the broad range of subjects encapsulated in any debate on the dependent territories. To cover the subjects raised one would have to be something of a polymath. However, encouraged by my noble friend Lady Hooper, I shall leave out the subject of Hong Kong, particularly as I understand that the Third Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill will take place in your Lordships' House on 14th February next.
It is a truism to say that Her Majesty's Government maintain considerable interest in the dependent territories. As my noble friend Lady Hooper herself pointed out, that was confirmed by our strong support for the dependent territories conference, which was rather catchily entitled "Progress Through Partnership", held in London last November. I hope that the very title will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in the light of the remarks that he made in the course of his speech. The conference was highly successful. As I am sure your Lordships know, it was organised jointly by the governments of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. It gave publicity to the dependent territories as a group and showed their place in today's world as responsible communities which, as many of your Lordships pointed out—and I shall deal with some of the particular instances in a moment—offer many opportunities for trade, investment, tourism and, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, financial services.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in answer to her question, that demands on this country's aid programme are very high. Nevertheless, ODA support for the Caribbean dependent territories has increased from just over £16 million in the 1991–92 financial year to nearly £22 million in the current financial year. I gathered from the sentiments expressed during the course of the debate that our aims are consistent with the aims that your Lordships would like us to pursue. Those aims are to promote sustainable economic and social development through the provision of appropriate public infrastructure and technical assistance and trying to increase the supply of skilled manpower, which was a theme which ran through much of what your Lordships had to say this afternoon. It is particularly important that we should endeavour to increase the supply of skilled manpower in the fields of education, health, physical planning and financial management and to improve the efficiency of the public service.
Much has also rightly been made by your Lordships of the democratic nature of the dependent territories. I was particularly struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Braine and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in that regard. That almost seems a contradiction in terms in view of the colonial past. I should like to emphasise that all our dependent territories enjoy that status by choice. Our relationship with them is, as far as possible, one of equal partners. We aim to provide for

1597
economic independence. Should they wish to assume political independence, economic independence is clearly a helpful prerequisite, to say the least. Whatever the United Nations may say to us, that political independence is only available if any particular territory should wish it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, not all of them are necessarily suited to it. Apart from the case of Bermuda, to which I should like to return in a moment, I do not know of any specific proposal for that to happen in the dependent territories.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave the keynote address at the November conference to which I referred. During the course of his remarks he said that the assumption current in the 1950s and 1960s that granting independence was the only way to make progress had evaporated. In the context of what I am saying that is important. Perhaps it would be fair to say that independence is a different concept now from that at the time when independence was overwhelmingly fashionable. All of our dependent territories, therefore, remain dependent by choice. Hong Kong is a special case, for reasons of which your Lordships are well aware, and the existence of the Treaty of Utrecht—in particular Article 10 (my history is a little rusty on this point, but I seem to remember that it is Article 10)—makes Gibraltar unique. Our relationship with those territories is one of equal partners. It is worth emphasising that point because it sets the environment in which we approach the various specific questions which your Lordships raised in this debate and which I should now like to try to answer.
I was impressed by and listened with considerable care to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who spoke from the depths of his experience in matters Caribbean. I can tell the noble Lord that we already encourage a great deal of co-operation and exchange among British Caribbean dependent territories and between them and the independent Caribbean states. Of course we welcome and encourage such forms of practical co-operation as seem appropriate and as are proposed from within those states themselves. There has been renewed interest in the concept of Caribbean integration. There is a proposal to form an association of Caribbean states which would include some of the central and south American countries. The noble Lord is already aware of that and he referred to it in the course of his remarks. A technical meeting to look further at establishing such an association is due to take place next March in Barbados. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will take a keen interest in its proceedings.
More generally, I was struck by the particular interest shown by your Lordships in the question of the Caribbean. My noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to it. We have established a United Kingdom ministerial group to oversee the question of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the dependent territories in the Caribbean generally, and a regional office has been established in the Caribbean known as the Dependent Territories Regional Secretariat. This was set up to
1598
administer United Kingdom aid programmes in the dependent territories and to take forward the continuing dialogue with the dependent territory governments.
My noble friend Lady Hooper also rightly drew our attention to the importance of investment in Caribbean countries. Investment by British companies has, I regret to say, been rather limited. However, there have been some gratifying examples. Cable and Wireless operates sophisticated communications systems in the islands and Barclays Bank has a substantial presence in the region. However, companies from North America have taken advantage of the offshore financial structures in the territories, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, alluded. That has been so particularly in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands and has served to promote their business structure, thereby contributing to the income of the islands' administrations.
It is worth drawing your Lordships' attention to another example. In the Turks and Caicos Islands the local government have recently announced the formation of an inward investment agency to act as a focal point for attracting foreign investment into the territory. If that pattern proves to be successful it can be extended to other territories. The experiment can be imitated and other territories can profit from the lessons learnt from it.
My noble friend Lady Hooper also drew attention to the relationship of the dependent territories with the European Community. As she knows—probably far better than I do with her European experience—the dependent territories are associated with the Community by Part IV of the Treaty of Rome as "Overseas Countries and Territories". As a result of that status they were allocated some money from the European Development Fund. They were eligible for European Investment Bank loans and enjoyed similar but slightly better trade preferences to those offered to the ACP countries.
Naturally enough, Her Majesty's Government welcomed the aid and trade provisions of the 1991 OCT decision. I am particularly glad that we were able to maintain the 18 per cent. share of the benefits of EDF money which goes to the British OCTs. The EDF will make grants worth about £16 million to our OCTs over the next five years. About £40 million in EIB loans is also available for all OCTs.
It is right that those grants should be focused on the poorest territories. We are encouraging our territories to liaise closely with the Caribbean regional representatives of the European Commission, and our own officials in the region, to produce good project proposals. Of course the Community wishes to promote regional co-operation but it is not always ready to agree allocations for regional projects. I hope that our territories, working alongside those of the Netherlands and France—I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—can work up good project proposals.
It is worth emphasising that the trade regime is the most liberal granted to any non-Community territories. I refer to free access for any OCT goods. Indeed, I am pleased to see that there are special arrangements for rum. in some cases there is free circulation for third

1599
country goods. We shall keep in close touch with our territories to help them exploit that important opportunity.
I have promised that I would refer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about financial regulation. It is important. As I have already made clear, we do not want to undermine the economic development of the Caribbean dependent territories. However, we need to ensure that the development of offshore finance is carried out responsibly and in a way which will attract high quality companies and products and will offer a sustainable contribution to economic development.
We all know how difficult it is to control the activities of tax havens. Therefore in the wake of the BCCI and other financial scandals, standards of financial regulation are naturally being raised world wide. It is important that the dependent territories raise their standards accordingly. In that I am wholly in agreement with the noble Baroness. It is important because we must prevent bad money, driven out of other jurisdictions, ending up in their offshore sectors and, as a result, the territories acquiring a tarnished reputation, resulting from weak regulation, which can take years to restore.
My honourable friend the Economic Secretary, Mr. Nelson, visited the Turks and Caicos Islands from 24th to 27th September 1993 and the British Virgin Islands from 29th to 30th September last year, too. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that in both jurisdictions he stressed the need to make proper financial regulation a priority.
It is perhaps worth adding in this context that in his report into the supervision of BCCI, Lord Justice Bingham took the view that the single most important lesson arising from BCCI was that banking group structures which deny supervisors a clear view of how business was conducted should be outlawed. The Caribbean dependent territories have now revised their bank licensing guidelines to address the issue and are considering the issue of international regulatory co-operation.
I am conscious of the march of time. However, if your Lordships are still feeling patient with me I should like to address myself to a couple of other matters. Many noble Lords have quite rightly been concerned with the question of the Falkland Islands. A number of points were raised during the course of your Lordships' remarks. I was particularly interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Braine about what he seemed to think would be an Atlantic labour free market. He mentioned the great qualifications of the St. Helenans and the Caribbean populations to help with the development of the Falklands. That is an interesting idea. I am sure that my noble friend's suggestion will be noted in places where it can do most good.
Underlining the question of the Falklands is the subject of sovereignty. Perhaps I may stress, as one who in another place enthusiastically supported my noble friend Lady Thatcher in her commitment to recovering the islands, that the British Government have no doubt whatever about their sovereignty over the islands. Her
1600
Majesty's Government are committed to defending the islanders' rights to determine their own future. I can certainly reassure my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Morris in that respect. With regard to the inquiry of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I refer her to what I am told is the salesman's answer to a question about the power of a Rolls-Royce: "What is its horse power?"—"Enough". The commitment that we will make to defend the islands and what resources we shall commit to it are just that. We keep the matter under continuous review. We do not wish to spend more defence pounds in the South Atlantic than we have to. But we shall certainly do what we have to do to counter any threat that arises.
In that respect it is important that I make our position clear with regard to the sale by the Americans of A4 Skyhawks. The issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Morris. The United States is committed to consulting us over sales of major equipment to Argentina. The most recent discussions have centred on the sale of 36 second-hand A4 Skyhawks equipped with an advanced radar. It is the advanced radar which has been the subject of most British worries. There has been a number of high level exchanges. In the end, the United States has decided to offer the aeroplanes to the Argentinians. However, they will be equipped with a less advanced radar than in other models of the aeroplane sold around the world. We have told the Americans that we are content with their proposal to sell the Skyhawks to Argentina equipped with a radar with a specification which does not cause us concern. There remain question-marks, of course, over future upgrades to the equipment, but those are not in prospect at present and will be subject to further discussion with the Americans as and when necessary. In that context it is important that we should not be seen merely to be waving an aggressive stick at the Argentines. A number of your Lordships have made that point; and I wholly agree with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the question of oil and fisheries. My noble friends Lord Torrington and Lady Strange also referred to fisheries. My noble friend Lord Braine waxed eloquent on the subject of oil and fisheries too. It will be several years before we know whether there is oil around the Falklands. However, as my noble friend Lord Braine pointed out, seismic data that has so far been analysed is extremely encouraging. We have given no undertaking to co-operate with Argentina over the exploration or exploitation of such oil if indeed it is present. However, it is important for us to emphasise that we understand the advantages of that co-operation, and for me to repeat our undertaking that the door to co-operation remains open. We should like to think that that was a realistic and attractive possibility.
In terms of fisheries, co-operation with Argentina is to the point. We co-operate with the Argentinian authorities in the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission on measures to ensure conservation of marine resources of the South West Atlantic. Conservation is essential to the sustained development of the fishery industry. The agreement which we reached in November 1993 is good for the islands. The SAFC meeting in October 1993

1601
agreed to increase the number of foreign flagged vessels which can fish under licence in Argentine waters in the area below 45 degrees south, and at the same time it set a total catch limit for illex squid. The number of licences which Argentina may issue in 1994 has been increased from 45 to 80. The catch limit in Argentine waters has been set at 220,000 metric tonnes and in Falklands waters at 150,000 metric tonnes. There is, however, no limit to the number of licences that may be offered in Falkland waters. Perhaps I may quickly turn to two other questions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the Falklands' oil and fish, perhaps he could answer my question on what the UK share might be in existing revenues from fishing licences and potential future revenues from oil.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Baroness a specific answer; I shall make further investigations. It is not an easy question to answer, as she will readily understand and if I can reach something near an appropriate estimate, then, of course, I shall write to the noble Baroness and put the answer in the Library. Perhaps she will allow me to leave it like that.
There are two other questions which noble Lords raised appertaining to Bermuda and Gibraltar. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me about capital punishment in Bermuda. As she is well aware, Bermuda retains capital punishment for premeditated murder, although there have been no executions since 1977 and sentences are, I believe, normally commuted to life imprisonment.
The noble Baroness will also know that a national referendum was held in August 1990. The voter turn out was, perhaps surprisingly, only 33 per cent. There were 8,536 votes in favour of retention of the death penalty and 2,237 in favour of abolition. We have expressed our hope that Bermuda will come into line with the Caribbean dependent territories and introduce and enact legislation to abolish capital punishment. However, I feel bound to ask noble Lords what they think the result of a similar referendum would be in this country.
On the question of Bermuda airport which my noble friend Lord Newall raised, I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government have already offered Bermuda help and advice on assuming responsibility from the United States of America for the running of the international airport. We realise that the withdrawal of that facility by the United States authorities is something of a shock—both financial and organisational—to the Bermudan authorities. Therefore, we remain determined to keep in close touch with the Bermudan Government on the issue. Their Minister of Transport visited the United Kingdom at Her Majesty's Government's invitation in January this year to talk, among other things, about the airport's future. I hope that my noble friend will take some comfort from that.
My noble friend Lord Newall also referred to the closure of HMS "Malabar" in that context. As concerns the Bermudan economy, it is a much smaller question, as I am sure he will know. It is important in this context
1602
to emphasise only that anyone who tries to use the fact of that closure as signifying a weakening of the tie between Bermuda and the United Kingdom is mistaken.
My noble friend also raised the question of independence. I merely wish to say in answer to his remarks that it would be entirely for the Bermudan Government to demonstrate that the wishes of the population had been clearly expressed after a campaign in which the issues had been fully aired. Indeed, the preferred course may be a referendum with a stipulated minimum participation, but that is a matter entirely for the people of Bermuda.
Perhaps I may turn now to Gibraltar. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me about the Gibraltar-Algeciras ferry. The Government believe that an operator willing to run a service between Gibraltar and Algeciras should be allowed to do so, particularly as both points lie within the borders of the European Community. All I can say to my noble friend is that we regularly raise the matter with the Spanish Government and we hope that the question will be able to be resolved fairly shortly. There is little that I can add to that, but I share my noble friend's hope that we will be able to restore a ferry service which, as he pointed out, is greatly for the convenience of everyone who frequents that part of the world.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. Have the Spanish Government given any reason for their action?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, not that I am aware of. Noble Lords made a number of points about Gibraltar. The matter is complicated and I am already conscious of having trespassed for far too long on your Lordships' patience. However, I wish to refer to the speech of the Premier of Gibraltar at the dependent territories conference on 24th November last and a question raised by my noble friend Lady Hooper. As she and a number of other noble Lords pointed out, Gibraltarians' right to self determination has to take into account the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht which give Spain the right of first refusal. I am afraid that I cannot agree with noble Lords who feel that we should override that provision. It means that independence is not feasible without Spanish consent. We should remember that Gibraltar has a high degree of self government already and the United Kingdom fulfils its obligations to dependent territories under Chapter X1 of the UN charter.
I should like to emphasise yet again that Her Majesty's Government adhere to their commitment to the people of Gibraltar, a commitment inherent in the 1969 constitution, that they will not be allowed to pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
As my noble friend Lady Hooper mentioned, Gibraltar is part of the European Union by virtue of the United Kingdom's membership. Specific exemptions on accession were made at Gibraltar's request so, for example, Gibraltar is not in the European Union for the purposes of common Customs, VAT, agriculture and fisheries. As my noble friend pointed out, it does not

1603
enjoy separate representation in the European Parliament. All we can do is to rely on people like my noble friend, who are knowledgeable in the European Parliament, to look after the interests of Gibraltar assiduously in that assembly and for the United Kingdom to look after its interests in Brussels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also raised the question of the airport agreement. Her Majesty's Government support the agreement which they believe to be in the best interests of Gibraltar and her neighbours. We are, however, aware of Gibraltar's reservations and we have given an assurance that we will not force the agreement on Gibraltar. We will continue to work towards a solution which is acceptable to all parties through negotiations based on the mandate from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his Spanish counterpart on 1st March last year.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale also raised the question of insurance. We are in discussion with the Government of Gibraltar about the necessary steps to implement these third insurance directives and to allow Gibraltar-authorised insurers the benefit of this passport.
The long-term political future of our dependent territories is very much in their own hands. They will remain UK dependencies for as long as, and only for as long as, they wish to. Nonetheless, they and Her Majesty's Government recognise that their long-term future lies both within the context of their geographical region—a point very much emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt—and on their historical ties with the United Kingdom. We therefore welcome and encourage the territories to seek to diversify their relations with external nations and donor organisations, particularly regional ones.
However, we have to recognise the problem for some dependent territories of unwelcome claims on their territory from larger neighbours. Such claims seem to most of us out-of-date, but they continue and they are one reason for the continuance also of dependence. It is, and I believe should be, a prime aim of British foreign policy to enhance the security and prosperity of the dependent territories. I assure your Lordships that we take both those aspects extremely seriously.
As to future dependent territories conferences, I understand that the organisers have canvassed those territories that were represented at the November conference on their views about a follow-up to the conference. I understand that the organisers are considering the possibility of a secretariat in London to enable territories' representatives to exchange ideas and practices. I believe that to be an interesting proposal, and I look forward to hearing more about it.
It has been an interesting debate. I apologise for taking so much of your Lordships' time in attempting to answer it. With your Lordships' permission, I close with a reassurance in answer to the question by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Perhaps my chauvinist heart is beginning to show, but I must say that I am rather horrified by the suggestion she made about Pitcairn Island. I can reassure noble Lords that we are not aware of any request by the residents of Pitcairn to
1604
transfer to France. No such request was put to the governor on his last visit. I am wholly confident that such a request will not be presented to him on his next one.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has participated in the debate. We have heard views based on personal knowledge and interest which have given us and, I hope, the Government specific insights into, and ideas about how to deal with, the needs of these territories. My special thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for underlining the allure of Pitcairn Island. I am almost convinced that I should become a regular reader of the Guardian.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for responding so fully and carefully to the questions raised. I am glad that he was not too much constrained by time on this occasion. His remarks will bring reassurance to people who, although they are spread throughout the world, are united by a traditional allegiance to the United Kingdom and through their participation in Commonwealth affairs. I feel sure that they will be reassured that the Government continue to respect the wishes of the peoples of the territories in respect of any change of status or moves to independence. That will be especially welcomed by the peoples of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. They also doubtless look forward to continuing consultation with the Government and to further progress through partnership.
I hope, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put it, that not only the discussion itself but the fact that the discussion has taken place will be observed in the territories concerned and by those with designs upon them. In saying that, I do not wish in any way to exacerbate feelings or the development of our good relations with Spain and Argentina. I hope that a reasoned and reasonable discussion such as the one that we have had will be seen as helpful in resolving particular problems in relation to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
Finally, I rather like the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that this sort of debate should become something of an annual review. I hope that the usual channels here represented will take note. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Service: Administrative Change
5.14 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to the case for proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of administrative changes in the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall give a reason for raising this particular topic. Only two or three weeks ago a health debate was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in which he referred to whingeing against

1605
the National Health Service and the publication of sensational information which was misleading, wrong, and harmful to patients. I accept those criticisms if and when people misrepresent the real situation. But my role is not to criticise the health service. I am a great admirer of the health service. I want to put on record my personal thanks for the treatment I have received in the past couple of years for serious eye problems. I pay tribute also to the doctors at Tameside General Hospital, Greater Manchester, who helped my wife recover from her recent serious illness and to the_ surgeons who performed the operation at the Wythenshawe hospital, Manchester.
I am not taking part in a witch hunt against the health service. I am among its greatest admirers—from the consultants down to the people doing the more mundane jobs on the wards. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is justified in saying that those who dare to criticise are whingers. As recently as in the last two weeks two eminent consultants in the Manchester area, Dr. Tweedie, at Withington, who, I believe, is an orthopaedic surgeon, and Dr. Gough, a paediatric neurologist and consultant at the Duke of York children's hospital, are both on record as asking for more resources. If top medical men who ask for more resources in order to deal with their problems are classed as whingers, then let us have a bit more whingeing. The wording of my Motion relates to making information available to patients at the right time so that they know what is going on.
The most recent attempt to benefit the health service —the big stride into the future—has been the introduction of computers. I must, however, point out events that should not have happened and should have been prevented. Some of what went on in Wessex should certainly have been avoided. The matter should have been dealt with; it should not have been kept under wraps. It may well be a question of the rapidity with which Secretaries of State for Health have moved on. We have had six Secretaries of State for Health in 12 years. To claim that someone, however bright, can master in two years a service such as the National Health Service, cross all the t's, dot all the i's and find out what is going on, is absolute nonsense. No international or multinational employer would run a company in that way. It may well be that that is one of the weaknesses of the system and of government in general, not only this Government. I am sure that two years is not sufficient time to get to grips with matters. In that time Ministers are merely serving an apprenticeship; they are only starting to learn what the job is all about. That may be one of the reasons why such events occurred.
I was alerted to what happened in Wessex by a four-line report in the stop press of the Manchester Evening News. One may ask: why Manchester, which is 200 miles away? I read the report as we broke for the main Recess in 1992. It said simply that Wessex Regional Health Authority would not proceed any further to recover £43 million that had been lost in computer deals. I put down a Question for answer when the House returned. I wish to make clear that I am not attacking the present Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady
1606
Cumberlege. She was not involved in any of this. She is a more recent acquisition. Nevertheless, she knows what I am talking about. The Answer that I was given was that the Government knew that something was wrong in 1988, so they changed the chairman, who quickly appointed a new manager. I accepted that as "game, set and match". But somebody from down south had seen the shots of me asking the question in the House. I was sent a copy of the press release by the Wessex Regional Health Authority, which indicated that it did not intend to pursue the matter and retrieve any more money because there was doubt as to whether the sum recovered would be worth it.
A district auditor's report was referred to, and after numerous phone calls I obtained a copy. It was critical of the new chairman's actions. I want to make clear that the chairman of whom I speak, the chairman from 1988, in some respects had a bad deal from the press, which spoke as though he was responsible for the original £63 million mis-spent. He was not. By the time he got there the overwhelming majority of that sum had been wasted by the previous chairman, Sir Bryan Thwaites. The discipline that he received was a going away gift of £10,000 when he stood down.
The report showed that the new chairman had acted in a rather cavalier manner. In fact two years elapsed before a new manager was appointed—Mr. Ken Jarrold —and they started to rumble what was happening. The report showed, for instance, that under the auspices of the new chairman a new computer had been purchased for £3 million when it could have been bought for less than £1 million. No fail-safe clauses were instructed to be placed in the contract. According to the report, he was responsible for not inserting the fail-safe clauses.
Moreover, one of the sections—I believe it was the computer section of Wessex—was moved sideways as a private company. What was called a soft landing was agreed for the staff under which 104 salaries were to be paid for a period to people who had moved to the company. Those salaries continued although, in fact, when heads were counted, the number turned out to be only 64. That was the type of situation that went on after 1988.
Your Lordships' House has no way of dealing with such a situation. I made sure that the Public Accounts Committee would be kept informed. Strangely enough, without any collusion or co-ordination, the new Member for Southampton, Itchen, which is in Wessex, took part in a debate in the other place and for 10 minutes spoke in detail about nothing but what had happened in Wessex because he had been briefed by Computer Weekly. The Minister in another place, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, thought that the matter of all that money going missing was so important that he did not even refer to it.
However, when the Public Accounts Committee finally sent for the people from Wessex on the first occasion, it was suddenly alerted that there was another auditor's report, which the department, the Secretary of State and the chief official, Sir Duncan Nichol, were not prepared to make public. It resulted in the then chairman, Sir Robin Buchanan, the new manager, Ken

1607
Jarrold, and Sir Duncan Nichol having to appear before the committee. I sat for over four hours listening to the evidence. It was absolutely mind boggling.
Mr. Bob Sheldon, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who has done a superb job on behalf of the taxpayers of this country and public authorities, opened the meeting by saying that it had been requested that the evidence given that day should be heard in camera. Mr. Sheldon said that in no way should that be the case. It would be public.
It was like listening to a horror story. It went back to 1982. Four companies, which I shall not name, were bidding for the computer system. Company A won it. But an intervention by a consultant based in Westminster—I go no closer than that; all the evidence is in the two reports of the Public Accounts Committee —resulted in the contract being taken away from Company A and being switched to another company. When it was decided to give the second company the contract, the committee dealing with the matter was not quorate. Not only that, an employee who was in the pay of the computer company to which the contract had been switched was an appointed member of the regional health authority dealing with it. When some of the junior officers of the authority pointed to the impropriety, they were brushed to one side. All that is in the evidence. It resulted in a huge sum of money being lost. Much of it was returned, but I believe that there is still over £20 million adrift.
Some of the actions taken under the new chairman worried me. For instance, I should have thought that the services of the person responsible—the main brain behind the loss of £60 million—would be terminated forthwith. But, no; a retirement agreement was reached. The man who was totally responsible for pushing the matter, the regional manager, was rewarded with a going away present of £111,000.
In another case, a young woman who had worked for two years at the regional health authority was given £78,000 as a going away present. If noble Lords believe that I am stretching the elastic a little far, they have only to read the report. I have not named any names but they are all there.
That money, denied to the people of the area, could have been very well used. In the past I have asked how we look into the matter of probity in the public services. I have switched my attention to the National Health Service and what I believe is called the Supplies Authority. I made the point that the then chairman of Wessex was also the chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority. He had been appointed on a two-year contract which commenced in October 1991 and finished last year. I do not accuse anyone of trying to mislead but last week the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on questioning why that person was appointed in view of the Wessex situation, was told that the appointment was made before all the facts were known.
He was originally appointed in October 1991 for two years. He was re-appointed last October when the views of the Public Accounts Committee were made known. I have great respect for people across the political divide in regard to probity. I do not defend a lack of probity
1608
anywhere, whether it is in local Labour authorities, Conservative authorities or public bodies. But I have not had the support of any one Member from the other side. No one has stood up to be counted. That is very sad. They know all about the matter because I have made sure that they know, but no one has bothered.
In the few minutes left to me I wish to talk about the National Health Service Purchasing Authority. I raised the point that four out of five non-executive directors were already employed in the National Health Service in other appointed capacities. I said that it seemed strange that here was a situation where the buyer will be the seller and the seller will be the buyer. I asked about the audit provisions, if any. I was told that an internal audit would be carried out by Peat Marwick. I emphasise that that is an internal audit. I suggested that the final audit should be done externally. We are talking in the near future of a turnover of about £3 billion a year, which is not peanuts. I then questioned who the members would be. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was forthcoming and straightforward in answering the questions I asked. She said that they would form an audit committee of non-executive members, but that the chairman would not be on it.
In one of my supplementary questions I made the point that we had a situation where the Government had introduced legislation to stop people in local authorities twin-tracking; but that we now had three people who were treble-tracking. They are not only the buyers in their capacity of serving the health service, perhaps as chairmen in an area; they are also the seller as a member of the purchasing corporation. How do we deal with that situation in a legal sense? How does one take oneself to court? There must be a precedent for that.
Those people should not form the nucleus of an audit committee. They are too close to the problem. It would not stand the test of time in the private sector. I do not cast any aspersions on people as individuals—I do not know any of them. All I am saying is that it is not right that people should be checking up on themselves.
There are no sanctions to deal with those people who are appointed. I shall not be sidetracked into talking about people at Wessex who are before the court and who were paid servants and officers and not appointed members. They are before the court at present and are being dealt with, and I do not wish to refer to that matter. Local councillors, if they do wrong, can be surcharged. Those who serve a health authority, if they do wrong, cannot be surcharged. Last week I made a strong plea —I say this in a general sense and not just for the health service—for the Government to consider seriously the question of surcharging health authorities as they do local authorities.
I pay tribute to Mr. Bob Sheldon, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, for his work in this matter. The Department of Health recently circulated a code of conduct in regard to what it intends to do in the future, which indicates that it obviously has not been doing much in the past. However, before it is finalised—the replies must be in by 1st April—perhaps the department will look at the one produced by the Public Accounts Committee which was published last month and which indicates how probity and straight dealing can be made

1609
to work in the public sector. If that is studied it may be found that the department does not need to produce its own. That could be used for any spending department under the control of the Government.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put forward my case—perhaps not as lucidly expressed as your Lordships will read it in the Official Report. I do not believe that anyone involved in tendering for any type of contract would want to be faced by the jiggery-pokery that went on in Wessex in the awarding of the first contract. I am grateful for the time to express my serious anxieties about those matters. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it was Oscar Wilde who defined a cynic as someone,
"who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".
That is why I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked for details of benefits as well as costs in this useful debate that he initiated. I am glad also to hear of the good attention that he received recently in a National Health Service Hospital when he was ill.
I am by no means certain that the changes in the National Health Service can be compartmentalised into administrative and non-administrative. I am not certain if an unarguable meaning of the term "administrative costs" can be found. I also do not believe, though I fear that it sometimes seems so, that administrative changes are solely for the benefit of the administrators. And who is an administrator? These days we have even given up the time-honoured name of "matron" and now call them "managers".
I am certain that in responding to the debate my noble friend the Minister will be able to satisfy the most curious among us about the purely administrative costs that can be separately identified. I should therefore like to speak about the benefits. I do so as the chairman of a family health services authority. My authority is one which is coterminous with both the district and the borough in which it is situated. I am responsible for the primary health care of upwards of 300,000 people with a budget of some £40 million. Even ahead of legislation to amalgamate family health service authorities and districts, my authority and the district began working together as a single agency to improve our efficiency and service.
There has been a major cultural change in the philosophy of the National Health Service. In the past, most patients' sole contact with the doctor was when they were ill. We were more concerned with treating those who had fallen sick rather than keeping them well. It is now realised that what we really had was more of a "national sickness service" than a National Health Service. That is why there is now a greater emphasis on the promotion of good health and the prevention of disease as well as looking after and curing the sick. That is why there is an emphasis on reaching targets for immunising children; why GPs are encouraged to vaccinate vulnerable patients against 'flu and why they are given targets for cervical smear tests. Cervical cancer deaths are falling rapidly. The HIB campaign for the prevention of meningitis in children has had an
1610
enormous take-up in the 12 months it has been available. Previously, less than 5 per cent. of the target group received breast screening; now it is over 75 per cent.
Developing health care in that way and evaluating its effectiveness needs to be managed. I have no doubt that some book-keeper could work out the cost, but I doubt that it is possible to fill in the other side of the balance sheet and say how much is saved in people not becoming ill or not dying. GPs are encouraged to train for and carry out minor surgery, for which they receive special payment. That has now reached levels in the cities that were only previously achieved in rural areas. I am not sure how your Lordships define "minor surgery"; my understanding is that a minor operation is one that someone else has!
Whatever the cost, it certainly saves patients from cluttering up the waiting list with things like warts and cysts, or using their local hospital emergency room as a glorified doctor's surgery. GPs are encouraged to upgrade their own surgeries; to computerise their patients' records and prescription regimes, and to employ qualified practice nurses who can in turn give professional help to the doctor in running, for example, hypertension clinics or doing blood tests. All that work is done with financial help from the family health service authorities, which also provide training for primary health care teams, group practice managers and receptionists.
All of that can be called administration. The benefit to patients in improved and personal service is hard to measure in a ledger. Heart, hypertension, diet and smoking clinics are another obvious major benefit to those patients who have the good sense to use them. Apart from showing some patients that smoking is the cause of their problem, the benefit of regular check-ups has been to pick up numerous previously unidentified diabetics, asthmatics or blood pressure cases.
Family doctors are also able to arrange for physiotherapists to attend at their surgeries to deal with groups of patients by appointment. That is an obvious benefit to those who, by the very nature of the treatment that they need, welcome not having to travel to their local hospital once or twice a week to receive it. Some enterprising GPs are even organising visits by specialists to their surgeries instead of the patients going to the hospital. Of course, that costs much more to arrange and to administer, but I doubt that one will find any patient complaining.
The administrative changes have enabled individual FHSAs to exercise their own initiative in matters of health care. My own authority, for example, introduced the concept of "High Street Health". We paid for local pharmacists to be trained in elementary diagnostic and health promotion techniques. This means that a patient who comes in asking for some non-prescriptive medicine can be checked to see whether he is really asking for the right medicine, and more importantly perhaps, whether he really should see his doctor instead of trying to treat himself. My colleagues in Lambeth have produced the very imaginative scheme of a mobile minor surgery to provide help for local GPs. Fund-holding practices, which by definition are the

1611
larger group practices, are providing numerous services for their patients in their surgeries and in their clinics, and in the process are substantially reducing hospital waiting lists.
The National Health Service is spending money on the training of paramedics on the basis that more lives will be saved by treating accident victims on the way to a specialised unit rather than simply carting them off to the nearest emergency room, which may be all right to treat a broken arm, but which simply may not have the trained staff and equipment on hand 24 hours a day to deal with a major complex trauma. This technique has been pioneered not only, as one might expect, in the United States but in the Royal Belfast Hospital.
Of course we must have proper oversight, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, desires. We must eliminate extravagance and waste. We must ensure that the taxpayer gets value for the vast sums we spend on the National Health Service. But what we do not need is constant shroud waving. I only hope that the enlightenment that your Lordships will derive from this debate will be one step along the road of stopping treating the National Health Service as a sort of political football, instead of being the standard that so many countries try to attain. I hope there will be recognition of the major benefits that are now starting to flow from the administrative changes; changes, my Lords, for the benefit of patients.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gives an upbeat picture of what is going on now, particularly in primary healthcare. Some things that she says are true and are welcome; but she ascribes what has happened to the recent administrative changes in the National Health Service. As a general practitioner who has been working in the National Health Service for most of my professional life, I can say that most of the things she described and most of the examples she gave as following on the changes that have taken place, were taking place in my practice long before any of the recent reforms were introduced. In fact the operation of the new contract is being found extremely difficult by many doctors, who were not fully prepared for it. Those doctors in poor areas who do not have good practices have been falling very much behind in their achievement of the targets set and have been finding life very difficult.
But that takes me away from my main theme, which is to look at the overall changes that have taken place since the National Health Service and Community Care Act came into operation in 1991. Those of us who took part in the many hours of debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill as it passed through the House will remember an amendment, which had support from all sides of the House, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. This had the backing of all the Royal Colleges of the health professions. It did not oppose the main thrust of the Bill but proposed that it should be introduced first in one regional health authority —East Anglia was suggested—and the results carefully and scientifically evaluated there for several
1612
years so that lessons could be learnt and modifications made before being introduced generally. But of course the Government could not accept the amendment.
As a result, the whole country is now being used as a guinea-pig for a scheme which is based more on market oriented dogma—I could use the word "philosophy" but I think "dogma" is more appropriate —than any evidence that it might be of benefit to patients; or for that matter be any cheaper or more cost efficient. In fact, long before the Bill was brought in there was evidence from the other side of the Atlantic of the exact opposite: that administrative costs would rise and that costing every treatment was fraught with difficulty and caused more problems than it solved. Professor Alain Enthoven of Stamford University, whose study of the NHS gave birth to the internal market, was surprised and quite shocked that no pre-testing of his ideas was undertaken.
That is the background to the discussion we are having today. The Government make no bones of the fact that more administrators are now working at all levels of the health service, saying that the largest enterprise in Europe—the NHS—needed better management. Their answer to the argument that the real problem of the NHS was underfunding was that it was no use just throwing money at the problems; fundamental changes were needed, ignoring the fact that the United Kingdom spent a lower proportion of its GDP on health than almost any other developed country and had health statistics which were better than many, especially the United States, the highest spender of them all.
Since the Bill became an Act it is worth looking at how overall spending on the NHS has developed. In the 1980s funding increased in real terms by about 1 per cent. per annum. Since 1990 it has increased by 3.5 per cent. per annum. The trend of increasing numbers of patients treated has been more steady and has not increased as rapidly as the recent rise in spending. In fact, in parenthesis, I should say that hospital community health service activity, as it is given to us, may be a doubtful measure since, as my noble friend Lady Jay pointed out in our last debate on the National Health Service, it is based on "completed consultant episodes", so that one hospital admission may be counted as several different episodes if several specialists are involved. In addition—this has long been a criticism —these episodes may involve the same patient being admitted repeatedly because rapid turn-round times mean that patients are discharged before their condition is fully stabilised. I am not necessarily against this if the community care services are really adequate; but, unfortunately, they are not, and this in itself is another reason for readmissions and an apparent increase in health service activity.
The increase in funding for the NHS is welcome; but where has the money gone—on patient care or on managers? The percentage of National Health Service expenditure on administration has increased from 6 per cent. in the early 1980s to 11 per cent. of the total now (not up to the 22 per cent. which is spent in the United States, but high enough) and costs of senior managers have increased from £150 million in 1990 to nearly

1613
£500 million in 1993—a three-fold increase—which I assume also includes the cars and drivers to take them from meeting to meeting. Some noble Lords will remember the Evening Standard headline a couple of months ago, which was based on the answer to Dawn Primarolo's question in another place, that there are now nearly 3,000 more managers but 5,000 fewer nurses in London than three years ago. A sub-headline stated:
"Nurses replaced by men in grey suits".
The answer to that in part at least was that many senior nurses are now classified as managers; but even if that explains some of the reduction, there remained a heavy net deficit of nurses. Sadly, the 3,000 managers almost certainly cost more than the 5,000 nurses lost to the London health service. One has to ask whether, if NHS funding had increased as it has in the past three years but had been spent under the old system, a higher proportion would have been spent on patient care. It is clear to me that it would.
To recap on this point, National Health Service funding has been at a higher level than it was before 1991, but only a fraction of that increase has gone into patient care. I suggest that that extra money has been found to prevent a politically unacceptable breakdown of the service which the changes would have precipitated at previous levels of funding.
In London, the situation since Tomlinson remains very uncertain. I have most direct experience of the situation in Islington. Under the pressures of the internal market, last year the director of purchasing for the district health authority threatened to withdraw funding for the accident and emergency departments for the University College and Middlesex Hospital which would virtually have meant the end of all acute services in those hospitals. She asked general practitioners to refer their patients to the Royal Free Hospital or the Whittington Hospital Trusts, which are less accessible and less popular than UCH/Middlesex. But their unit costs were lower. That was despite the specific recommendation in Tomlinson and in the specialty review, that UCH/Middlesex should be preserved as a centre of scientific and clinical excellence.
That met with such a barrage of opposition from local residents, GPs, hospital workers and many others, that the Government have agreed to provide an additional tranche of about £10 million of central funding to allow work to continue. The manager concerned has said that she knew all the time that this bailing out operation would occur, but was using the threat to force economies on the hospital. Whether that is true or not, it seems a crude, blunderbuss way of managing a much valued service with high international, scientific prestige.
Local residents still feel that the University College Hospital has closed. The familiar, ugly but much loved Victorian cruciform building, where many thousands of nurses and doctors have been trained—including myself —is now an empty shell. I do not particularly regret that. It was an inconvenient building in which to work, and it had really served its purpose over the past century. But routine admissions of eight specialties are now in abeyance since this year's contracted work had been done by some departments as early as last September.
1614
So no work is going on in those departments despite the fact that patients are wanting to be treated and the waiting lists are increasing.
One might ask: what has happened to the concept that more popular and efficient hospitals would be rewarded with more work and that money would follow the patient? Sadly, cost rather than quality seems to be the criterion. Not enough allowance has been made for the higher cost of running hospitals with a high teaching and research commitment such as UCH/Middlesex. SIFTR (special increment for teaching research) is a relatively crude measure. It should be made more sensitive to actual costs in teaching hospitals. I very much hope that the noble Baroness can report some progress on the discussions which I know are going on on this matter.
I see that my time has come to an end. In conclusion then: the health service does not need managers who are going to be in one place for a short time and who then move on, furthering their career. It needs dedicated people who will spend a major part of their career getting to know the district and its problems in order to function effectively. Luckily, there are hundreds of thousands of health workers working beyond the hours for which they are paid, seeing that most patients get the care that they need despite, rather than because of, the flurry of expensive administrative activities which surround them.
5.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I suppose that the Church is essentially neutral in the arguments about the reorganisation of the National Health Service. All of us who work in this field are well aware of the fact that the situation varies very considerably. Even across the thousand square miles of my diocese, there are some areas and NHS trust hospitals, for instance, which are applauded and others severely criticised.
But I do not believe that the Church can be neutral about benefits and care. We, and the Christian ethic, would certainly support action against waste, but it is also concern for treatment and efficiency not to be at the expense of the patient's full humanity. Many of us work with and alongside those engaged in the National Health Service; namely, doctors, surgeons and nurses. We admire the care and the enormous goodwill and concern for patients, yet also have to experience the stress, strain and frustration, particularly for nurses, in many situations.
However, although acknowledging the increasing expectations of patients for tests, treatments and drugs, the cost factor often seems to outweigh the need or benefit factor. In turn that leads into a significant suspicion that the purchaser-supplier system is not delivering fairly or efficiently. There is a clergy-wife in my diocese at this moment with severe back trouble. Her local trust hospital, which is some distance from Chester but within my diocese, buys in a given number of scans each year from the part of the hospital which runs the CAT scanner. For the rest of the time the scanner is available to the private sector, including the private hospital next door. When the allotted number of scans for the year is taken up, patients like the

1615
clergy-wife cannot have a scan unless either her fundholding GP (it is not an option open to non-fundholders) pleads to the family practitioner committee or the like for money so that the GP can go to the private sector to buy in a slot on the scan from that hospital or another or, as has happened in this particular clergy-wife case, a consultant had to plead for an emergency scan from the hospital.
Surely this extraordinary situation should not happen. Buying in a set number of scins assumes an accuracy in the prediction of need not possible to mankind. Who can prophesy how many heart attacks there will be in this House over the next 12 months? In a revision of trust funding, I suggest that could be met by compulsory reserve funds to meet genuine needs without the unseemly and dehumanising requirement to beg for treatment. Acting in good faith, senior members of the medical profession encouraged their colleagues to take part in an experimental programme entitled Resource Management Initiative which ran from about 1987. Six pilot sites were identified, one in my diocese.
The evaluation which followed was considered by many doctors in my area to be rushed and inadequate; that resource management was rolled out to many other sites before its efficacy had been proved on the ground. A steam roller took over. Pleading by members of the medical profession for a proper experimental trial of the purchaser-provider system seemed to have been swept aside. If it had been heeded, the present problems of that aspect might have been avoided. Surely now is the time for an overhaul.
The evaluation of costs is fairly easy, but the evaluation of benefits is not easy. A stronger effort to evaluate benefits would avoid bizarre situations like that of the clergy-wife whom I have mentioned. It would strengthen the many good improvements in healthcare that have come from NHS reorganisation.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Retinal: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick referred to Wessex Regional Health Authority. I have just finished reading the Public Accounts Committee report about West Midlands Regional Health Authority. It tells the same story that my noble friend told: with one hospital being £12 million short and the region as a whole £20 million short. It is fortunate for those who are named in the report that all received nice little presents on leaving the National Health Service, including the chairman. What worries me is that both cases relate to computer systems mismanagement. One wonders whether it would have been better if the authorities had gone to a car boot sale. They could not have done worse than the systems that they got, which never worked from the day that the experiments started.
However, what worried me even more was that we have a man called Duncan Nichol who does not seem to know what is going on. I understand from reading the West Midlands report that he is at the top of the tree—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, he was.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I see—he was. He did not know what was going on. In fact, he said of the West Midlands affair, "Yes, it is a shambles". We in the West Midlands knew that seven or eight years ago. We could have told him. The affair just ran on and on and on. Do not the Government have a "grapevine" to tell them what is going on in the health service? They seem to have grapevines about a lot of other things. Why do they not have one for the National Health Service?
I should like to emphasise what my noble friend Lord Dean said about public sector accountability, integrity and probity. They are a "must" when Ministers are making appointments. We have come to realise that, in its financial dealings, the private sector operates in exactly the opposite way to what we expect as regards public expenditure from taxpayers' money. When Ministers are considering appointing staff to regional hospital boards, district health authorities and trusts, it is important that those involved clearly understand the way in which they must deal with the finances. It should be laid down specifically. As my noble friend said, those involved should be subject to the same conditions as local authority representatives.
There are now no elected members on NHS district health authorities. Key powers and resources are increasingly passing to the NHS trusts, the membership of which is again determined on an appointment basis. I had nothing else to do on Sunday so I switched on the television and, lo and behold, the President of the Board of Trade was in front of me. I thought that I would listen to what he had to say. I became really stirred up by his message which was "Push the power back to the people. Give people a bigger stake in society". But of course, we give those opportunities only to some of the people.
One must look at the new commercial attitudes in the health service. We must ensure that it is recognised that long-term care beds are as important to the chronically sick as the marvellous and famous operations that hospitals can carry out these days. We cannot easily push aside those people who will need good care, good nursing and, every now and again, the medical treatment that applies to their chronic health problems.
However, the duty of care which is specified in the Act of Parliament is interpreted by the NHS to mean, "Only within the resources available". That means that if a health authority cannot provide that care, says that it cannot, closes the beds and pushes the patients out, somebody else will have to pick up the burden. Normally, it falls to the local authorities, who are likewise short of cash. However, even if they wanted to, they cannot overspend because they would then become rate-capped. What is going to happen when the NHS trusts say, "We want only the people we can help quickly so that we can get rid of them quickly and keep all our beds full 24 hours a day and twice a day if possible"? That happens in some private hospitals. I live next to one in Birmingham so I know how that one operates. It tries to have a through-put of three patients per bed per day.
As the balance of care shifts from hospitals to the community, I advise the Minister that that change must be handled sensitively. We must accept that the

1617
proposals are long term. We need a real and constructive debate regarding funding and provision for what we call the chronic cases.
We have seen mental hospitals being closed and we all know that most of those closures have been unsatisfactory. Many noble Lords of all parties have spoken in this House about the difficulties caused by the speeded-up closures of mental hospitals. Patients are not receiving the care that they should. We must ensure that the indifferent care that some of those who have left mental hospitals have received is not experienced by those who need chronic health care. Care in the community needs an input from the National Health Service. The buildings, personnel and hospitals must be planned with the local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations. They all need to be brought together to ensure that they become partners in what we call community medicine. Care in the community cannot mean being looked after by a neighbour or relation who can come only once a week or by a designated nurse who can call in for only one hour on one day with somebody else coming in the next day.
I turn now to Birmingham, an area which I know much better than London or any other area. Birmingham has deprived area status. The statistics show that the rates of perinatal and infant death there are well above the national average. We must ask ourselves why. There are relatively high levels of asthma in that city. We used to think that asthma was caused by factories belching out smoke, but the factories are not there any more. They have been replaced by other buildings and a lot of unemployment. Statistics from the East Birmingham Hospital show that the incidence of childhood accidents there is twice the national average. The incidence of diabetes is also high in the Birmingham area, although I understand that with proper control it is possible to reduce the mortality rate.
What are we doing? What is the hospital service doing? Birmingham has had a lot of bother with all the changes that have taken place in the past eight years. Things have been changed and rechanged and are still not yet settled. Is it possible for the Minister to set up a health audit so that we can see, year on year, the incidence of those illnesses that occur because of deprivation, poverty, unemployment and bad housing?
I turn now to the problem that we have seen on our television screens of people lying in hospital corridors as they wait for service. Three weeks ago a large public meeting was held in Birmingham. Over 1,000 people went to the town hall to hear medical officers answer the public's worries and concerns about Birmingham's hospitals. One of the questions related to the shortage of casualty officers in emergency wards. One surgeon stood up and stated publicly at that meeting, "I am concerned about the service to the public". I feel sure that the Minister will want to ensure that that matter is taken up. I repeat that somebody who was named stood up at a public meeting to express his concern about what is going on at the sharp end.
I understand that if applications are accepted in April, 27 hospitals and other units in the West Midlands region will become NHS trusts. Only one hospital has not made an application for trust status. I am worried because that
1618
is an acute hospital. I have a question which is difficult to ask. Can a general practitioner who is not a fund holder get his patients into NHS trust hospitals or will he and all such practitioners have to send their patients to that one acute hospital? I do not know the answer, but I was asked to raise the question.
What of the future for the NHS? I say loud and clear tonight that it needs to be in safer hands than those of this Government.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, debates on the National Health Service have become a regular feature of this House. They have begun to take place on a monthly basis; indeed, to my noble friend the Minister, who has the privilege of replying to them, they must seem even more frequent than that.
But such debates do provide us with an opportunity to assess the effects of the reforms on the National Health Service in what is to be hoped a rather more calm and measured manner than is sometimes the case outside this House. If we are to evaluate the effect of the NHS reforms we must first agree upon our terms of reference.
Many measurements of the success or otherwise of the reforms have been used during the course of this debate and elsewhere. But I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House would agree that the most important measurement should not be the change in the number of beds or hospitals; nor should it relate to the number of staff employed, nor even the number of managers; and it should not be concerned with the size of the budget. Important though some of these measurements may be, the efficiency and effectiveness of the National Health Service should be judged primarily by the quantity and quality of the patient care that it delivers. This fundamental point should be obvious to all. Indeed, it was once the stated opinion of the spokesmen of both the main political parties. But all too often it has been obscured in the recent debates on this issue.
The NHS reforms have now been in operation for almost three years. They have progressed far. By April, for example, NHS trusts will be responsible for more than 90 per cent. of the hospital and community health services budget, and one in three patients will be covered by fund-holding GPs. The impact of the reforms on the quality and quantity of patient care seems clear.
In particular, the primary concern of the public when asked about the NHS is not that they may suffer poor quality treatment—far from it. Those who use it praise it, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dean. But they may have to endure a lengthy wait for treatment. As my noble friend Lord McColl put it so clearly in his opening speech on 12th January, it is this length of time which patients have to wait for treatment which matters most to them—not the total number on the waiting list.
Since the health service reforms were introduced in April 1991 the number of patients waiting over a year for treatment has fallen by nearly 100,000. And over the

1619
past five years the average waiting time for treatment has fallen by four months. Clearly these are very substantial improvements.
Meanwhile, hospitals are treating more patients—about 1 million more each year than they were before the reforms were introduced and about 3 million more a year than when this Government took office.
Clearly such improvements may be due in part to the generous financial settlements which successive Secretaries of State for Health have achieved for the NHS in recent years. The Opposition quote frequently their figure of £1.2 billion, which supposedly has been the cost of implementing the Government's NHS reforms. Quite apart from the fact that they include in this figure, for example, the cost of employing 100 extra consultants to provide care directly to patients they ignore the point that there has been an overall increase in health spending of some £9 billion since the reforms were introduced.
Clearly this is a substantial sum. But if we are to judge the success of health policy itself we must try to isolate the effect of this increase in funding. Since 1979 the number of patients treated in hospital has increased by nearly three times as fast as spending, when spending has been adjusted for inflation in the health service. Since the introduction of the reforms, efficiency has increased even more quickly.
In addition, although the needs of the staff who work for the NHS are important, the health service is now orientated more towards the needs of the patients themselves. Even more fundamentally, the health of the nation has improved in recent years. This is a sign not only of a more health-conscious and prosperous society but of a more health-orientated health service. The health reforms provided a basis on which both the Patient's Charter and the Health of the Nation initiative could build.
Clearly, we have a substantial amount of evidence on which to evaluate the effect of the reforms. I am sure it is the hope of those on this side of the House that all noble Lords will feel able to acknowledge it.
Lord Chappell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask her this. Will she say what she thinks the Government should do to recover the public money that has been wasted in Wessex?
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we should wait to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Dean for putting forward this Motion for debate. The costs and benefits of administration need to be evaluated. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that we should speak out in support of the health service. The criticisms are put forward in a constructive way that is concerned with the health service that we dearly love, dearly need and dearly support. That is the case across all parties; this is not a party-political issue.
1620
The integrity and commitment of the staff who work in the health service and the care that they give is not challenged or criticised by me or, I am sure, by any Member on this side of the House. It is against that background that this kind of debate needs to take place. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that the issue will be debated time after time because it goes to the heart of the kind of nation that we have and the health provision that we need to make for the people.
The UK spends approximately £580 per capita per annum on health provision. Germany and France spend more than £1,000 and Italy spends in excess of £700. So the fact that we are spending less makes it even more important to ensure that what we spend is spent properly and has a direct impact on patient care. We should not spend on administration £1 more than we need to ensure the efficient running of the organisation.
Ministers are fond of trotting out figures about the reductions in waiting lists and in the unit costs of the number of patients treated. But I question whether that is totally related to the introduction of the internal market. Could not that have been done without the major changes which are being driven through the health service? Could not targets have been set for waiting lists? After all, the Citizen's Charter was brought about by a central initiative by the Secretary of State for Health. Furthermore, the waiting list initiative is not directed to the internal market but was brought about by a central initiative.
The National Health Service reforms are the most fundamental since it was founded. And yet, it is quite incredible to believe that an organisation which is the largest employer in Britain, with a million employees, faced those fundamental reforms without having in place before they started any mechanism with which to evaluate the changes as they were being driven through. I suggest that those changes were introduced for ideological reasons and they were put in place without those measurement provisions going alongside them.
Before I deal with the evaluation, perhaps I may deal with the reports in the media and the Public Accounts Committee and the surveys the health service unionUNISON—and the Royal College of Nursing with regard to waste in the health service.
I gather that it cost something like £1.2 billion to introduce the changes which we are facing. That is a lot of money. Whether that is too high or too low an estimate, a lot of money was certainly spent on the introduction of the changes. I wish to highlight certain areas in which instances of waste have occurred. I know that the Secretary of State visits hospitals, and I welcome that. But I wonder whether the reported £15,000 spent by Charing Cross to clean the hospital before she visited it was absolutely necessary.
Nottingham Health Authority has been criticised by the district health auditor for reaching an agreement with a private company called Regency Park to set up and to run a drug and alcohol unit which the district auditor said spent £1.8 million unlawfully. I wonder whether that could have happened before the changes to the internal market.
St. Thomas's lost £370,000 when the Belmont Ambulance Service went into liquidation. I am

1621
concerned, as I am sure are other noble Lords, about press reports that Guy's is letting out hospital apartments because it must get money from somewhere and it is to be moved to St. Thomas's. It was reported yesterday that senior consultants are resigning because of the changes which are taking place. When the London Ambulance Service's computer-aided dispatch system failed, it cost the health service £1.5 million, which could have been spent on patient care.
My noble friend Lord Dean referred to the evaluation of the benefits and I agree that there must be an objective evaluation of the costs and the benefits. I wonder where those benefits are. We were told that the money would follow the patient; but does it? Certainly local purchasers decide where they will award the contracts, but the patient has no say in that. I should mention fund-holding GPs. It is said that there is now a two-tier system and that is denied by the Department of Health. However, we read reports of a two-tier system whereby GP fund-holders are receiving preferential treatment for their patients in hospitals because those hospitals are desperate for the funds which they receive for the treatment.
Indeed, I was interested to note that Dr. David Todd, who is president of the Association of Fund-Holding Practices, said that he would not take any more patients who have learning disabilities because they are expensive to look after. I wonder whether we shall begin to read reports—and I hope we do not—about doctors refusing to treat patients who have expensive health requirements.
We read reports about increased bureaucracy. Civil servants will know how easy it is to castigate people for that. However, there has been an increase of something like 246 per cent. in senior managers between 1989 and 1992. I wonder whether that was a good use of National Health Service budget money.
I do not criticise managers as a group. By and large, their integrity, commitment and professional ability is to be admired. But if you set up an internal market which requires the creation of a team of people to negotiate with the hospitals from which they will purchase contracts and which requires the hospitals, in turn, to set up a team of high calibre managers to negotiate the costs of those contracts, of course it will be necessary to increase bureaucracy. I wonder what benefits we receive from that.
I do not believe that the changes have helped staff. Many on low wages have even received pay cuts. There is job insecurity and there are redundancies and casualisation. I hope that the Government's acceptance of the Pay Review Body's report last week does not mean that the hospitals will have to fund that increase without any additional resources, because that may well stretch the line to breaking point.
I gather that a closed conference of insurance companies is taking place today which deals with the cost to them and their clients of stress among the workforce. The levels of stress of health service staff should be taken into account when evaluating the changes which the health service faces.
When the Minister replies, will she tell us what evaluation is to be put in place? I have the document
1622
from the Secretary of State relating to codes of conduct and accountability, to which responses must be in by April. That has come almost three years after the first wave of trusts. In it the Secretary of State refers to the implications of the Cadbury corporate governance report. If one is talking about the private sector and company reports, it is important to note that the private sector must take into account its responsibilities to its stake holders. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that the main stakeholders in the health service are the patients and it is with them that the accountability must lie.
Of course, companies have a shareholders' meeting once a year. At that once-a-year shareholders' meeting not only are the accounts presented—as will be required, rightly so, under the new accountability provisions—but a board of directors is also elected. There is no election of directors for trust hospitals. It may be that that should be looked at and, indeed, I urge the Government to do so. The requirement to have one meeting per year does not really provide a benefit from the changes for the local community.
Another area which exercises my mind is that GP fund-holders are upgrading their surgeries, and rightly so, especially in London. They are all introducing computer systems. Why does not the Minister look at the pilot scheme which is taking place in north-east Westminster where Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster GPs are, as a group, looking at computer provision? That would save money.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity of this debate. I am not going to follow him into the labyrinth of the Wessex saga although, of course, I deplore it and I share the noble Lord's high opinion of the work of the Public Accounts Committee in another place. I wish to pursue the wording of the Motion on a wider front.
I am a supporter of the reforms, not because I wish to see the National Health Service destroyed but because I want it to survive and be effective within the cost constraints which will confront any government in the future.
Recently, there was considerable controversy over the additional management costs occasioned by the Government's reforms. Those have been unfavourably contrasted with the slower growth in funds for clinical services. I have with me a sheaf of a couple of dozen press articles from the past three months or so, virtually all of which are critical of the new management arrangements.
I have been persuaded that the National Health Service was previously undermanaged. That has been accepted, even on the Left; for example, in an article in the Guardian on 10th January by Will Hutton. In the Independent on 24th November of last year a journalist wrote:
"The sham accountability typical of the service's management until Margaret Thatcher set her sights on it was hardly appropriate to run a school tuck shop let alone a state service with an annual expenditure of £26 billion".

1623
I presume that figure referred to England because, of course, it is higher for the United Kingdom.
Under the present structure it seems obvious that if health authorities are to act as purchasers, and trusts and other bodies as providers, there will be a need for additional management on both sides of the transaction. However, as regards actual costs, we seem to be in a slippery area. It may be that much of the uncertainty derives from a confusion over definitions, as I believe has already been suggested. Who is a manager? Who is an administrator and who is not? Have some people who were previously classified as medical staff, such as senior nursing officers, been moved into the administrative category, as I believe is the case, and if so how many? We need to know these things.
I do not believe it is good enough for the Government to hide behind the twin formulas that this information is not available centrally or could only be collected at disproportionate cost, because there is public concern on this whole question of managerial costs. Whether or not that concern is misplaced remains to be seen. This is a field in which Parliament has a legitimate interest.
Basically there are three sets of figures which have attracted my attention and have, I suggest, contributed to the general confusion. The first is that general and senior managers now make up about 2 per cent. of the workforce and their salaries account for about 1.3 per cent. of the total budget. This information was kindly given to me by the noble Baroness Lady Cumberlege in a Written Answer on 7th December last. If you add in the overheads associated with these jobs, this presumably squares with the Prime Minister's recent reply to Mr. John Smith that,
"administrative costs in the health service are about 2 per cent. of total costs".
He went on to add that few companies can match that.
However, on the previous day, in a Written Answer in another place, Dr. Mawhinney listed,
"administrative costs as a percentage of total revenue expenditure for the NHS in England"
in a table running from 3.7 per cent. in 1986–87 up to 4.6 per cent. in 1990–91 and falling back to 3.4 per cent. in 1992–93.
Shortly afterwards, on 16th December, Mr. Blunkett, the Opposition health spokesman in another place, issued a press release accusing the Prime Minister of having misled Mr. Smith and estimating,
"administration as a percentage of the budget"
for the NHS in England in the year 1992–93 at 10.8 per cent. I believe that was probably the figure to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was approximating.
Somewhat confused by now, I turned to the Annual Abstract of Statistics for the United Kingdom 1994, table 3.3 on page 45, where I found that figures for administration of,
"hospitals and community health services and family health services"
have only increased modestly in real terms over the past eight years. In 1985–86 the relevant sum, in round figures, was £475 million for administration out of a total of £16 billion, while last year the comparable figures were £1,250 million and £32 billion respectively. This is, of course, a rise in real terms but not a
1624
dramatic one. In the earlier of those two years the administrative proportion was about 3 per cent. of the total and in the latter—that is, last year—about 4 per cent. These percentages are not far out of line with those given by Doctor Mawhinney on 6th December for England only.
Moving one's eye down this table one finds that the item called "departmental administration"—which presumably covers the Department of Health and its outposts—was little more in real terms last year than it was in 1985–86 and stands in still at about 1 per cent. of total expenditure. However, the rather cryptic item described as "other central services" shows a sharp rise from £283 million in 1985–86 to £71 1 million last year, which represents a significant climb in real terms. I hope the noble Baroness can throw some light on that, because I am afraid I have failed to identify its component parts.
If these three items are taken together—hospital and community health and family health services; departmental administration; and other central services, whatever they may be—they account for approximately 7.5 per cent. of total National Health Service expenditure in the UK last year, which falls almost exactly halfway between what I shall call the Mawhinney and the Blunkett estimates.
My central estimate of 7.5 per cent. might be thought not unsatisfactory for such a large and complex organisation, particularly as it subsumes administrative costs, which were always there and which will therefore reduce any increase that may be attributed to recent reforms. Mr. Blunkett's estimate may seem too high for comfort, though perhaps not grounds for panic, in view of the uncertainty over reclassification. But, either way, it is obviously unsatisfactory that we do not really know whose figures are correct.
I understand the argument for devolution, for allowing devolved bodies to hire the staff they believe they need and to pay them rates that reflect local labour market conditions. I applaud that. But devolution needs to be accompanied by accountability and by openness as to both costs and benefits. Not many people are going to have the time or the determination to pick their way through regional or trust accounts. I believe the Government owe it to the public—and to themselves if they wish their reforms to succeed—to help the public understand what is going on and why. If they do not, they are in grave danger of losing the argument. The Mawhinney-Blunkett gap needs to be bridged.
If costs are difficult to measure, so are benefits, as the right reverend Prelate said. The Government will be able to claim better bed usage, more patients treated, a greater proportion of day patients, shorter waiting lists in some specialties, and so forth. But we need to ask ourselves to what extent this higher turnover of patients is beneficial and I will come back to that shortly.
I now wish to make two suggestions. First, if it is truly too difficult or too expensive for the Government to collect the information I am trying to tease out, they should in my view commission some research into management costs from a competent body. The agency that springs to mind is the Audit Commission. Mr. Foster, the controller, is reported to have told a

1625
conference at the end of last year that there was a strong case for an overall study; what he called a "total piece of work". He added that such a study would inevitably be highly politically charged, I do not know that that necessarily rules it out. As I have said before, the NHS is not suddenly going to bow out of the political arena, and therefore politicians should have the proper tools for their discourse. If a large study would take too long or cost too much, some comparative studies of a number of sample districts could be the best way ahead.
If the Economist of all papers could express a fear that management may be diverting resources away from patients—as it did on 9th October last year—there is obviously a case for sharp scrutiny. I understand that the Secretary of State commissioned an inquiry into this allegation and it was carried out by Kate Jenkins, formerly of the Government's Efficiency Unit. Has that ever been published? I am bound to say I have not seen a copy and I do not know whether it is in the public domain.
There is a second piece of research, perhaps more important in the long run, which I believe should also be commissioned. This should scrutinise the outcomes and value to patients of hospital admissions and it should include medical practice variation, which causes hospitalisation to vary so widely up and down the country. I should have thought that would be a proper task for the director of research and development whose department was set up—largely at the instance of your Lordships' House—with the precise aim of providing the NHS with a tool for investigating its own practices and procedures.
The research should seriously investigate whether real benefits are being derived from increased admissions and also look at the performance-related bonuses received by managers in relation to their targets. Are the targets the right ones? Should we perhaps reward fewer admissions rather than more? We do not know at present, but after such a piece of research we might conclude that we should continue to reduce beds—that of course has been the trend for many years —and that we should aim for fewer admissions and more community treatment. Of course, attitudes play a large part here. Some glamorise hospitals as temples of healing while others regard them as places of inconvenience and suffering. If the latter view came, over time, to prevail the government of the day would no longer have to fight an endless political war over ward closures and would be able to put more money into public health and preventive medicine with the strong probability of a better outcome in terms of the health of the nation.
Before noble Lords start throwing up their hands and protesting "Not more research. Not more statistics", they should pause to reflect that we are a measuring society. We guide ourselves by every conceivable kind of measurement. You have only to look at Social Trends —which would hardly have been published by the ancient Greeks—to see what I mean. I therefore believe that the Government have a duty to provide us with as much and as accurate information as they possibly can in the field we are discussing this evening, or to commission it from someone else if they cannot do so.
1626
It is in their interest to do so because it is also the information that they require to assess the success of their policies and to secure public approval for them.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for initiating this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, we have seen a basic philosophical change in the National Health Service. However, we would fundamentally disagree on the consequences and form of that change.
I wish to concentrate my brief remarks on one of the consequences of that change in relation to provision for the long-term sick, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal. It is now the established policy of the NHS not to provide long-term nursing care for seriously dependent patients but instead to discharge them into private nursing homes at the patient's expense. I never envisaged that the NHS would resort to that. It is done in the name of good financial administration—or the cost factor, as it was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I make no apology for not dealing with financial details, as some other noble Lords have. Rather, I wish to concentrate my remarks on a specific case which we heard of recently and the effect on patients.
I felt a great sense of outrage when I read the report of the ombudsman on that particular case, not only because of the effect of the events on that particular patient and his family but also because the case involved a great hospital like the Leeds General Infirmary. In his damning report the Health Service Commissioner, Mr. William Reid, found Leeds Healthcare and Leeds General Infirmary guilty of a "failure in service", which was caused by the financial decisions taken as a result of the reforms of the health service.
The tragic case which was investigated by the ombudsman involved a man who had spent 18 months in a neurosurgical ward at the LGI (which is now managed by an NHS trust). His family were told by the hospital that he was to be discharged as his condition was no longer "life threatening". This man needed full nursing care, being doubly incontinent, with no mobility, and unable either to communicate or to feed himself. He also had a kidney tumour, cataracts in both eyes and was subject to occasional epileptic fits.
Against the wishes of his wife (which is a breach of the regulations) this patient was discharged to a private nursing home. His wife was told that she would have to pay £16,000 a year for private treatment, the Leeds health authority interpreting Department of Health guidelines to mean that it did not have to pay nursing bills once the patient had left the NHS ward. After some help from the DSS, the woman ended up paying treatment fees of some £6,000 a year—£336 a week.
We are told that the purpose of neurosurgical wards is to provide only active treatment and that the policy of Leeds Healthcare and of other trusts is to make no provision for the continuing care of such patients. Health chiefs in Leeds have admitted that regardless of who is responsible for the patient there are no NHS beds anywhere in Leeds for people who have suffered from

1627
brain damage. Of course patients should not be placed in inappropriate wards and may well have to be removed to be cared for elsewhere, but there has to be a clear understanding—by the patient, the patient's family and the staff—of the procedures for discharging such patients, and who is responsible for paying for their future care.
Leeds Healthcare has now apologised to the patient's wife who, with the help of the Leeds Community Health Council, reported the plight of her husband to the ombudsman, and is making her an ex-gratia payment for the nursing home costs she has incurred over the past three and a half years. It will pay the costs in future. It has also agreed to consider other similar cases where patients have been forced to pay for care after being asked to leave NHS beds. The question is: why did it not pay it in the first place?
It is a tragedy that it was necessary for the man's wife, at a time of great stress, to have to take her case to the ombudsman to get free care for her husband. She took that action only after discussions with the health authority had broken down. But without her action other patients would have continued to be denied that care, care that is theirs by right.
However, Leeds acted no differently from other health authorities. Two years ago, following a case involving the Cambridge health authority and as a result of other similar cases, the health ombudsman called on the NHS to provide long term health care for patients with chronic conditions —a call that was ignored. The NHS Chief Executive stated that there was a duty on the health service to provide care without charge but "within the resources available", and Ministers declined to review the position. I hope that today the Minister will be able to indicate to us the number of other patients in this country who are similarly having to pay themselves for their long-term care and whether a study is being made to review their cases.
The majority of people assume that as long as they pay their taxes and their national insurance contributions, they will receive the care that they need when they need it. That is what they think they are paying for. They have no knowledge of the various pieces of complex legislation brought in by the Government and the effect that they will have on their lives. People suffer a terrible shock when they discover that the help that they expected is no longer available to them. In the words of Philip Hunt, director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, most people are not aware of what the NHS rules are.
The need for clarity has become greater with the implementation last year of the National Health Service and Community Care Act. Thousands of patients have fallen into the gap between the health and social services, resulting in people, many of whom are themselves elderly and in poor health, being forced into poverty and into selling their homes and personal belongings in order to find nursing home fees for elderly relatives.
The statement by the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—that there is a clear obligation on health authorities to pay for the continuing healthcare of
1628
seriously ill patients is therefore welcome. We hope that the reality of that statement will mean that there will be an open debate on long-term care, clarification of the boundaries of the responsibilities of the NHS and a clear definition of the term "seriously ill". Appreciating that the ombudsman's ruling will have severe cost implications for the service, there must also be an understanding of where the resources are to come from to provide the care which the Minister so rightly says is the obligation of the NHS.
I must stress that this is not a question of the nature of the care provided but of the availability of that care on the NHS. It is a question of a commercial health service which is profit driven and of providing care when people most need it. The Government have an absolute responsibility to provide that care. Urgent action is required to ensure that there is a reversal of the slow but steady drift away from providing care and services under the NHS.
The so-called reforms in the health service have created waste on a massive scale, as we have heard from so many noble Lords today. A total of £1.8 billion has been wasted on extra bureaucracy, computer scandals and a luxurious new management centre. That £1.8 billion could have been spent on better services for patients, better equipment for hospitals and the financing of long-term care.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing the debate. On behalf of all the noble Baronesses who are taking part in this debate, I should also like to thank the two noble Lords who have been courageous enough to join us in the debate.
Much has been said this afternoon by various Members of your Lordships' House with which I agree. A noble Baroness opposite mentioned that we seem to have these debates fairly frequently. We have them because we are all concerned. We want to know the real answers. We have them, too, because we know that the people we meet around the country are deeply anxious about what is happening to the NHS under the new purchaser/provider system. They are anxious because they do not know who to believe. They do not know whether the information available from the statements by the Secretary of State is true or whether they should believe the numerous letters to the press written by doctors based on their personal experience. They read that a third of NHS beds have closed since 1981 and are still being closed in England at the rate of about 10,000 a year. However, they are then told by the Secretary of State that those beds are no longer needed. I am aware that there is a change in medical care. I accept that perhaps not all the beds were needed, but I claim that we run the risk of going too far.
Noble Lords may have read the letter in the Guardian of 14th January from Professor John Ward of Central Sheffield University Hospital Trust who has been forced to close 48 medical beds. As a result, GPs can only obtain a bed in the hospital by sending their patients to casualty. We complain that such patients fill up the casualty wards. In the Guardian of 25th January, two

1629
GPs from Sheffield wrote that that was the only way in which they could get their patients into the hospital. Before they resorted to that action, they had spent between half an hour and an hour telephoning everywhere seeking a bed for their patients. That is time that they could have used looking after some of their other patients. There is doubt about whether we have the required number of beds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Mon, asked a Question on 2nd February relating to the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. At col. 1264 of the Official Report, the noble Baroness replied that,
"163 beds have not been brought into use pending the review of services at Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals".
That may be so, but those hospitals were built at enormous expense. There must have been some plan relating to those 163 beds which suddenly are not required. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
Other noble Baronesses have referred to statistics on hospital activity published in November. The total number of finished consultant episodes rose by 3.6 per cent. There is serious doubt in all our minds about what the term "finished consultant episodes" means. We all know that a finished consultant episode does not necessarily mean that the patient is leaving hospital. Are we comparing those statistics with previous numbers of patients in the hospital? That is not a fair comparison. More patients are not necessarily treated, because a single illness can lead to a number of so-called finished consultant episodes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, referred to accountability. There are two forms of accountability. There is the accountability of the health service to the Secretary of State in Parliament. That enables MPs to ask Questions in the House; it enables us to ask Questions in the House. But how often do we receive the reply that such figures are not held centrally. That answer is not sufficient. I believe that accountability to the people is desperately important. All the new health service trusts should have public meetings and should involve the community that they look after instead of sitting behind closed doors. Above all, the trusts should give proper access to community health councils which do not have an automatic right to enter trust premises. Prior to creation of the NHS trusts, they had a right to enter those premises. Those are important points.
Finally, all chairmen and some members of RHAs, and all chairmen and some members of DHS trusts, are appointed by the Secretary of State or the Department of Health. When we hear the history of events related by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, it raises serious questions about the judgment of and criteria used by the Secretary of State and her predecessors when they appointed those involved. I call on the Secretary of State to account for the principle of selection used. I ask her to dispel the suspicion, if she can (the suspicion is there) that pliability and political correctness, rather than independence of mind and a willingness to confront both managers and Ministers, are the main qualifications required.
Reference has been made to the increased cost of managers in the health service. In London the number
1630
has grown by 109 per cent. in four years. In the South West Thames Region —it is my old region and was also that of the Minister—I am told that the number has grown by 187 per cent. When challenged, the Minister often replies that those are not all new roles: they consist of both doctors and nurses who now undertake managerial roles. It does not matter who they are. The point is that, if they are doing managerial tasks, they are not engaged in hands on care. They are working as managers. Are their salaries included in the increased cost of management, or are they still taken from the medical and nursing salaries?
Only two weeks ago we had a debate on quangos initiated by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. I have always suspected that the Department of Health was in the forefront of creating quangos as a means of pretending to deal with problems instead of taking decisions. Since becoming Secretary of State Virginia Bottomley has created 20 of these quangos, one for every month that she has been in office. She calls them task forces. Each sometimes has as many as 14 members, a chairman and representatives from government ministries. The cost of those quangos is conservatively estimated to run into millions. Those task forces usually become established as a result of some disquiet about tragedies or mismanagement in the NHS. One of the task forces was established in July last year, I suspect as a result of the scandal over the Wessex computer and the West Midlands scandal.
The task force reported in January under the title Public Enterprise Governance in the NHS. The report was published for consultation until 8th February. It is a good document, but I do not believe that work by a large number of people over a period of six months was necessary to produce it. I wish to quote some basic facts from the document, which says that the principles are: accountability, probity and openness. Under "Integrity", the report says:
"As a result, the task force calls for the NHS to adopt explicitly and formally, at a national level, a commitment to traditional public service values. It believes the sanction of dismissal should be used against anyone—chairman, director or employee—who fails to abide by those values".
The report states, under the heading "Making Boards Effective" that they should meet regularly, retain full and effective control and monitor executive management. You, I or anyone could have sat down and written that prescription for how to run the various trusts and DHAs. The recommendations are all important, but they are hardly new. Yet it took 14 people six months. I hope that we can avoid such things in the future.
7 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for introducing this debate. As several noble Lords have mentioned, we have discussed the health service quite often in your Lordships' House recently. However, the question my noble friend has raised today really goes to the centre of all our discussions. It is: are we or are we not getting a better health service as a result of the extraordinarily expensive upheaval which has gone on in the last few years?

1631
Of course, there is need for a proper evaluation, both at the local level—as my noble friend Lady Fisher suggested —and at the national level. The new system is, after all, now in its third year. There was discussion, before it was introduced, about the potential need for pilot programmes. I think that many of us who were not able to take part in debates in your Lordships' House at that time would have supported that suggestion.
Today, however, we are faced with a system which is up and running and which, I think it is widely agreed, has been expensive. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and some of the noble Baronesses sitting behind her, persist in doggedly asserting that the costs of the introduction of the new system are greatly outweighed by the benefits. It is up to them, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, suggested, to prove to those of us who are perhaps more sceptical that the benefits—particularly those to patients—are as clear and obvious as the costs certainly are.
Unfortunately, one of the major problems about the administrative changes is that it is difficult to obtain accurate and comparative information about what is going on. Noble Lords have mentioned the interesting debate last month in your Lordships' House, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, about the need for improved public information systems in the NHS. Several speakers referred then, as they have done today, to the secrecy of independent trusts which prevents both local and national data being easily available.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, on other occasions noble Lords have been frustrated by ministerial replies which so often state that the facts requested are not centrally available or are not gathered in the form requested. I must say that in addition to that particular problem, I was unpleasantly surprised to hear the Secretary of State for Health just last week in another place query the cost of parliamentary Questions on health. It almost seemed as though she was denying the right of Members of both Houses to seek information which I feel should automatically be in the public domain.
The internal market systems are themselves making it extremely difficult to assess those systems. We were told yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that Professor Alan Maynard of York University, a leading health economist, is now looking at some of the complicated questions of funding and capitation. Professor Maynard wrote recently that,
"the effects of the reforms are unknown due to the Government's decision not to evaluate them".
I do not know whether that decision reflects complacency or fear of what a proper evaluation might discover. Luckily, we have other sources of information and other means of evaluation. The National Audit Commission, now led by Mr. Andrew Foster, who was previously deputy chief executive of the National Health Service, seems to be leading the way on this. Mr. Foster is clearly becoming what I suppose one might describe as an effective gamekeeper turned poacher. He publicly stated a few months ago that there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether we are getting value for money from the administrative
1632
changes. The National Audit Commission has set up a series of inquiries to investigate trust hospitals and healthcare quality. They should produce interesting, hard evidence of precisely what is going on by the end of this year.
In the meantime, what do we know and how do we evaluate it? Noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, in introducing the debate, and my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal, have rightly drawn attention to the appalling examples of scandals among certain health authorities which have now become a national disgrace, nationally noticed and recognised. It is important that we do not ignore those facts which have been revealed—the facts to which noble Lords have drawn attention in Wessex and the West Midlands. We must try to put those facts in the context of the national picture.
Perhaps we should, again, go back to some of the more mundane facts and put on the record once more some of the more practical examples of the enormous costs of the administrative introductions and changes to which the Motion draws attention. We know that it cost £40 million of health service money to set up the first wave of trusts. We know that £73 million was spent on advertisements and on establishing the so-called "corporate identity" of the trusts. Noble Lords have referred to the enormous explosion in people employed at senior levels in the National Health Service. My noble friend Lord Rea talked about the figure increasing by an astounding 230 per cent., as did my noble friend Lady Dean. We are told that some of that substantial increase is because nurses have been regraded as managers. If that is true, it is the most extraordinary own goal by those people who seek to tell us that the reforms are producing more benefits than they are producing costs.
The costs of the senior managers rose from £30 million in 1988 to £494 million in 1993. However many nurses were regarded as being part of the senior management echelon I cannot believe that they were instrumental in pushing up the costs in that way. The national pay norms for nurses were 1.5 per cent. but managers' salaries increased by approximately 9 per cent.
It is unfair to suggest that the increase in managers is largely reflected in regradings. My suspicion is that when one wants to look for accuracy it is perhaps reflected in the rather brief but bitter letter in the Guardian yesterday. It states that in the newspaper's recent advertising columns for jobs the Department of Health was said to be seeking for the National Health Service a director of human resources at £90,000 salary. The advertisement added:
"An understanding of the NHS would be an advantage".
The writer of the letter says:
"That explains everything we need to know about the NHS!"
At the Conservative conference last autumn, the Secretary of State, perhaps reflecting some of the concerns about the enormous inflation in the numbers and salaries of managers, said that we must have tough controls on the costs of administration. Later in the autumn we had the Statement, which was the follow-up to the Langlands review, talking about the abolition or gradual phasing out of the regional health authorities.

1633
The Government congratulated themselves on reducing the bureaucratic, heavyweight nature of the regional structure. But, in fact, just three weeks ago, Mr. Alan Milburn, Member of Parliament in another place, succeeded in achieving, by his own efforts in writing to the regional health authorities, the information that only 12 per cent. of the recent growth in the number of managers had been at a regional level. In the 12 health regions he surveyed he found that 1,072 new managers were employed and had been recruited for the regional health authorities whereas there were 8,610 new managers working in local trusts. The idea therefore that somehow all will be well once the regions are abolished is simply untrue.
When the Secretary of State introduced the new management proposals she spoke of a "light touch" in relation to management organisation through the regions. That raises the question mentioned several times this evening of whether the idea of a "light touch" sits well with the question of accountability.
Several speakers have referred to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, Proper Conduct of Public Business, which talked about the need for the health service to be more tightly, rather than more lightly, managed. Several noble Lords have referred to the new codes of conduct and accountability which the Secretary of State has recently introduced. But as the Public Accounts Committee said, it is not looking for more detailed rules. Perhaps I may quote again:
"We emphasise we are not calling for any more detailed rules. Almost every case that we have examined involved breaches of existing rules of guidance".
What it was seeking—what we all seek—is a change in the atmosphere and the nature of the conduct of public business in the health service and indeed in many other areas of public life. So although, like the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, I welcome the codes of conduct and accountability which have been produced, I believe that they do not get to the root of the problem, which is the question of the change of culture which has happened and the change back to public service values which we need.
Obviously many noble Baronesses have concentrated on hospitals. But my noble friend Lord Rea also mentioned some of the issues in primary care and the increases in the costs of organising the new GP fund-holding system. Again, how do we know how much they cost? Where is the proper evaluation? One pressure group, the National Health Service Support Federation, has identified some figures. It says that an estimated £55 million a year is being spent by purchasers and providers negotiating and managing fund-holding contracts and budgets. Management allowances totalling £49.8 million were given to English fund-holders between 1990 and 1993. The group says that budget underspends retained by fund-holders added up to £14.5 million in 1991–92. Those are all costs which no doubt the Minister may challenge. But the problem remains that of access to information and evaluation.
Against all those costs how is the benefit to be measured? The Government always say that more patients have been treated. But the question raised by
1634
my noble friend Lord Rea and other noble Lords is whether the volumes of activity measured really reflect an increase in the number of patients being treated. I ask the Minister in her reply to explain again whether the increase in the volume of activity is a genuine reflection of the increase in the number of patients treated.
I turn to the question of waiting lists, which is more real to patients than the rather Alice in Wonderland world of government statistics on activity. We are told by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, as we were in the earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that waiting lists are largely an irrelevance. But there is no getting away from the fact that the numbers waiting over a year for treatment rose by over a quarter between April and October last year. I am sure that the Government will not say that that is a benefit.
The fundamental problem with the whole system is the cost of two-tier fund-holding. From the patient's point of view, which should never be lost sight of, we should always address the question of whether or not the costs of creating GP fund-holding have also created a system where we get an inequitable health service. As already stated, the BMA showed that 42 per cent. of hospitals give preference to patients from fund-holding GPs.
We must have an open, nationally based evaluation of all the costs of introducing the internal market. That evaluation should be led by the Government. It should not be information painfully extracted through individual Questions in this House or the other place, or assembled by individual MPs and voluntary organisations. However—and I believe that this is fundamental to the public service ethos of the NHS—the evaluation must not simply be a financial profit and loss account. The bottom line judgment on the health service is about improved patient care and the improved health of the nation. If the administrative changes mentioned in my noble friend's Motion do not secure those improvements, then none of the additional £1 billion cost can be justified.
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for this opportunity to set before the House the remarkable record of the Government in improving the National Health Service, particularly since the reforms of the service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is absolutely right when she says that it is important that the benefits outweigh the costs. But the NHS needs to be seen in context. To be effective it must be part of the culture of today's society. What was organisationally right in 1948 is irrelevant today. It could no longer remain a towering monolith, over-administered and chronically under-managed; it had to join the enterprise culture which pervades today's world and which delivers the services that people want.
It was Sir Roy Griffiths who in 1983 was commissioned to examine the management of the NHS and who left us in no doubt that it was monolithic,

1635
inefficient and a low achiever; and that what was needed was more and better management. But moving out of the greyness of socialism into the light of enterprise, is a shock.
Managers, doctors, nurses and those in ancillary services now have to show measurable results. Trust hospitals have to prove their worth and GP fund-holders their skills, not only in providing a wider range of local treatments but in their use of hospital facilities. This is accountability but not of course commercial activity. The difference between the NHS and private enterprise is that health services are not measured in pounds profit, but the effectiveness of treatments delivered. The NHS has had to become not a patronising "take it or leave it" state service, purveying political pills, but a cooperative between the people dedicated to providing the service and those who use it.
Unlike private enterprise the NHS uses public money and must always be accountable to Parliament and to the people. It has to be transparent in all its dealings. Managing in a goldfish bowl is daunting, but essential where taxpayers' money is concerned. The Audit Commission, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, MPs, internal auditors, the non-executives and chairmen of trust boards and health authorities and community health councils all have a watching brief. But it is not the watchful eyes of the auditors which have made health authorities want to be more open; it is their wish to purchase the services which people want.
As a consequence they not only hold public meetings but hold their meetings in public. They produce leaflets and newspapers, have established focus groups, drawn up community care plans in partnership with local people, conducted satisfaction surveys and consulted directly and through the media. They are conscious that they are champions of the people and have to purchase the services which not only provide value for money but are quality services which people want.
Trusts, anxious to win contracts also recognise the importance of not only making their services acceptable to purchasers but of involving local people who will in turn influence purchasers. As never before, trusts are finding out what users think, be it in hospital or the community, for dissatisfied patients will lose contracts.
A great deal was said this evening about the two cases that have arisen in the Wessex and West Midlands regional health authorities. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who has been assiduous in his determination to ensure that at least the Wessex computer issue has been kept under constant review. We would not in any way want to take away from the seriousness of what has happened in either region or ignore the issues that have been raised. The Public Accounts Committee carried out a very thorough investigation and we have made a formal response. As the committee acknowledged, extensive remedial action has been taken by the National Health Service Management Executive and the two regional health authorities involved to ensure that the lessons have been learnt and the events criticised by the committee will not happen again. A new investment appraisal process has
1636
been introduced for information technology projects. As noble Lords mentioned, the Secretary of State is currently consulting the National Health Service on a code of conduct and accountability based on the recommendations of the corporate governance task force. It will be implemented in April if that consultation is agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned the role of Sir Robin Buchanan. Most of the problems with the computer systems happened before Sir Robin became chairman of Wessex. He co-operated fully with the investigation and encouraged his regional general manager to take the necessary remedial action. He was criticised in two minor areas and he accepts those criticisms. But I agree with the noble Lord that some of the coverage was unjustified and even unfair.
The noble Lord also mentioned the National Health Service Supplies Authority. I should just like to say that that authority has been a great success since it was set up. It has achieved savings for the NHS of £84 million and has reduced operating costs by £20 million a year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, implied that the investment in computer systems in the West Midlands was wasted. But at no time did the district auditor say that the money had been wasted. In fact he said that the hospital information support system is probably an essential development in hospital management and the decision to implement it was correct. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that a detailed mid-term review of the project is being carried out by Coopers & Lybrand. They will carry out a full value-for-money assessment and report to both the National Health Service Management Executive and the chief executives of the hospitals comprising the Midlands consortia involved in the project.
The enterprise of the NHS management has improved productivity well beyond the high standards set by British industry; and we have only just begun. Tonight my noble friends, and in particular my noble friend Lady Seccombe, have clearly and succinctly pointed out that the statistics are impressive.
The increase of 32 per cent. between 1978 and 1991 in output per person employed in the hospital and community health services compares with an increase for the UK economy as a whole of 23.2 per cent. In the 1980s we increased the number of extra people treated from 1 per cent. per annum to 2 per cent. Now we are moving up a gear. Since the reforms the increase has been not 2 per cent. but 5 per cent. per year; or to put it another way 417,000 extra patients treated every year. That is the equivalent of treating the entire population of Somerset every year; or, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who I know is a supporter of Manchester City FC, a capacity crowd at Maine Road not just tonight or tomorrow night but for 12 nights running.
Last year we set the NHS the target of increasing productivity by 1.75 per cent. above the increase in resources. The service has exceeded that target. This year the target is 2 per cent. and looks certain to be achieved. For the coming year the target is 2.25 per cent. and we fully expect that to be beaten again, thereby releasing a further £450 million to be spent on patient care. That is enough to buy nearly 118,000 hip

1637
replacements or to equal the annual turnover of a major commercial business like the Legal and General Insurance Company.
Taken against the more modest performances of the Lloyd's insurance markets and the main clearing banks in the same period, the health service has embraced the enterprise culture with flair, care and responsibility, and with the determination to succeed.
We introduced the Patient's Charter so that we had standards by which to judge the service. Before the reforms there were 51,000 people awaiting treatment for more than two years. Today, there are none. The average waiting time for treatment was nine months. Now it is five months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, questioned whether that would have happened without the reforms. I have to say, as one who has been responsible, that waiting lists do need management. I know also that the reforms have had enormous impact in terms of the competition that they have generated. Credit for that must go not only to the clinicians but also to the managers. Eighty-three per cent. of people are now assessed immediately they enter the Accident and Emergency Department, which is good progress toward the 90 per cent. target. Eighty per cent. of out-patients are seen within 30 minutes. That is a huge improvement, but we must do better. I can only begin to touch on an endless list of good news and progress being made by the National Health Service. Other noble Lords have also raised those issues this evening.
What we have done in the reforms is to take a gently administered service and quite fundamentally change it into an actively managed service. In order to continue to do that, we need more and better managers. A health service which each year spends £647 for every man, woman and child in the country, £230 more at today's prices than in 1979, and a health service which is spending £100 million every day needs managing.
The increases in the numbers of patients treated, shorter stays in hospital, the reductions of waiting times, more doctors, more nurses, new trusts and new GP fundholders all need management. Yet senior and general managers account for only 2 per cent. of the NHS workforce and 3 per cent. of the wage bill; and whereas 10 years ago 60 per cent. of staff were involved in direct patient care, the figure today has increased to 65 per cent.
As my noble friend Lady Miller pointed out and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, acknowledged, many nurses have been reclassified as managers when they still have a clinical role. Student nurses are no longer counted in the nurse workforce figures; even once all the adjustments are made, the numbers of nurses and midwives rose by 6,490 between September 1989 and 1992.
As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said in her very knowledgeable speech, we are determined to bear down on unnecessary administrative costs. We have taken decisions to sweep away a level of administration by abolishing the regional health authorities. We intend to reduce the number of health authorities by allowing family health service authorities and district health authorities to merge. We are streamlining both the NHS Management Executive and
1638
the Department of Health. We are determined to allow decision-making to take place as closely to patients as possible.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Dean of Thornton-leFylde and Lady Jay, criticised the money spent on implementing the reforms. In other places the Government have been attacked for spending £1.18 billion on the reforms. That is considered by the Opposition to be a waste of money—money that should have been put into patient care. The premise upon which that is based is that by simply increasing the numbers of doctors and nurses in the health service the problems will be solved.
But industry and commerce have proved time and again that increasing resources is not enough. It is the efficient management and use of resources which is of paramount importance. Returning to the figure of £1.18 billion, what the Opposition also fails to mention is that it includes £103 million for 100 extra consultants and their support staff, and, which is much more important, £150 million to initiate quality initiatives and £221 million for clinical audit.
The purpose of the NHS is to give the most effective treatments, treatments that give the best results; and the best results can only be achieved by continuous scrutiny and assessment of an individual's performance. Clinical audit, with doctors and other professionals critically analysing their care, is now undertaken regularly and systematically —which gives the lie to the cheap jibe that we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester asked why no formal academic evaluation of the NHS reforms has been carried out by the Government. Other Members of your Lordships' House also raised that point tonight. But the NHS is an enormously complex organisation, and the reforms have been described as one of the largest exercises in change management ever carried out. The reforms involved a number of strands: the separation of purchasers and providers; increased delegation to trusts; improved audit arrangements; and the development of fund-holding. It is unrealistic to think that a formal evaluation could be undertaken in a reorganisation of this magnitude. We simply could not have waited upon the results of a long academic exercise before taking the steps that we considered necessary.
The problem with pilot schemes is that they take a year or so to set up; and must run for three or four years at least in order to prove their effectiveness. They then take another year or so to evaluate, and after five or six years the world has simply moved on. So we preferred an evolutionary approach with local people deciding for themselves whether they want to become trusts or fund-holders. In three years we have been amazed at the developments that have taken place. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, over 90 per cent. of hospital budgets will be held and managed by trusts, and one in three of the population will be part of a GP fund-holding practice.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that GP fund-holders do have access to all National Health Service hospitals. They are part of the NHS, as are

1639
trusts. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, criticised the costs of fund-holding. However, the administrative costs represent only around 2 per cent. of fund-holding budgets. Fund-holders have generated real benefits for patients both in reducing the cost of hospital treatment and improving the quality of service that patients receive. And we are getting better at evaluating what we do. There is a new drive to translate research funding into clinical practice. Purchasers are critically assessing the effectiveness of the treatments that they buy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. Of course many of the changes cannot be ascribed solely to the reforms. Medical advances are occurring all the time. But the reforms have set a framework and provide a new impetus towards improvement. Again, it would be unwise of the Government to say that because of the reforms more people are alive and well. None the less, real improvements are taking place.
As my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon said, with her day-to-day knowledge of primary care, we are also trying to alter the emphasis of the NHS towards promoting health and preventing disease. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher—I know a doughty fighter for the people of Birmingham—pointed out some of the sickness rates in the city. That is why we launched a major policy initiative entitled "Health of the Nation", which was warmly acclaimed by the World Health Organisation. Part and parcel of that policy is careful monitoring—indeed, we have just published a report entitled One Year On.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned the financial efficiency of the National Health Service. I am not in a position to know the press cuttings that he has. But I know that the Audit Commission identified significant improvements in financial performance in the NHS in its 1993 national management letter to the NHS policy board. The number of district health authorities rated as good or very good increased from 49 to 84 per cent. in 1991–92 when compared with the previous year. Similar improvements were identified for family health service authorities and 85 per cent. of first wave trusts were rated as good or very good in the area of financial control.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me. I was not criticising the general message that emerged from the annual abstract of health districts that I read out. Can the Minister identify for me—perhaps in writing—the item I raised on other government expenditure as I was unable to identify to what it should be attributed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am aware that many questions were raised tonight, not all of which I shall be able to answer during the course of the debate because time is moving on and the debate is time-limited. Perhaps I can take up that specific point with the noble Lord outside the Chamber.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, cited the recent case that had been investigated by the health service commissioner concerning a severely
1640
disabled patient in Leeds. As the noble Baroness said, the Leeds General Infirmary apologised and made an ex gratia payment and reviewed its policy. But I stress that those events occurred before the Community Care Act was introduced. In future, before people are discharged from hospital they must be assessed, and the assessment must be carried out in consultation with both the patient and carer. As the noble Baroness said, the policy is quite clear and it is something that we shall be monitoring with due diligence.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester mentioned an individual who had to wait for an investigation. I am always prepared to take up individual cases. But I make the general point that prior to the reforms, people also had to wait for treatment and the NHS had a long history of running out of money before the end of the year. We are trying to manage that position so that it does not happen in the future. When visiting hospitals, that is always the question I ask; and I can say that progress is being made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked specific questions about the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and the 163 unused beds. When the hospital was designed it was anticipated at that time that the accident and emergency department would close at the Charing Cross Hospital, which clearly would have a major impact on the new hospital. But as the noble Baroness said, that is subject to review at the moment, and your Lordships will be aware that there will be some decisions concerning London made in the near future.
The noble Baroness also suggested that integrity and independence of mind should be the criteria for appointments to non-executive positions on health authorities and trusts. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is why three speakers in the debate tonight hold appointments made by my noble friend the Secretary of State, and two of them sit on the Opposition Benches.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I know that it is a timed debate, but perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Several times in the recent past she has publicly referred to my being a member of a local health authority. I should like to place on record that I do not regard myself as being someone who has had the advantage of Government patronage. I have been on the health authority for over 20 years and served for a long time before it became a paid position. It is also the case that when it was suggested that I become chairman of the district health authority, I was politically vetoed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am in no way critical of the appointment of the noble Baroness to the health authority. I appreciate that she has made a major contribution to the National Health Service over 20 years or possibly more. I am not critical; I merely praise my noble friend the Secretary of State who reappointed her on one or more occasions.
Like those industries which fail to reform, the NHS would not survive without change. People do not want to work for inefficient, badly-managed organisations that belong to the past. The NHS is and must remain part of today's world. The proof of the change is that more

1641
people are receiving treatment; they are shown greater respect; costs are being contained; we are meeting the needs of modern medicine; closing out-of-date buildings and opening new ones. Nothing demonstrates the commitment of this Government to the NHS more vividly than our determination to give the most treasured service the best management that money can buy. We are proud of every penny spent and deplore those who would dare to wish that the NHS should be sold short.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I can first thank the Members of your Lordships' House who took part in the debate. There were differing views but nevertheless it was an interesting discussion. I am sure that we shall return to it as the effects of the changes about which we have been speaking unfold. I thank the Minister also for the way in which she replied to the debate, so long as she does not hold me responsible for the rather perilous situation in which Manchester City finds itself—at the bottom of the Premier League.
I can give her an assurance that, with regard to the question of the Wessex Regional Health Authority, I pronounced its benediction and it can go to bed. But I disagree with her on one small point. The Minister indicated that I said Sir Robert Buchanan had been badly treated in some respects by the press. He pleaded blame for the lot when he was responsible for only a minor part. I do not think the Public Accounts Committee thought that it was trivia or that he was wrong about some rather serious matters. Nevertheless, that is finished with. Once again I thank all those who have taken part in what has been an interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.40 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is not exactly a maiden speech although it is beginning to feel very much like one. Everything is so strange about my present location. I feel as if I have been dragged off my platform of many years and dropped into the internal mechanism of the Table. However, I must adapt myself as best I can under the compulsion of the afflictions which old age can impose upon one. If work in your Lordships' House is to continue it has to be done under different conditions but my main point, as I feel it, is that never before have I opened a debate without a leg to stand on! I speak from a position of weakness in that regard.
This is the first attempt to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The amending Bill, however, has little to do with dangerous dogs. It has much to do—almost everything to do—with the deeds of dangerous Ministers who created the 1991 Act to deal with what they said was an emergency. The first question I must ask is: what about that emergency? The Bill was created with excessive demands upon the loyalty of citizens and
1642
the people generally to meet the exceptional circumstances of the time. But emergencies are not everlasting. What has happened to the emergency now? Is it still on? Is the 1991 Act needed any longer in full to meet the emergency of 1991? I may point to some figures later which suggest that a considerable change is taking place of which we know so little in the general trend of affairs in the administration of this legislation.
The Bill deals solely with two of the most objectionable excesses of the 1991 Act which come very close indeed to being matters of the constitution, of the rights of the citizen and of the administration of justice through the judicial system. Noble Lords will notice what strong and influential backing the Bill has received. Never before in my time has the accumulation of organisations interested in canine life come together so speedily and with such purpose to get an Act changed. I have sponsors on the Floor of the House who I am glad to see will speak later. They represent distinguished interests in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, would be here but for the fact that he is in South Africa. However, we have a remarkable array of influence not only in your Lordships' House but outside it and I think the Government will be foolish if they do not heed this. We are no longer a demonstrating body in Whitehall or elsewhere. We represent the sober and intellectual side of a very important question in our society; that of the relationship between man and his dog.
The Bill itself concentrates on two questions only. One is the mandatory sentencing requirement of Section 1 of the Act. The other relates to the conditions in which the citizen has been virtually deprived of his property rights the moment the police have seized part of his property, which is his dog. I shall come to the disgraceful conditions that that has led to in the administration of the Act itself.
Have these mandatory sentences a place in the Act any longer? Mandatory sentences are probably objectionable in principle. They are a denial of some part of the judicial system to which the citizen is entitled to go. If he is denied that, there is possibly a part of the justice that is due to him which he is denied. I think also that mandatory sentences leave behind one of the strongest and deepest feelings of bitterness that any contact with the judicial system can bring about.
There is a suggestion in correspondence that has been taking place with Ministers about the value of the mandatory sentence. A Home Office letter which I have before me states that it is the Government's view that the mandatory sentence,
"provides a powerful incentive to owners to comply fully with the requirements of the law".
If the severity of a sentence is to be a strong incentive to compliance with the law, why do we not have more of them? Surely the statute book should be littered with a list of crimes and offences for which the sentence is unduly severe. But it is there to provide the incentive to comply with the law.
If this is the general philosophy of what inspires people to comply with the law, I think that the Government are sadly mistaken. Instead of leading a lot of people to comply with the law it leads many people

1643
to feel that they want to defy it. Moreover, there is an aspect of the draconian measures taken to control pit bull terriers that comes into this. One talks about the incentive to dog owners to comply with the law. Some dog owners would like to comply with the law. They missed complying with the law when the register for exemption closed on 31st August 1991. They missed it for some reason, good or indifferent, but nevertheless a reason which may well have to be considered if justice is to be done in the future. A person who failed to register by 31st August 1991 cannot get into the register now, so he cannot comply with the law in that regard. So no severity of sentence will help him to comply with the law. The more severe one makes it, the more he is determined to avoid the law. He will do anything not to have to go to prison himself when he finds that he does not have a remedy to comply with the law.
If complying with the law depends on severity and if mandatory sentences are of great value, why have we not got more of them? What we have already is a mandatory sentence of death for treason and a mandatory sentence of death for assault on the person of Her Majesty. We have a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder which used to be a mandatory death sentence. What is the other one on the list? It is for dangerous dogs. We have mandatory sentences of death for treason; for an offence affecting the Queen's bodily safety, murder and dangerous dogs. Then they say that the British have no sense of humour or of looking ridiculous. Surely, that is the most absurd list of mandatory sentences that one can imagine, bearing in mind that your Lordships' House has decided against a mandatory sentence for murder and is in favour of fixed periods of sentence; not imprisonment for life as there is, literally, no such sentence.
The idea of maintaining a mandatory sentence as a powerful incentive for dog owners to comply with the law is quite mistaken. Why then do we have to keep it? The Bill is not to disturb the general structure of the definition of the offences in the Act. The Act creates 10 new criminal offences and the mandatory destruction of the dog is involved in six of them. That is the mischief we are trying to deal with. That measure relates not only to pit bull terriers but to all dogs who are covered by another section of the Act; namely, that of being out of control and injuring any person, for which there is a mandatory sentence of destruction.
The maintenance of the mandatory sentence is of very great importance although probably of diminishing importance as regards pit bull terriers. We want to provide some way out of the deadlock which people are in if they are barred from the register and there is no way in which they can bring themselves within the law. Even if they offer to give up the dog, the police will probably tell them: "You cannot give up your dog; we are going to seize it and charge you with unlawful possession of a prohibited animal". There is no escape for a person who has missed the registration date of 31st August 1991.
The Bill provides that, where suitable, at the discretion of the magistrates, they should offer to the dog owner the opportunity of bringing his dog within
1644
the scope of registration by fulfilling the conditions and by adding his name specially and specifically to the list by order of the court. That is the way out for a number of people who are in the wilderness. They are in possession of a prohibited animal and they cannot do anything to get rid of this incubus around their necks. In the Bill which we have presented there is something of special value. It humanises the regime. Surely it has not to be kept at the level of 1991 emergency conditions.
The second point of the Bill relates to the shambles which followed the Government's policy of at first raking in the dogs and then housing them, identifying them and bringing them to court. The result was that many more dogs were seized than the police could possibly deal with. They had nowhere to put them; they certainly could not get them before the courts and they did not have any experts to identify a pit bull terrier. The dogs accumulated in large numbers under appalling conditions.
I had a letter from a woman who was employed in some kennels in the north of England. She left her job because she could no longer stand the appalling cruelty imposed on dogs in these kennels. Dogs were put in cages which were far too small for them. They were scratching on the wire until they had pulled their claws out of their front paws trying to escape. She said that it was appalling. That was the way in which the danger of the pit bull terrier was being lifted from the public; namely, by cruelty of unforgivable severity imposed on the animals.
That situation has eased in the course of time because kennels have been built and dogs better housed. However, the appalling fact is that a citizen whose dog is seized ceases to have all the rights of property ownership. They are taken away from him by the 1991 Act in respect of the dog. He cannot get it back and he has no right to go and see it. He cannot get information as to what is being done about it and he is kept in ignorance.
I have dozens of cases of a most lamentable kind. A woman was raided on Boxing Day and the dog was taken away. She asked: "What are you going to do now?" The reply was: "We shall let you know". They did not let her know. Easter came and then she was told she was going to be charged. It was August before the case reached court. That kind of delay is not at all unusual. The longest period for the kennelling of a dog is two years and three months, and that is not awaiting trial. The trial came on months after the dog was taken, but the prosecuting authorities made such a mess of it that the prosecution was withdrawn.
The man then asked for his dog back. The charge had been withdrawn and there was no charge against the dog. He was entitled to have the dog back, but the authorities did not let him have it back. He went to court to get his dog back and the court ordered that the dog should be returned to its owner. The police said: "Come to the police station and we shall hand it over to you", which they did. The dog was brought down in a cage and put on the pavement. The police said: "Here is your dog: sign for it", which he did. Then they said to him: "We are now going to take it back because we are going to bring charges as the dog is a pit bull terrier". The dog

1645
was taken away from his owner and he has never had it back. That kind of treatment which citizens have received at the hands of the police is quite disgraceful.
The second part of the Bill provides that innocent dogs awaiting trial and being kept for long periods in kennels, should be released on the application of the owner, if the court so decides, and under strict security conditions and probably with very substantial monetary assurances. That is quite reasonable.
A case came before a Croydon court earlier this week, which was referred to in Auberon Waugh's column of 5th February. It was widely talked about on television and radio today. A dog had been 18 months in captivity and the Croydon magistrates, after a nine-day hearing, decided that it was not a pit bull terrier and it was released. Fancy that! Nobody takes any account of the cost. Justice is not supposed to have any money value; justice is justice for justice's sake.
But let us consider the expenditure. The man who owns the dog in the case to which I referred earlier said that his case has already cost the state at least £70,000. Therefore, this is not an unreasonable request to make: that a person whose dog is being kept for trial—it has not been convicted; it is an innocent dog awaiting trial —should be allowed, after a certain minimum period, to go to court to ask for the dog to be returned home to him on bail. That is a reasonable request.
I refer now to the problem of the review of the Act, which we are told the department has been conducting regularly. We are told that the Act is under constant review. On what is the department conducting the review? Very few statistics are available about the way in which the Act is working. Over Christmas we received the first lot of statistics on the working of the Act. They related to the first full year of the working of the Act; that is, 1992. However, 1993 has now gone by and it looks as though we may have to wait until the end of this year to get those vital statistics about the second year of the working of the legislation. Knowing what is happening makes an enormous difference when one is considering what one requires the legislation to do.
I shall give your Lordships just a few figures from that list. The original register contained 8,600 dogs. On 1st January 1993, that figure had fallen to 5,000, so the register is being reduced all the time. The idea that registering a few more dogs in exceptional circumstances will weaken the operation of the Act is absolute nonsense. Another thing that we notice is the gap between the number of dogs that are charged and the number that are convicted. One wonders why that gap exists. I shall give your Lordships another figure. In 1992, the number of pit bull terriers that were charged was 423; the number convicted for sentence was 219. The extraordinary thing is that all the figures show a serious gap between the number charged and the number convicted. It runs at a ratio of roughly 2:1.
Another trend that we must watch is the reactions of the magistrates' courts to the continued severity that is shown to people who are charged under the Act. Under Section 3, dogs that run amok and bite somebody are liable to a mandatory sentence of death if convicted of that serious offence. It is called an aggravated offence of being out of control. However, I have noticed that a
1646
strange thing happens after conviction: 60 per cent. of those convicted are given absolute or conditional discharges. How does that come about? Are the magistrates in a sense revolting against the absurd severity of the death sentence for some of the offences for which the dogs can be convicted?
We need from the Home Office a considered statement of what the statistics imply. The statistics for 1993 should be made available urgently so that we can see just what is happening. Already the number of charges under Section 3—that is, the biting animals—exceed the number of charges against pit bull terriers. The number of charges against pit bull terrier owners will fall. In 1992, only 209 people were charged with unlawful possession of a prohibited animal. That number is falling. Actually, although 209 people were charged only 204 were convicted. That must be examined. The implication is that the 1991 Act must be relaxed in the interests of the good administration of this problem.
I finish by saying that there will be no sense in our policy on dogs in this country until we get a dog control and welfare council. The Home Office is not fit to be in charge of dogs. It knows nothing about dogs. It has no responsibility for the welfare of dogs. In fact, no single department has any responsibility for the welfare of dogs. We have an enormous population of dogs of all breeds and types in families which cherish their company and affection, yet we treat them in this manner because we are scared of the pit bull terrier. One cannot easily say what the real risk was, but I think that it was greatly exaggerated during the campaign for the legislation.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill its Second Reading. Let us go forward with the opportunity that may exist in connection with the Criminal Justice Bill, which is now before the House of Commons, or in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which is still before your Lordships' House, and have a go at grafting these amendments onto Government Bills, thus ensuring that they can have a free run in the House of Commons. We will get it done somehow. We are not prepared to go on with the present situation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.
—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
8.6 p.m.>
The Viscountof Falkland: My Lords, I shall be brief, which will be a relief to your Lordships' House, following the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who, as usual, has covered the topic on which he speaks so well, which tonight is the Bill that he has introduced. I do not think that my voice will last for even a small percentage of the time that the noble Lord took to describe his Bill so ably.
We on these Benches have been opposed to the original legislation for all the reasons on which the noble Lord has touched. We felt—I still feel this very strongly—that the Act was a typical case of legislation in reaction to press pressure which came about as a

1647
result of some tragic events when severe injuries were caused to children as a result of attacks by pit bull terriers.
The problems which the noble Lord did not touch on in great detail, but which still remain, are the difficulties of the sure identification of a pit bull terrier. There are many problems, particularly for the police, who are not necessarily dog experts. They usually act on information that is given to them. Unhappily these days, bodies from the social services to the Inland Revenue seem to be moved into action on the receipt of such information. When the police are given such information, they have to act on it. A dog is then brought into custody and, if the owner has not complied with the legislation, it has to face the mandatory sentence, as the noble Lord described. That has led to appeals and to dogs being put into kennels for prolonged periods, often in conditions which are far from satisfactory and which lead to a great deal of unhappiness and anxiety for the owners. I do not think that those are the results which the Government intended to flow from the legislation although they were warned that this would happen. The mandatory sentencing seems totally unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort on that point.
The issue of late registration should be dealt with in all humanity. All people who for one reason or another do not register their dogs according to statutory requirements are subject to the same sanctions of the law which give them no possible way out. The way in which the Government view dog ownership is highly unsatisfactory for a nation as advanced as ours. We do not know the total number of dogs in the country—but that leads to the ticklish subject of dog registration to which, for reasons often expressed in this House, the Government are bitterly opposed. I do not believe that they have grasped even the most basic facts about dogs and their danger to society.
My vet, who is a perspicacious Irishman, told me that when dogs are brought into his surgery he looks first at the owners. He says that pit bull terriers, or pit bull-type terriers, are of particular anxiety to him as a vet. If during his work he is bitten by a dog, even a large dog, he may suffer discomfort for perhaps 24 hours. However, if he is bitten by a pit bull terrier, with its massive muscle formation, he is likely to be out of action for two weeks or more. They are dangerous dogs. I have had many conversations with owners of such dogs and it may surprise your Lordships to know that the dogs are affectionate and make good pets.
It is interesting to note that recently there have been tragic attacks by dogs other than pit bull terriers. It happens all the time and involves small dogs in the park. Anyone who walks in the park with children, as I do, is always cautious of dogs. It does not matter whether it is a small terrier no higher than one's ankle or whether it is a Great Dane or an Alsatian. One must always be careful and look at the owner. The owners are the problem and not the dogs, but the Government do not seem to have grasped that basic fact.
My voice is disappearing and I shall conclude by saying that we on these Benches support the Bill. It is
1648
modest in its scope and rights an injustice, which will be acknowledged by the Minister. There have been well-documented cases such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, of the small boy who took off his dog's muzzle temporarily in order to give it a drink of water from a puddle in the road. He was spotted and the dog was taken. There is only one course that the courts can take and that is to condemn the dog to death with all the heart-breaking deprivation that results.
On behalf of Members on these Benches, I give the Bill my full support and I hope that it will be given a fair wind by the Government.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his Amendment Bill to the Dangerous Dogs Act. I also congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech from the Table, but point out that he is not the one who is Strange. There can be nobody, dog-loving or otherwise, who does not admire the noble Lord for his doggedness and, indeed, pugnacity in the defence of dogs. No matter that his Motions are always put at the end of business at a very late hour; no matter that many—dare I say younger—noble Lords have departed home, still at whatever hour, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is there to defend dogs.
I am not here to howl like a cynic in the defence of dogs but merely to yap. And I can assure your Lordships that I shall be brief. This Bill proposes two essential changes to the Act. First, that the death sentence should not be mandatory and that the ancient right of discretion should be restored to magistrates. In Ecclesiastes it states:
"a living dog is better than a dead lion".
I am sure that anyone who saw the expressions of Toffee and her owner on this morning's television will know how they both feel. The Magistrates' Association is also behind this, for it is yet another of the insidious ways that power is being removed from the judiciary.
The noble Lord's second point seeks to alleviate the distress of dog owners and of the dogs themselves when they are removed for long periods awaiting trial. I know myself how unhappy and desperate I feel when my dog is not with me. And one must also remember that the dog loves his owner too and is not only bereft of his owner, whom he loves, but is taken to a strange, uncomfortable place with no familiar faces. The dog cannot explain how he feels nor how he suffers. It is of course right that we prevent dogs from ill-treating people. Conversely, we must not allow people to ill-treat dogs. It would be a sad world indeed if we did not stand up for our friends and those who love us. I support the Bill.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Houghton for bringing the Bill before us tonight. I congratulate him not only on his maiden speech but for bringing together so many dog organisations and animal welfare agencies for the sole purpose of working together to improve this Act.

1649
I would like to make it clear that I am not in favour of fighting dogs, be they pit bulls or any kind bred solely for fighting. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill does not alter the protection of the public in that respect. However, I do understand that a considerable number of pit bulls are still unregistered and probably many of them live in squalid conditions, hidden from public view. I echo the noble Lord in saying that if the magistrate has discretionary power to allow a dog to be added to the index of exempt dogs, provided that all the conditions are met, the owners of unregistered dogs will, I hope, come forward and plead guilty.
Pleading not guilty results in lengthy court cases and high kennelling costs which are met by the taxpayer. Both the Magistrates' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers are extremely anxious about the time spent in long court cases arising from not guilty pleas and the large number of expert witnesses who have to be called. I have to confess that I am more concerned for the welfare of the dog, but I suspect that there are many ignorant owners out there.
It is worth mentioning at this time that many Staffordshire bull terriers are caught up under Section 1 and wrongly identified by sometimes non-experts. The consequence is lengthy detention, often in solitary confinement, with an eventual change in the dog's character, not to mention a substantial cost to the taxpayer. Many have not committed a crime; they are simply wrongly identified. The trouble is that by the time they are returned to their stressed owners the damage has been done. With discretion restored to the courts many dogs could be reunited with their owners much sooner.
Sadly, it was the introduction of pit bulls to this country and the subsequent attacks on people by them that brought about the Dangerous Dogs Act. Perhaps I may quote from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He stated:
"If the import of those two dogs had been banned at the time when they were introduced into this country, it is very likely that we should not be debating the Bill today. That makes it all the more important that the Government should have clear powers to ban the domestic ownership and import of any other new types of fighting dog which may emerge in the future".—[Official Report, 25/6/91; col. 512.]
I agree with that, but it is worth noting that the RSPCA recommended a ban in the 1970s. Section 3 of the 1991 Act provides that a dog out of control in a public place that causes injury, irrespective of the circumstances of the attack and no matter how minor, must be destroyed. I refer to dogs of any breed. Those dogs could be guarding their owner's home or be even in a locked car, which is deemed to be a public place. I have to confess that I did not know until recently that a car was a public place. Dogs only need to appear to be aggressive to cause fear in the on-looker, with the result that they end up in court. What happens when a dog in a house bites a burglar, or if uninvited intruders enter a private fenced garden or backyard while the owner's dog is there? I am not sure. It is very important for magistrates courts to have discretionary powers in cases like these.
I should like to give your Lordships another quote, this time from Andrew Bowden in an adjournment debate in another place. He said:
"Section 3 of the Act could affect every dog in the country —including many dogs that are owned by hon. Members. Let me
1650
give an example of what could happen as a result of the Act. Let us suppose that a woman peacefully walking her dog in the woods, enjoying an afternoon stroll and minding her own business, is suddenly attacked by a man who may attempt to rape, assault or rob her. The dog, devoted to its owner, immediately goes to her defence and bites the man. The man runs off but within a few hours is detained and charged by the police. He is sent to court and then to prison for assault or whatever. It is quite possible, however, that, as a result of the Act, that woman's dog will be destroyed and the woman will have a criminal record for life. That cannot be right."—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/91; col. 387.]
It makes you think, does it not?
Prior to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, there was already legislation in place which dealt with dogs that were out of control in a public place. Under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, a magistrates' court may, upon the complaint of any person that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, order the owner to keep it under proper control, or may order it to be destroyed, if the evidence proves that the animal is dangerous. Prosecution under the 1871 Act allows the magistrate discretion and does not impose the mandatory death sentence on an animal, which if prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act would have to be destroyed. Many owners would far rather keep their dogs muzzled while out walking, than lose a much loved pet, and the 1871 Act allows the magistrate full discretion while giving the option for destruction in more serious cases.
Finally, could we not encourage more education in schools about how to cope with pets which, if properly handled, bring great rewards? After all dogs have been called "man's best friend". They have on many occasions saved our lives. They have given us love and helped to stave off loneliness and depression. They rarely answer back and amazingly put up with a great deal of abuse, intentioned or otherwise. We are supposed to be a nation of dog lovers. I pray that we remain so.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I am in a somewhat interesting position. If your Lordships look at the list of members of the reform group in favour of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, your Lordships will find that there are 15 organisations and seven individuals. With the exception of me, I believe that the whole lot are dog lovers. I am not. To be honest, I do not like dogs. Therefore, I represent a dispassionate view in connection with the amendment.
I wish to see that dogs receive a fair deal. In just the same way, when the reform group was considering the wording of the amendment Bill, in its turn it wanted to ensure the safety of the public. For example, your Lordships may notice, when going through the Bill, that there are 13 "mays" and only one "shall". How many times have we had to consider those words in this House? Therefore, we are agreed in principle that everybody connected with the Bill does not like the mandatory sentence.
On the other hand, we must make sure that there is confidence in the courts and in the police; for example, a police dog handler who is giving his opinion as an expert witness as to whether or not a dog is a pit bull. The courts need to be sure, when releasing or imposing

1651
conditions upon an owner of a dog, that it will not return to its owner and be allowed to breed again because the whole point of the Act is to eliminate all pit bulls in due course.
The same applies—and this is rather more controversial to my mind—to releasing a dog while proceedings are pending. The court can impose conditions; it says so in our Bill. The court must be mindful not only of the public safety but of all the implications that there may be of releasing the dog back to its owner. I believe that I am right to say that the police believe they will never see the dog again or if they see a dog, it will not be that dog. But electronic tags can be put on the dogs so that there can be certainty in that regard.
We then move on to something about which I imagine there is universal agreement—that is, the care of dogs while they are under surveillance. The Bill provides that such dogs must be kept in licensed boarding establishments. I confess that I found it strange to learn of the existence of such establishments. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, suggested, it may be that as the situation has improved, such circumstances may not arise again. But I am in favour of the provision in the Bill that all such dogs should be kept in licensed boarding establishments.
It is true that the original 1991 Act was passed in a hurry. Its prime object was to safeguard the public. I am told by the police that it has been partially successful. This amending Bill is reasonable, sensible and essential. We can review the situation in Committee. Therefore, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, if anybody is entitled to say to this Government, "I told you so", it is the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in relation to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. As I remember it, time after time during the progress of that Bill in the long, hot summer of 1991, he warned the Government of the futility of the exercise upon which they were embarking, and he spoke all too prophetically as to the likely consequences of the hasty and ill-advised legislation which they had started.
Sure enough, the sky is now black with pigeons coming home to roost. It is not surprising that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a chief keeper of the pigeon loft, and his noble assistant, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who dealt with the original Bill, have fled the coop and have left the unfortunate and noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to do the best that he can this evening with a mop and bucket.
The Dangerous Dogs Act must have been conceived by the Home Secretary of the day, whoever he was—and there have been so many holders of that office in recent times that it is difficult to be sure upon whom to place the blame—in a moment of bathtime inspiration. The newspapers had carried several distressing stories of young children badly bitten, and in one case killed, by large and powerful dogs. But instead of looking carefully at the real causes and looking for solutions to what is a genuine and continuing problem, the Bill was
1652
raced through both Houses of Parliament that summer in the face of objection from all sides of the House so that this Government could be seen to be taking instant action in relation to a topical matter.
What has the Act achieved in its two or more years in existence? Has there been any reduction in dog attacks? If there has, I should be glad to hear about that from the Minister. Ironically, since the amendment Bill received its First Reading, there have been two serious attacks by dogs on young children which have received national coverage. Has there been any reduction in the keeping of potentially dangerous dogs? One has only to drive through any of our major cities or to drive out of London in any direction to see over and over again large and powerful dogs which are wholly inappropriate as town pets towing their owners along pavements and scattering pedestrians at their approach. If there has been any reduction in the keeping of inappropriate dogs in inappropriate places, it has not been apparent to me.
Nor has the Act done anything for the countless dogs who live their lives on the end of chains, kept as living burglar deterrents and made fierce and even vicious by lack of exercise and an unnatural way of life which is often forced upon them. What is it exactly that this Act has achieved? Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act has proved immensely beneficial to the legal profession and to a selection of the veterinary profession also. The courts have seen nothing quite like it since the obscenity trials of the 1970s when a panel of self-proclaimed expert witnesses used to go from court to court testifying to the merits of various publications alleged by the Crown to be obscene. There was, as I recall, a doctor from Sandwich, a psychiatrist and a vicar from East London. They were in much demand to defend Linda Lovelace's memoirs and other similar works of literature.
Today a panel of veterinary surgeons, ready to argue in court over the parentage of any suspect pit bull terrier, has taken their place. Such experts have to be paid, of course, and more often than not paid by legal aid, as do the prosecuting barristers and solicitor, and the defence solicitor and banisters who appear for the family of the dog. Indeed a cottage industry has grown up around Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. It is, unhappily, an industry which is paid for largely out of the public purse.
While they await their trial the dogs themselves are also kept at public expense. The Daily Mail recently carried a story giving an example of one such case where the dog in question had apparently been blessed with puppies while in custody. There had been delays of the sort to which both the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, have referred; and total costs, including legal fees, kennelling and dog food, amounted to something of the order of £26,000 and were still continuing. I have no means of knowing whether that was accurate; and I should be grateful if the noble Minister would tell us, if he can, how many dogs are currently detained at Her Majesty's pleasure under the various provisions of this Act, and what the total cost of keeping such dogs has been in the period since this Act came into force.

1653
Section 3 of the Act dealt with keeping dogs under proper control, and two of its subsections created aggravated offences where injury was actually caused by dogs. In other words, two of those parts of Section 3 went to the heart of what this Bill was supposed to be about.
The 1992 figures—they are the most recent ones as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out—indicate that, in relation to those matters, offences where injury was caused by dogs resulted in a total of 131 convictions in magistrates' courts throughout the whole of England and Wales. Only eight were of sufficient seriousness to reach the Crown Court. In other words, a total of 139 dogs that caused injury were the subject of successful prosecutions under this Act in 1992. It would perhaps be interesting to know from a Government who speak constantly about value for money as regards all aspects of their programme, what the cost per dog of those convictions amounts to.
The amendment Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is to be welcomed in that it gives a court discretion as to whether or not to order destruction. Surely where a dog is not at fault, even though the owner may be, as a matter of plain fairness destruction should not be compulsory. Surely also the provisions of Section 3 of the Bill, which permit the court to allow the dog to be returned to the owner pending the conclusion of a case, in a suitable case, is a sensible and (dare I say it?) cost-saving, value for money measure which should appeal to the Minister. Similarly, the same arguments should appeal to him as regards late registration.
The Dangerous Dogs Act has brought about no noticeable improvement in the mischief that that Act was intended to cure. This Bill modifies some of its unfairness. It was a case of an Act which was conceived in haste. We on these Benches hope that the Government have now had sufficient leisure to repent and will at least give a fair wind to the noble Lord's sensible amendment Bill.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, for the second time in recent months I return to the Chamber to debate the subject of dogs with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is perhaps appropriate that we should debate this subject today because at lunchtime I ate a pleasant Chinese meal to celebrate the Chinese New Year. This year happens to be the Year of the Dog. I have brought with me an astrologer's guide to try to discover the Chinese symbol which corresponds to the year in which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was born. I am sure that the noble Lord is proud of the age that he has reached. However, the astrological chart does not go back sufficiently far to record the year of his birth. But, if I am right, and if the system is logical—those are two quite big "ifs"—I believe that the noble Lord was born in a Year of the Dog. That is appropriate. However, the bad news for him is that I was born in the Year of the Tiger and I am not too sure whether tigers and dogs are totally compatible.
1654
I know, as indeed does the whole House, that the Dangerous Dogs Act has caused the noble Lord much anxiety. He led the opposition to the Act during its original passage through your Lordships' House.
Before dealing with the specific proposals in the Bill now before us and the points that have been made, I want to make plain the Government's position. We introduced the Dangerous Dogs Act because we recognised the very real anxiety there was about the presence of fighting dogs in this country, as well as broader concern about dog attacks more generally. This was not a panic reaction, as some noble Lords have from time to time suggested, but a responsible recognition that the public demanded action and that it was our duty to take it. No one who is a parent, or dare I say more likely in your Lordships' House, a grandparent, can be other than horrified at the instances where dogs have savaged and killed small children. No government worth the name could have done otherwise than to take action.
It is interesting to note that I am the first person who has referred to some of the horrendous attacks that have taken place in any detail. Finding the right approach was not easy, but nothing that I have heard tonight, or which has happened since the Act was passed has persuaded us that we were wrong in taking the action we did, either in principle or so far as the details of the legislation are concerned. The need for public protection and reassurance is as real today as it was when the Act was passed. In saying this, I do not underrate the anxieties which some feel about the legislation, or indeed the depth of the noble Lord's conviction that changes are needed in the Act. I understand the pain that some owners must have felt at realising that their animals were covered by the legislation. But that pain is nothing to the pain and suffering of the young victims attacked by those dogs or of the parents of those young victims. I am happy to be their advocate rather than an advocate for the dogs. The first duty of government and of a civilised society was, and remains, the protection of human beings.
With these preliminary comments, I turn to the Bill now before the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has explained, its objectives are threefold. First, it seeks to give the courts discretion in sentencing where there is presently no option but to order the destruction of a dog. Secondly, it seeks to allow owners of dogs which have been seized by the police and local authorities to apply for custody of their dog pending a court hearing. Thirdly, it seeks to oblige the police and local authorities to keep dogs which have been seized in licensed boarding establishments.
The underlying principles of the Dangerous Dogs Act are to eliminate fighting dogs from this country and to protect the public from dangerous dogs. Under the Act owners of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred for fighting were allowed to keep their animals on condition that they complied with stringent conditions by 30th November 1991, including registering their dog and keeping them on a lead and muzzled when in a public place.
The obligations in the legislation were very widely publicised. The Bill received a great deal of publicity

1655
during its passage through both Houses. A clear message was sent out that conforming with the obligations of the legislation was the only way in which owners could lawfully retain their animals. In those cases where the owner of a fighting dog has failed to comply with the requirements of the law, or where a dog of any type or breed causes injury to a person, magistrates have no option but to order the destruction of the dog. And rightly so.
The reason Parliament gave the courts no option in these cases is clear. The provision is there in the Act in order to provide a powerful incentive to owners of fighting dogs to comply fully with the requirements of the law, and to ensure that people who fail to do so do not remain in charge of potentially dangerous dogs. There would be an outcry if a dog which had attacked were returned to a convicted owner and attacked again. Similarly, if the courts were given discretion on sentencing and decided not to order the destruction of the dog, then the dog would have to be returned to an owner who would already have shown that he was not sufficiently responsible to observe the clear requirements of the legislation.
Clause 1 of the Bill before the House this evening would give the courts a discretion on sentencing that would include the re-opening of the Index of Exempted Dogs for an indefinite period. To allow those owners who originally failed to register to do so now would, I am sure, bring justified criticism from those owners whose dogs have already been put down because they failed to comply with the registration requirements. Furthermore, it would suggest that Parliament was no longer committed to ensuring that the current generation of pit bull terriers is the last in this country, since there would be nothing to prevent fresh dogs, imported into this country or bred unlawfully here, from benefiting from this method of retrospective legalisation. I repeat that the object of the legislation is to make sure that the current generation of this type of dog is the last in this country.
I do not agree with the proposition advanced in Clause 3 of the Bill that the courts be given a locus in the decision whether or not to allow dogs back into the custody of their owners pending the full court hearing. That is a matter for those holding the animal.
Section 5 of the 1991 Act states that a police officer or an officer of the local authority may seize a dog which is believed to have committed an offence under the Act. There is therefore no obligation on the police or local authority to impound a dog and to hold it pending trial. That has to be an operational matter for the agency concerned. The police or local authority have to consider the safety of the public and the likelihood of the animal being surrendered again to custody at the appropriate time. There would be justified criticism if the police were to leave a dog with its owner or to release a dog which then caused injury to somebody.
Returning dogs to their owners "on bail" pending the outcome of proceedings could well lead to enforcement problems. For example, owners might be very reluctant to return a dog to custody when they knew that the result of the proceedings could be an order for its destruction.
1656
The temptation might be very great to claim that the dog had been lost or involved in an accident while in their custody.
Clause 4 of the Bill proposes that dogs which are seized by the police or the local authority dog warden should be kept in boarding establishments approved and licensed by the local authority. I do not believe it to be right or necessary for us to seek to prescribe detailed practices in that way. The police and the local authorities have the responsibility for deciding where seized dogs should be kennelled, and there may be all sorts of security and other considerations which they must bear in mind.
The Government remain convinced that the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act were a necessary and justified response to public anxieties about dangerous dogs. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, believes that his Bill is concerned only with matters which he regards as the more extreme aspects of the 1991 Act. However, the Government consider that the mandatory destruction order and the one-off nature of the registration scheme are matters which are integral to the provisions of the Act and to the objective which Parliament agreed and with which I am sure the bulk of the people in our country agree—the elimination of these particular types of dog. We believe that it would be wrong to seek to modify the provisions of the Act as the noble Lord proposes. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that because one cannot but admire his spirit on these matters, but I am afraid that the Government cannot support the Bill. Of course, it is a Private Members' Bill and, as such, we would not propose to vote against it.
The Government consider that what is needed are not changes to the Act, but whatever help we can give to those responsible for its implementation. The Home Office will shortly be issuing a circular to the courts, prosecutors, police and local authorities about a number of aspects of the Act, which we hope will meet some of the concerns that have been voiced about its operation. This will reflect suggestions that have been made to the Home Office for improving the welfare of detained dogs in custody, which is one of the items in the Bill before us this evening, and will draw attention to the panel set up by the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. This consists of people willing to give advice on whether or not a dog is a pit bull terrier. I hope that that will prove a helpful contribution to the fair but effective operation of the Act.
The Government do take seriously the problem of dangerous dogs and the need for responsible dog ownership. We shall continue to listen to the views which are put to us, and I hope that the circular that I mentioned will demonstrate our commitment to that process.
But I have to say again that protecting the public against dangerous dogs—and let us not forget, as I have said before and make no apology for saying again, that on occasion such dogs have done the most appalling damage to people—has to be the Government's paramount responsibility. Were the provisions of the

1657
Act to be modified in the way envisaged by the Bill before your Lordships today the protection afforded to the public would be very seriously weakened.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and the Front Bench spokesman for the Government. Not for the first time in a reply to a debate on this subject, he has clarified the issues and enabled us to consider what is the measure of the difference that will exist in the later stages of the debate. I shall therefore regard this as an important statement by the Government on a matter which will be the subject of continual debate for the rest of this Session. It will arise in more than one place and there is no point in keeping the House late tonight to continue the discussion.
The Minister has given us the starting point for the next debate. We shall have to deal with that and with the Government's record of negligence and indifference on the dog issue for years before this matter broke out in 1991. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Support Act 1991
8.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are planning any amendments to the Child Support Act 1991.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when a debate in another place was got back on course in 1628 one of the reporters remarked:
"As when a good old hound recovers the scent, so the rest come on in full career".
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was one of the good old hounds who recovered the scent in 1991 when we first debated the Child Support Bill. We, my Lords, are the rest who come on in full career.
It is not only Members of the two Houses of Parliament who have been inundated with correspondence on this subject. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux regards 1,000 evidence forms in a year on any one subject as a sign of something pretty seriously wrong. On this subject it received 290 evidence forms in October and 430 in November.
I shall not go on simply saying that there is a vast amount of concern about the Act. We know that. The question I am trying to address tonight is what should be done instead. We on these Benches, as the Minister knows, are committed to a fundamental review of the Act. He may know that my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood this morning made a statement saying that if that review is not genuinely fundamental and if we do not have substantial changes we may not be able to support the continuation of the Act in any form. If we are considering a fundamental review, we need to ask these questions: what are the good features of the Act; what are the bad features; and what are the features which are capable of being made acceptable?
1658
The good feature of the Act is the use of the power of the state to help to collect maintenance in cases where it has proved extremely difficult to collect. I have not heard that aspect questioned at any stage of the debate this year. It is a factor that accounts for the cases which the department has quoted where the Act does good. We admit that such cases exist. We do not wish them to cease to exist. However, when the Minister claims the formula as one of the virtues of the Act on the ground that it introduces consistency where there was previously discretion, we say that for us the formula is at best neutral. Because they do not take account of individual cases and circumstances, formulae are not the most liberal of methods. The formula which achieves the appearance of consistency by treating highly different cases as the same is not achieving consistency unless it is the spurious and limited consistency achieved by Procrustes for those he put in his bed. The formula will need serious attention. It has to take account of the infinite variousness of human relationships and especially of the infinite variousness of marriages as economic partnerships.
Another factor that we believe is entirely wrong is the amount of money being demanded in maintenance assessments. We believe that it was right that a number of maintenance assessments should rise. We do not say that all the assessments should go back to their previous levels. Nor indeed are large numbers of the people who write to us protesting about the Act. We say that the increases are altogether too big. It strikes me as one of the curious aspects of the modern Conservative Party that while it underrates the amount that people can pay in the form of taxation, it tends to overrate with equal consistency the amount of money which people can pay out of the other pocket which is labelled private.
The size of the alleged tax bombshell of the past general election was £1,250 a year. If I may follow the example of Goldman Sachs and add a new word to our currency, when I find someone whose maintenance assessment has been increased by £2,800 a year, I say that his assessment has been increased by 2.3 bombshells. Let us suppose that Mr. John Smith had proposed increasing people's taxes by £2,800 a year. I do not believe that the Government would have stopped at "tax holocaust"; they would have needed some expression a little stronger. As I believe everyone knows, we proposed increasing income tax by one penny. The only one of my correspondents who quoted his tax assessment is paying 150 per cent. of his income tax in child maintenance. Let us suppose that we had proposed to increase income tax by 37.5 pence. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount but I shall not stretch my imagination to work out what Conservative Central Office might have said about us. For all I know my powers of invective might possibly be greater and I do not wish to give Central Office that assistance.
The amount that is demanded of people will have to come down. In particular we should consider the possibility of a cap on maintenance assessment: that no one should pay more maintenance assessment than they pay in income tax. Even under this Government, the

1659
burden of income tax is not that negligible. I do not believe that the Government would wish to tell voters that it is.
We need to consider achieving a realistic formula. That means that there must be a realistic system of appeal. No formula, however perfect, will cover everything. Every formula will cause highly undesirable results in some cases. On these Benches, we have always been unhappy about the total exclusion of resort to the courts under the Act. It seems to us a breach of justice. In another place, Mr. Burt said that that would merely return us to the discretionary system which previously existed. Some of us might prefer to re-phrase that by saying that it might return us to somewhere rather nearer the real world.
It is difficult to say that it is impossible to have a system of appeal. The Australians have set out specified grounds of appeal and appear to have done so with success. Therefore, however much we improve the formula, it is no good having a formula unless there is a system of appeal. I think it unlikely that these Benches will support the continuation of a formula without an appeal system.
The formula has to include an assessment on disposable income and not on gross income. Sums of this size bite deeply into people's available income. The Government have only two options: either they must treat as allowable expenses certain activities they do not wish to stop people doing; or they must bite on the bullet and accept that people will give up those activities.
Let me take the first activity which I should have thought the Treasury would allow as desirable: going to work. I take a case from my correspondence. A man in Henley-in-Arden had to travel 30 miles daily to work. There was no public transport available, an increasingly common case. He was buying a car on hire purchase. If he paid his child maintenance, he was unable to continue his hire purchase payments on the car. He called the Child Support Agency hot line and asked for advice. The agency advised him to sell his car. I wrote to Mr. Burt and asked for an assurance that that was not government policy. Mr. Burt wrote me a long and careful letter in which he stated that he was sorry to say that he would probably disappoint my correspondent. He did not give the assurance required. That is surely against the public interest.
The point was raised on 2nd February in another place by the Member for Castle Point on behalf of a constituent who had to commute to London. Mr. Burt told him that his was a highly exceptional constituency. If he intends to classify all the commuter constituencies around London as highly exceptional constituencies, he will find rather a lot of them. He may even find that he loses a good deal of support in those areas. If he wishes to do that, that is his right, but I feel some sympathy for the people by whose suffering he does so. If you are going to lose support, do not do so at the expense of ordinary voters. It is not fair on them.
The next point that must be considered is debt. No marriage breaks up without a reassessment of debt. It involves not only the house; it often involves the
1660
breaking up of a business partnership. That can be extremely complicated. The Minister may say to me that debts can be abused and indeed they can. So can alcohol. But if the Minister gave that as a ground for prohibiting it, he might receive a dusty response from this House.
The next point that must be considered is the cost of access to children. The Minister can say, as the Government have said before, that there may be a difficulty in assessing the cost. I suggest that he uses the American tax withholding system. You have a sum on account, then you put in receipts for what is actually spent and either get a bit more or pay back a little of it. It is a system I have operated with American tax; it works. If the Minister intends to persuade fathers to operate the system under a policy entitled, "Children come first", he cannot do so in a form which prevents fathers ever seeing their children. Flesh and blood simply will not consent to it. I shall say no more about step-children because I dealt with the issue last week.
The Minister must deal with the point of capital settlements. He told us last week that it was impossible for the Government to do it. It is perfectly possible for the Australians. Why not for us? I am sure that our Civil Service is as good as its Australian counterpart. I should have thought the matter was within its competence. If not, then bad luck for the Act itself, because capital settlements, especially involving housing, are vital to many people's lives. There must be a disregard for those who receive the maintenance, a point I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will make at greater length. Perhaps I may say that she will be speaking for me too on that point.
The same applies on passported benefits. In 1991 we divided the House on the issue of passported benefits. We were right to do so because to introduce the system and leave the women who are receiving the child maintenance worse off than they were before offends the sense of justice of the fathers as well as the mothers and, indeed, of any ordinary people who hear of it.
There must also be more thought about the benefit penalty. Mr. Burt said in another place that there had only been 160 cases so far. I am glad to hear that. I congratulate Mr. Burt on the sensitivity with which he has handled the issue so far. However, he will not be in office for ever; that sensitivity will not necessarily continue. Also, the number who receive the benefit penalty is not the full measure of the amount of hardship caused. Many people have voluntarily gone off benefit rather than go through the process of assessment.
The citizens advice bureaux have found one case of a woman who voluntarily took the benefit penalty rather than maintenance at a level which would disturb the children's relationship with their father. That may sound saintly, but there are saintly people about and one should not unnecessarily punish them for that. The issue must have attention.
There has been sensitivity so far on the issue of harm and undue distress to the mother—a concession in 1991 which is valued deeply. It has not always worked perfectly. There was a case at a citizens advice bureau in Lancashire of a woman who claimed domestic violence. The Child Support Agency told her to run

1661
along and not be a nuisance. That, I think, is an example of the evils of performance-related pay. The person who was ignoring an Act of Parliament was under a financial inducement to do what he did. That is why it appears to us on these Benches that performance-related pay, even if those to whom it is given resist temptation, comes perilously near the character of a corrupt payment.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting down the Question today and also for all the work he has already done in drawing the attention of the public and the world to the iniquities of this pernicious statute. I do not hesitate so to describe it.
I have an interest to declare in that I am what is called, with such inaccuracy and insensitivity, an absent father. I spoke about that a week ago. However, I have no financial interest to declare because although I am an absent father, my own case has not come and I believe cannot come before the Child Support Agency. Therefore mine is not a financial interest.
I wish to draw attention to three or four matters on which I think that the present Act is grossly deficient and unfair. The first is connected with what is known as "clean break" arrangements. I should mention that such arrangements are now made and have been made for several years in, I understand, about half of all agreements made at the time of the divorce. The thought behind them is that the wife—and it is almost always the wife—should receive the matrimonial home and/or a large part of the available equity. In return, she receives less in the way of maintenance both to herself and for the child or children of the marriage than she would otherwise receive.
However, the Child Support Agency—unlike the court in such cases—under the formulae set down by the Act and the regulations, in deciding what maintenance the children should receive, cannot take any account of the fact that the wife has gained in the form of the house or other equity. It seems to me that in these cases the husband's only remedy, if indeed it exists, is to return to the court and ask for the agreement to be modified because the child maintenance has been agreed. His only other recourse is to sue his lawyer for negligence if he has recommended that course of action after the Child Support Act has become law. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, appears to find that an insufficient reason to feel any anxiety. My proposal is that, in fairness, the Child Support Agency should not take on cases in which "clean break" arrangements have been made so long as those arrangements are being adhered to by the father.
Secondly, there are three or four cases in which certain expenditure by the father should be taken into account by the formulae in working out the maintenance payments but is not. The noble Earl referred to expenses that would be incurred by the father in travelling to and from work. Such expenses can arise where he wants to remain in the part of the country where his children are but has a job, for instance, in the City and has to travel backwards and forwards between Brighton and London. Such expenses are not deductible for tax purposes. But
1662
in my opinion they should be deductible in determining how much of his income should be taken into account for the purposes of the formulae.
Much more important, although it does not affect everyone, is the question of school fees. It seems quite remarkable that if parents decide that their child should have a private education, which will cost nowadays somewhere in the region of £4,000 or £5,000 a term —let us say, £12,000 or £14,000 annually; and that is not just for Eton but for quite minor so-called public schools—then no part of what the father pays in respect of that private education is taken into account at all by the formulae. That is despite the fact that if the child goes to a boarding school he will be at that boarding school for 36 weeks of the year, or whatever it may be, and during that time the mother is still entitled to receive as much as she received before he went there. In whatever way the father manages to pay that money —by running into debt, by taking another mortgage on the house or by selling the family silver—the fact that he spends all that extra money on the son and diminishes the amount that it costs the child's mother is simply not taken into account at all.
The next point which seems to me to be quite extraordinary relates to what it costs the father to spend time with his children at weekends or during his holidays—I know from personal experience and I assure noble Lords that that time can be very considerable—is simply ignored unless the child spends 104 nights a year with him. How the regulations got hold of that extraordinary figure of 104 nights a year, which is two-sevenths of the year, I do not know. But it means that if a father spends 103 nights a year with his child, which may cost him £500 or £800 a year, that time is not taken into account at all in working out the maintenance that is payable. Let us suppose that he spends 104 nights of the year with his child, which is two-sevenths of the year. In that case he has to give the mother only two-sevenths of what he would otherwise give her. Were he therefore to spend half the year, or 182 nights a year, with his son he would have to pay her only one-half of what he now has to pay her. One thing to remember about that is that it very often happens that a father picks up his son or daughter at 9 a.m. on Saturday morning, spends the whole of Saturday and the whole of Sunday with him or her and returns the child to its mother at 10 o'clock on Sunday night. That counts just as one night when working out how many nights the child spends with the father.
I spend a great deal of time with my son—every other weekend and half the holidays. In fact, it usually comes to more than that because his mother has taken a full-time job and cannot give him so much of her time. I was quite surprised to find, having added up the figures today, that my score for the past 12 months has been only 99 nights—"99 not out" and I am hoping to reach a century this weekend. In other words, although I spend far more time with my son than the average absent father, I would not qualify for a rebate of two-sevenths on what I would be giving to his mother under the Act.
Another point is that there are mothers who are quite devious. Certain mothers, having reckoned up and seen that the magic figure of 104 nights was approaching,

1663
would do what they could to deny access so as to keep the figure below 104 and thereby obtain an additional £800 a year, or whatever it maybe.
The only other example that I want to give is where mortgage payments have to be made by the husband in respect of what used to be the marital home and has now become the wife's house under a clean break arrangement. As I understand it, if the husband is making such payments of that mortgage, they are not taken into account. He might just as well not be making them. In my opinion, in all those cases the expense involved to the father should be deductible from his income under the formulae mentioned in the Act.
I should like to raise one last personal point. I keep asking myself: if ever this did come to the Child Support Agency, what would be the position with regard to the reimbursement of my expenses incurred through attending your Lordships' House? I hope it is quite clear that those expenses are not income. They are not liable to income tax and do not have to be declared to the Inland Revenue. They are merely the reimbursement of the expense it costs me to come to this city to appear in this House. I wonder what would be the position if some noble Lord—not me, of course—found himself in that same situation. Would such very generous reimbursement of expenses be considered relevant for the purposes of calculating the maintenance payable? I hope that that remains a hypothetical question.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are all deeply indebted to the noble Earl for enabling us to consider the serious issues in relation to child support on a wider basis than we did last week when we considered the regulations. With all his engaging buoyancy, the noble Viscount can hardly feel that the Act itself or the regulations emerged unfrayed from your Lordships' scrutiny last week.
There are two matters arising out of last week's discussion that I wish to take up before coming on to the opportunity given to us by the noble Earl to consider questions of the support of children outside the nuclear family when it is subsumed and, within that, the effect on single parent families. The first is purely a question of parliamentary procedure.
When I spoke last week I ventured to draw attention to the advantage of the affirmative resolution procedure because it enabled the noble Viscount to explain the regulations to us in a way that is not open under the negative resolution procedure. But I nevertheless drew attention to the fact that he shied away from a most important point that was raised by the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments; namely, the extraordinary way in which the department was claiming to use the word "transitional" in relation to the regulation-making power.
The noble Viscount said that he would deal with that matter when he replied, and very convenient was that for him because the point was this. I ventured to quote what the department wrote to the Joint Select Committee, and I said —I am sure rightly—that what the department was claiming under the word "transitional" was to
1664
correct mistakes that were made in the Act itself which would not have been made if they knew what they now know. That is indeed an extraordinary use of that word, as the committee pointed out.
When the noble Viscount came to reply, he merely read out what the department had written to the Joint Select Committee which, I may say, I had read out earlier. We therefore had no opportunity of checking with the noble Viscount whether he agreed that what was claimed under the word "transitional" was to make regulations correcting mistakes in the Act itself which had subsequently come to light and which would have been corrected if they had been known of at the time. But that is a matter of the political parliamentary machinery.
Another point arises from the regulations. One of the attractions held out to your Lordships in the Act was the great saving of public funds. I took a fairly favourable view of that, naturally, as an ex-Treasury Minister—though it hardly commended itself to most of your Lordships. But your Lordships will want to know now how far that figure must be mitigated in view of the regulations altering the impact of the formulae. I hope that when the noble Viscount replies he will tell us that.
I turn from that point to the general question raised by the noble Earl's Question. I refer to the machinery. I beg the noble Viscount not to say again that the general principle of the Act is approved; namely, that parents shall contribute to their children's maintenance so far as they can and so far as is equitable. That is quite useless because that was precisely what the previous law endeavoured to do, and indeed did. The difference was that that law was administered by magistrates taking account of the local economic and social circumstances, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, able to adjust the decision to all the manifold circumstances that obtain after a separation and the children need support.
I can see no escape from the iniquities of the Act —indeed, even mitigated by the regulations—save its total repeal and reversion to what we had before; in other words, maintenance assessed by human beings in a magistrates' court rather than by officials applying a completely unintelligible formula. The great architect, Lethaby, used to describe the arts and crafts endeavour as making things by human beings for human beings. That was how the previous law was administered. It was administered by human beings sitting in the magistrates' court for human beings—the wife, the husband and the children, with all their manifold differences of circumstances. That is the first thing I think should go out on this review—get rid of the Act altogether.
Along with that I cannot help feeling it regrettable that we have had not one word of regret from the department for the injustices that admittedly—because they have had to be put right by regulations—have been perpetrated. If there was still any complacency, I should have thought that it would have to go in view of the two speeches that your Lordships have already heard and in view of the two briefing papers from the citizens advice bureaux, which were absolutely devastating and showed how much injustice is still outstanding.

1665
I turn from the matter of machinery to the general question of single-parent families. I find it extraordinarily difficult to know how they are made up. The figures I have seen have varied enormously—I think probably because certain components like divorcees and cohabitees outside marriage and ex-cohabitees are growing rapidly. But there is one component of which we should not lose sight and to which I shall come later. I refer to widows and widowers. There are many examples where a widow left as sole parent has brought up the children admirably. We can all think of some of our colleagues in that respect.
The second thing that has to be said is that of the other components, many no doubt cope very well with their difficulties and do their best, and often an admirable best, for the children. Nevertheless, these matters must be looked at statistically as well as by anecdote. There is no doubt statistically that the single child in a single-parent family is at a grave disadvantage unless it is not, so the surveys show, due solely to the poverty that is so often attendant.
In discussing what we should do to mitigate that harm it is necessary to look at what we should do immediately and in the long run. For example, immediately we are bound to say that the widow who is the sole parent shall have proper social support. Unless we are prepared to concede that, the welfare state or the welfare society, however one looks at it, is meaningless.
Then there are the divorcees. Since it is our fault in manufacturing a wholly unsatisfactory divorce law facilitating easy divorce and often with gross injustice, it is surely our immediate duty, pending the improvement of the divorce law, to see that the divorcee is properly looked after. That applies also in the case of the absent father, as he is called. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, mentioned the clean-break divorce, as it is called. That was a piece of humbug supervening on the greater humbug of the Divorce Reform Act 1969. As the noble Lord explained, the theory was that the father surrendered his interest in the equity of the matrimonial home to the caring mother on condition that maintenance should be either eliminated or mitigated. The only effect was that the burden of maintenance was shifted to the general taxpayer. That was pointed out —the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would have noted it —in a very able letter to the Spectator a little time ago from the secretary of the Family Law Bar Association.
I have dealt with divorcees. The same applies to the ex-cohabitees because it is our fault also, in our debasement of our concept of marriage, that there are so many unions now outside marriage. I noted the other day from the general household survey, that women who cohabited without marriage in 1981 were 11 per cent.; in 1992 it was 21 per cent. That is merely carrying forward the spirit of the permissive society; and as we permitted it, we, as a society, are under obligation to shoulder the support.
So much for the immediate rectification. In the long run, the overriding aim should be to restore the status and prestige of marriage. We should certainly cease treating a divorced wife more favourably from the point of view of finance or property than a woman who stands by her marriage. That is merely encouraging divorce.
1666
Changing that is, I should have thought, an elementary step that should be taken by a Government who profess the aims that the present Government profess.
Next, we want a far sounder divorce law. As was pointed out at the time of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 by the two most knowledgeable Members of your Lordships' House, Lord Hodson and Lady Summerskill, the fact is that there are mighty few people in this country who can support two families. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made that point last week; and I see that she nods in approbation, perhaps because she made it herself last week—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, that is the first thing. We must go back to having a divorce law which does not allow for merely consensual divorce whereby the burden of the children is shuffled on to the general taxpayer—still less have the divorce provision that we have at the moment, whereby a woman who has stood by her marriage may nevertheless be cast off because she has ceased to find favour in her husband's eyes.
I should like to say one final thing about the clean break. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggested that the provisions could lead to the reopening of all the maintenance assessments that have been made by the courts on the basis of the so-called clean break. However, there has recently been a decision by Mrs. Justice Booth in the Family Division in which she said that such assessments cannot be reopened. I think that she did that reluctantly; but that is the law as it stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said that he hoped that there might be a second specific: namely, to sue the lawyers who had led the parties into this deplorable mess. I cannot encourage that—not only because I would not like to see lawyers so treated, but because the situation is absolutely hopeless. No lawyer could possibly have envisaged so fantastic a measure as the Child Support Act, which has led us into this trouble. I do not think that either way will work, but I hope to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, how he answers the points that have been put to him; how he answers the other points that are raised by the citizens advice bureaux; and generally how he sees the Act operating more equitably than at the moment and, in particular, what can be done to rectify the mischief that has been done.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I could just say that what I was proposing was that there might be a cause for action against the lawyers if the course of action had been proposed after the Child Support Bill became an Act.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, no. The fact is that the Child Support Act has virtually killed off the clean-break divorce. I bow to the more current information of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but that is what I understand.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I ought to begin by saying that all this talk of suing lawyers is making me very nervous! We are fortunate that my noble friend's Question gives us an opportunity to take a fresh look at the impact of the child support legislation and at ways of improving it beyond merely tinkering with the amounts stipulated by the regulations. This is not an occasion yet again to go over ground already travelled several times in earlier debates on the legislation and the subsequent regulations.
However, it should be said that in respect of men who have given up all or a larger share of their capital interest in a former home, it is quite clear that the Government have simply not got the point. It really is not an adequate answer to say that such a person will have an allowance for his own housing costs. The Act has and will hit hard those who entered into such capital settlements before the legislation was even thought of. It is now a strong disincentive for future settlements on similar terms, as the noble and learned Lord indicated.
The result will be a return to settlements which require women to sell up their homes when the children have grown up in order to pay a deferred capital share to men who by then may not need it and who during the period of deferment will have had exactly the same housing costs as if they had given up all their interests in the property. Paragraph 4.12 of the 1990 White Paper at least contemplated the possibility of reducing the formula amount by using standard accounting techniques for converting a lump sum into an equivalent weekly amount.
The Government did not take up the idea in the legislation and the Select Committee of another place, in its report of December last year, seemed to have accepted the Government's view. At paragraph 74 it stated rather lamely:
"We can see no sensible way of attempting to place a current value on settlements made in the past in order to give some notional figure for current income which could be taken account in the formula. The only option for absent parents who find themselves having to make increased maintenance payments under the formula, having previously made capital settlements, is to return to the courts to see if the existing orders can be varied on the basis of altered circumstances".
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, there is no such option in reality and it is astonishing that the Select Committee thought that that was possible. Surely it is not too much to ask the Government to think again on this topic.
We all appreciate that this legislation inflexibly covers all types of fathers from those who care nothing at all about the welfare of the children they produce to those at the other extreme who care very much about their children and who mind very much about being described, whether accurately or inaccurately, as "absent parents". It also covers the large number of fathers in between who want to contribute as best they can to their children but who also want a reasonable opportunity to rebuild their lives.
Family lawyers have the practical experience of trying to deal with the impact of child support legislation on parents who want to resolve their financial and property affairs on divorce or on breakdown of a
1668
relationship, preferably in a civilised and sensible way. The heart of the problem is that lawyers and clients are now confronted with a rigid system of child support superimposed on an essentially flexible system of discretionary law governing income and capital distribution after divorce and governing provision for children under the Children Act 1989.
The two organisations representative of the family law practitioners—namely, the Family Law Bar Association and the Solicitors Family Law Association —put at the very forefront of their joint submission to the Select Committee of another place the proposal that wherever there has been an assessment, there should be the opportunity to apply to a court for a review of that assessment. The model for that proposal was and is the Australian system which allows for the application for review to an independent child support review office and further review by the court. The review allows a discretion to depart from the formula in circumstances specified in statute.
It is, frankly, regrettable that the Select Committee expressed no comment or opinion whatever on that proposal. But in the circumstances, it is probably not surprising that the Government did not address the idea in formulating their recent rather limited changes. However, it was noticeable that on the day after the Government's announcement of changes on 22nd December, leading articles in The Times, the Guardian and the Independent all spoke of the continuing inflexibility of the system and of the need for a right of independent appeal to ensure that the system works fairly.
So far, the Government's only response to that idea has been to suggest that the Australian system of assessment is cruder and that our more sophisticated system does not require such a review mechanism. There are two short answers to that suggestion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Rubbish.
Lord Meston: My Lords, not as short as the answer offered by the noble Baroness, but I suggest that there are two relatively short answers: first, that no formula, however sophisticated, can be devised to deal with the infinitely diverse financial circumstances of different families; and secondly, if our assessment formula is more sophisticated, it is unlikely that there will be as many reviews in this country to deal with the special circumstances for which a review is justified.
The joint FLBA/SFLA submission gave a list of examples of the kind of situation in which a review may be required. I shall not take time reading them out now. But statistics show that even in Australia only 11 per cent. of assessments are the subject of review; under 4 per cent. of payers receive a decrease on review; and 2 per cent. of recipients receive an increase. Moreover, the average increase is about twice the average decrease so that the result is fiscally neutral. Moreover, the cost of running a review office can certainly be set against the cost of the existing appeal tribunals.
That proposal deserves better attention than it has received so far. It is not a panacea for aggrieved fathers or for indignant mothers. A general sense of grievance will not be sufficient to justify a discretionary review.

1669
Special circumstances set out by law will be required to provide the basis for such a review. However, it is quite clear that the existing system will not work fairly and will not be seen to do so without a proper safety valve in the form of an independent appeal mechanism.
The debate in another place on 2nd February ended abruptly at 10 o'clock with the Minister having just begun a sentence with the tantalising words, "As to the future". I hope that the noble Viscount can give us a glimpse of what was to have followed.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this matter again and for giving all of us an opportunity to say a few more words about the Child Support Agency and the Act which brought it into being. The Minister knows that I was very much opposed to that Act, and remain opposed to it, because I believe it was conceived out of hysteria and ignorance. It was processed through Parliament with scant regard for the consequences and indeed is being implemented in chaos and with a ruthless disregard for the interests of so-called absent parents, especially those who have been meeting their responsibilities.
The Act of Parliament was introduced allegedly to deal with runaway fathers. Perhaps noble Lords remember that Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, had her picture all over the papers. The newspapers proclaimed that she intended to deal with runaway fathers. But of course things have not turned out that way. This business of chasing runaway fathers has turned out to be a racket to extract considerably more money from people who have already made provision for their children, either on a continuing basis or by means of a clean break approved by the courts.
In case anyone thinks I am being a little tough on the Government and the Child Support Agency, I should perhaps refer to a couple of CSA memos which were leaked to the Guardian newspaper. The memos state that in order to meet financial targets—there is nothing about fairness there —cases with potential should be dealt with first. I emphasise the word "potential". Then other cases would be dealt with comprising existing income support claimants chosen by CSA staff made up of good quality cases from the "stocktake" where the absent parent is already paying, or from cases held over from April where the CSA was fairly confident of a large maintenance assessment and where the absent parent would be able and willing to pay. The memos emphasise that the name of the game is maximising the maintenance yield and urged officials not to waste time on the non-profitable stuff.
I suppose the document is authentic. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if that is not the case. If the document is authentic, that is a terrible way to deal with people. What a way to deal with parents! I hope that the Child Support Agency has learnt something from the outcry that has arisen throughout the land over its handling of these cases.
The amendments made last week to the regulations were of some help but the fact remains that the Act was cobbled together in haste and remains defective, as we
1670
have heard tonight from every noble Lord who has spoken. The debate has focused on the defects of the Act in great detail. I hope the Minister has taken notice of what has been said.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the best thing the Government could do would be to scrap the Act, scrap the whole business and start again after proper consultation and after proper discussion in Parliament. The Government should introduce a Bill enabling us in Parliament to decide the regulations and not a group of unaccountable civil servants egged on by a greedy government who are determined to get as much money as they possibly can out of this measure. Perhaps we could then produce something that is more in keeping with our democratic heritage rather than the Stalinist model with which we are now stuck.
Since the Government are unlikely to do that they had better consider some amendments. Many have already been proposed. The first amendment that ought to be made relates to a point that I raised when we had a debate on the regulations last week. I said that I did not believe that there was equality of treatment between the father and the mother. That was confirmed in a letter which appeared in the Daily Mail yesterday, 8th February. It is headed "Biased bureaucrats". The letter is interesting. It reads:
"The numerous reports of fathers being financially crippled by the Child Support Agency have made interesting reading, as I count myself among them. However, my situation is different.
My wife left me and our two children in August 1992 to live with another man. We have since divorced and she has remarried. A month after our split, I was made redundant.
My wife offered maintenance of £20 per week per child which, on the advice of my solicitor, I accepted. In April last year, the CSA became involved and I was told by my solicitor that, based on the earnings of my former wife and her husband, I could expect more.
But, rather than increasing the payment, the CSA reduced it to £4.05 per week per child, leaving me £125 a month worse off. Moreover, I was informed that any additional sum my wife paid voluntarily would be deducted from my income support.
To say that I have received less than fair treatment at the hands of the CSA is putting it mildly".
We would probably agree.
I sincerely hope that the CSA will have seen that letter and will investigate. It seems to confirm what I said last week, that perhaps an even-handed approach is not being adopted as between husband and wife, or between male and female partners. Therefore, that is a matter which has to be addressed.
The other point I wish to make is this. When the carer —the person who has physical charge of the child—is allocated the whole of the allowance of £44 per week, why should the so-called absent parent have to meet the whole cost of that care? If parents are equally responsible then surely they should each meet half of the carer's costs. In other words, instead of having to find the whole of the £44, the absent parent should be expected to find only £22. It is a difficult matter, but nevertheless I believe that it has to be considered.
Moreover, the Government should ensure that where care is shared the financial arrangements should be based on a 365 day, pro rata basis—as my noble friend

1671
mentioned—and not on a notional formula which does not treat the so-called absent parent (who is often not absent by choice) fairly.
We have heard a great deal about clean-break settlements which have been made by the courts. My own view is that where a court makes a settlement it is the court which should break that settlement. I understand everything that has been said, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I appreciate the difficulties. But among fathers who have made such clean break settlements there is a sense of grave injustice. They believed when they made them that they were making those arrangements for all time, and that they were reasonable and acceptable not only to the wife or other partner but also to the courts. When those fathers sign such an arrangement and for whatever reason, fair or unfair, it is set aside by an unaccountable agency, they rightly feel very frustrated and angry about the whole business. I believe that somehow or other where clean break settlements have been made, the courts that made and agreed them must become involved in breaking them. I do not know how, if that is not lawful at present. The Government, of course, have the power in their hands to bring forward suggestions through legislation or by regulation.
In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there should be an independent appeal procedure. It cannot be right that people who are suddenly confronted with huge increases in their outgoings should have no redress, and no one to whom they can put their case other than the people who have made the assessment in the first place. That is against all sense of justice and against the British system of justice.
Other factors have been referred to. I wish to emphasise them. Unavoidable expenses in maintaining employment should certainly be exempt when assessing the non-resident parent's income. If a man—in some cases it may be a woman—is desperately seeking to keep himself off the dole and works to ensure that his children can be properly maintained, but in order to do so he incurs very much higher expenses than usual, they should be taken into account. He is making every effort to do what the Government and everyone else believes that he should do: that is, maintain his own children. He should be assisted in such circumstances.
As has already been mentioned, the expenses of the non-resident parent when visiting children should be taken into account where they are excessive through no fault of the absent parent. Very often the children are removed to far away places in order that the absent parent cannot gain access. Because those circumstances are not taken into account when making the assessment, the absent parent is denied access to his children.
We then have to deal with the problem of passported benefits. It is quite wrong that the parent who has care should, at the margin, be denied those passported benefits; he or she will be very much worse off. That cannot be right and the Government ought to take note and do something about it.
There is a great danger that the operation of the Child Support Act may well encourage the break-up of
1672
families. That is the very reverse of what we wish to do at present. The BBC "Panorama" programme on Monday showed the damage that is done to children through divorce and the break-up of a family. We have to take that factor very seriously indeed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We have to try to reverse the trend. We have to ensure that children can be brought up so far as possible in a caring and loving home with two parents. That has been unfashionable and politically incorrect for a long time and it is about time that we made it politically correct. Why should we do that? Because the children want it and they do better under that system. That has now been shown, but in my view the Act encourages the break-up of families.
I believe that men are now seriously considering their position. They know perfectly well that if they are not careful they can be saddled with a heavy burden for a long time. It may be that, side by side with sex education, young people should be made aware of the serious implications of becoming parents. As an aside, I suggest that parents should perhaps now advise their boys, as well as their girls, to say "no".
I return to the vexed question of access, which I raised last week. Whatever the Government may say, whatever we may believe in this place, the fact is that parents, particularly fathers, feel that if they discharge their financial responsibilities to their children they are entitled to have contact with them. They say that if parents have equal financial responsibility for the maintenance of the children, then they should have equal rights in respect of contact with their children. I believe that is true, provided there are no good reasons why they should not; for example, if they beat up their wives or their children, or some other reason. I believe that both parents are entitled to that contact with their children.
All too often, unfortunately, we find that men, in particular, who are making proper financial provision for their children are now being wilfully denied access, even when a court order is in operation. Something must be done about that. Undoubtedly, men feel hard done by at present and if they are to have financial responsibility they must have access rights as well.
In conclusion, I say that the Government will ignore at their peril the outcry that there has been about the Act. They passed it wilfully, in spite of the opposition in this House and in spite of the warnings. It was conceived in haste and it is about time the Government realised that it will cause them only pain for so long as it remains on the statute book in its present form. I urge the Government to do something not only for the sake of the people in the country who are paying the price but also for their own sake at the next general election and the local elections which will come shortly. If they are not careful, they will find their numbers decimated.
10.8 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like others I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us this opportunity, perhaps for the first time recently, to scrutinise the working of the Child Support Act and the agency. It is a significant measure because it will bring

1673
about 20 million people within the remit of the social security system, many of whom would never dream of that being so. Therefore, there is an important set of questions that we must consider tonight.
Notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on this side I believe it is worth repeating that we believe that absent parents and not the state should, wherever possible, support their children. I say that because for the rest of my remarks I wish to criticise the Child Support Agency. The more we learn and read about it, the more we receive letters and talk to people who are affected by it, the more we are all left with a deep and abiding sense of its unfairness.
To whom is it unfair? First, it is unfair to the poorest women and to the lowest paid men. We have not heard very much about women tonight. But lone parents with children are already very poor. On average, such women with children have only two-thirds of the income of a couple with a similar number of children. They are the main clients of the Social Fund. They take up, for example, 49 per cent. of its loans. They are quite likely to be in debt with fuel and water bills, and therefore will already have their income support top-sliced. Their children are likely to be on free school dinners. The children themselves are likely to be poorly nourished, poorly clothed and show poor school performance. That mother receives £2 per day per child—the price of a hamburger—to feed, clothe and keep her child warm.
Under the Child Support Agency that mother will lose her benefit pound for pound. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart rightly said, she will lose it more than pound for pound. She will lose passported benefits, of which free school dinners for two children are worth £10 a week alone.
We are pleased that the Government agreed to raise the protected income for men for additional costs from £8 to £30 to cover such items as travel costs and the like. Why should not the Government consider a similar disregard, as the chairman of the Select Committee and the chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee said, and as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, which would at the very least cover the loss of passported benefits and prevent the mother and her children being made even poorer by this alleged child "support" Act.
Nor is the formula fair to women on family credit, any more than it is fair to women on income support. Assuming that a woman on family credit gets, say, £40 maintenance, £40 earnings and £30 family credit, the family credit is fixed six months at a time. Should the maintenance falter and the absent parent become unemployed, her family credit will not rise accordingly to compensate. For five months that woman could be required to live at an income well below income support level. But she will not be eligible for income support if she works more than 16 hours a week. If she is wise, of course, she will probably give up her job and go fully on to income support. Will the Minister please look at this point? Will he also assure us that where family credit is based on full maintenance payments, which the Government have now decided, quite rightly, are to be phased in, that family credit will now immediately be
1674
adjusted to compensate for those phasing-in arrangements? Otherwise, a welcome concession to the father will be paid for quite directly by the mother and her children, and that would be monstrous.
Only better-off women will be better off under the Child Support Act—that is, if they receive no benefit and will in future receive maintenance in an assured way. We are pleased for them and that is forward looking for them. But it is worth remarking that they can look forward to maintenance of around £60 to £80 per child per week, whereas the state saw fit to support that same child on £15 a week.
The formula is therefore not only unfair to poor women, those on income support and those on family credit; it is also unfair to low-paid men. Those below the protected income level will lose 85p in the pound. Those who are much better off will lose only 25p in the pound on the top slice of their income, and less than that if they have three children. So the poorer you are as a man, the higher the proportion of your income will be claimed by the Child Support Agency. I repeat: poorest women and lowest paid men both do worse out of the CSA. That is not fair. It must be reformed.
Secondly, the CSA is deeply and abidingly unfair as between first and second families, a point which was explored by your Lordships tonight. It is unfair precisely because absent parents, usually men, on earnings below average, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, rightly said, simply cannot maintain two families at or above the poverty line. Obviously it is right that such an absent father should so far as possible be expected to maintain equally all his children from whatever marriage. But the formula does not achieve or indeed have that intention.
Let us consider housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, rightly said, whatever the Minister says, there is no connection between equity forgone and subsequent housing costs incurred. Clean break settlements often involve quite substantial equity in housing and they have been ignored. So, no solicitor of any separating father will in future allow his client to sign away the family home.
So to the stress of separation and the strain of relentless poverty, which the caring mother will face, will now be added the trauma of homelessness, either immediately or when the youngest child is 18. Under the despicable proposals of Sir George Young, she will no doubt find herself in bed and breakfast or temporary accommodation rather than in a settled home. Does the Department of the Environment ever talk to the Department of Social Security, when each tries to ship its costs of support to lone parents onto the other, leaving the lone parent stranded and forlorn?
Children belong to their parents but they also belong to all of us because we have a public policy interest in their welfare and well-being. We are making their future even more bleak in this, the year of the family.
Nor is the Child Support Act fair in terms of the obligation facing an absent parent who is now in a second family. My noble friend Lord Stoddart rightly described the problems of the soft target. That absent parent entered marriage and made that family in good

1675
faith. Court settlements are behind him and maintenance is being paid. If that maintenance is inadequate, that was the judgment and fault of the court and not his.
Half of all absent parents are in a second family. Half of those have children in that family who are dependent on the step-father usually, at least to begin with, brought by the new partner. As a result that partner is not on income support. In the early stages therefore the mother will not bring enforced maintenance from her absent partner. Indeed, if the absent partner of the new parent is sick, unemployed or dead, she has no maintenance to bring.
What do the Government expect the step-father to do? If he does the decent and humane thing and supports the children, he is financially penalised. But if he does not do so, that second family will break up as surely as the first and the domino effect of deprivation will extend.
It is clear from research into the children born in the cohort of 1958 that children in step-families are fragile. They are more likely to truant and leave home and the girls are more likely to become pregnant when young even than are the children of lone parent families. Every aspect of the Child Support Agency's treatment of such step-children adds to their vulnerability. "Oh," say the Government, "let the step-father adopt them." That is an appalling recommendation, which I hope that the Minister, in common decency, will not repeat tonight. It means that if one is unemployed and too poor to maintain one's natural children, another man should adopt them so that he can claw back money that would otherwise be taken by the Treasury—even though all the research into the children in broken families shows that contact with the absent father in a supportive, friendly and non-controversial way is crucial to their emotional health.
Does the DSS not know of that research, much of it sponsored by that department? If it does know, why does it not care about it? There is a very simple and sane solution recommended by the Select Committee—and it is interesting to see how the Government have picked and chosen among the Select Committee's recommendations—which says that one should count in the step-father's exempt income support for step-children until, or if and when, that is displaced by maintenance from the partner's absent spouse.
Still dealing with the problems of the relationship between the first and second families, is it really fair that the income of the partner of the absent father, the new wife, and any other adult such as her adult sons in that household, should be taken into account when determining the amount the second family recycles back to the first family? That may include supporting the unemployed new male partner of the first family. Is the Minister really comfortable that the wife of the second family will be working to support the male partner of the first family? Is that fair? But that is the Act. It is not surprising that there have already been 900 contested paternity cases as a consequence of the Act—I do not blame them.
The Secretary of State said in another place that the three objectives of the Child Support Agency were, first,
1676
to give a child maintenance from both parents; secondly, to increase incentives for lone parents to work; and, thirdly, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. On the first of those, yes; child maintenance will come. But the child on income support will not benefit because child maintenance does not mean child support. Children in many first families will often find their mothers poorer; stepchildren in second families are, in financial terms, invisible, non-existent or, to coin a phrase, zero-rated. Let us hope that they do not need to eat as well!
On the second of Mr. Lilley's objectives—the incentive for lone parents to work—research by Bradshaw and Millar, and Holterman shows that lone parents already desperately want to work. Three-quarters of single parents want to and intend to work but usually they can do so only when the child is over five and there is adequate childcare. We were the first to congratulate the Government on making some moves in that direction in the last Budget. It is still not enough. But why are we being so punitive? As Bradshaw and Millar show in their research, the average time for lone parents to be on income support is, what? Between 15 and 20 years? No. It is between two and two-and-a-half years; that is all, and generally until the youngest child is old enough to permit them to work. The person who stays on income support longer tends to be the much older divorced woman who finds it hard to re-enter the labour market. For all others income support is a transitory stage through which that mother passes usually into work, occasionally into marriage, and it supports her and her children while they remake and reshape their lives.
So, Government myths to the contrary, there is no terrifying dependency culture out there. Instead there are young women, single mothers working desperately hard with their children on minimal income to bring them up, fit them out for life and, as soon as possible, achieve their own economic independence on a total weekly income of usually around £77 for a mother with two children that many of us would spend on an evening's dinner. Too often we have had character assassination of women who are unsung heroines; not because they are lone parents but because they are poor lone parents.
With regard to the third of Mr. Lilley's criteria, yes, it probably will reduce the burden on taxpayers. After all, four-fifths of the money is being recycled back to the taxpayer. We support the contention that when the father can, he should maintain his children. But the evidence suggested and repeated tonight shows that for many families the poverty of the first family will not be relieved by pressing the second family down into poverty as well.
There was an alternative, as has already been mentioned—the Australian system. Despite Mr. Burt's remarks to the contrary in another place, it is a simple and sophisticated scheme which we could and should have adopted. It is based on gross rather than on net income, to be sure. But as the Australian Government's handbook explains, that is to ensure that there is no fiscal inequity between the fathers in first families who receive no tax relief and other absent parents. It goes on

1677
to say that that is reflected in an altered percentage of taper. But leaving aside the difference between gross and net, what are the other features of the Australian system that we should have adopted?
First, introduced in 1989, it is not retrospective. Existing court settlements are respected but uplifted, with court approval, by the CSA and collection is enforced by the CSA. Only parents separated after October 1989 come within the full remit of the Child Support Agency. Therefore, parents who had made future plans in good faith did not see them come tumbling down due to retrospective legislation.
That is too late for us now, but we could at least adopt the second distinctive feature of the Australian system. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, emphasised, property settlements, including those of clean-break arrangements, are taken into account and can proxy for up to 25 per cent. of maintenance awards. The third feature of the Australian system is that the parent with care has a right to retain a modest amount of maintenance—what is called in Australia a free area. It is a disregard worth about £12 a week for two children, something, again, which all commentators have called for. Thereafter there is a taper of 50 cents in the dollar.
Above all, the Australian system has a review or appeal procedure by which the formula may be departed from on defined grounds laid down in the law. I shall mention four of the grounds on which one may ask for a departure from the assessment: the unusually high cost of travel access, often between states; the extra cost of maintaining a handicapped or chronically sick child or relative; where one parent is repaying the joint debts incurred by both; and where the absent parent is paying the mortgage for the parent with care. These are defined and narrow grounds laid down by legislation; so defined and so narrow (but nonetheless fair) that, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, cited, only one in 10 of maintenance awards actually goes to the review officer. It is not floodgate stuff. I hope that we are not told that tonight. One in 10 goes to the review officer. About half are successful. Of those one-third are increased at the request of the parent with care and two-thirds are reduced at the request of the absent parent. Such a procedure is seen, felt and experienced to be fair. We could even now adopt it.
It is too late for our Child Support Act to be retrospective but we could at least learn from the experience of other countries. Had we done so the complaints about the workings of the Child Support Act would have been minimal and the Child Support Agency would have found itself working with the grain of public consent.
With some temerity, perhaps I may disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I believe that the old court-based system had to be amended. Its awards were sometimes too low, were paid irregularly, were not increased over time and were not always enforced. But the Australian Child Support Agency addresses each and all of those problems. It has the powers to make good existing court settlements. There is much to be said for standard formulae which are not subject to the whims of discretion, as we see, for example, with the
1678
social fund. But we need at the same time a basis from which there can be departures from that formula for good and specified cause, again, as in Australia.
We believe that parents should support their children. That is their family covenant. But absent parents on below-average earnings cannot support both families without plunging those families into poverty. We have as a society also a covenant—that all children should have the same chances and opportunities that we would wish for our own children. Nothing less is anywhere near good enough. This Act does not offer those children such chances and therefore it must be reformed.
10.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, reminded your Lordships that in a debate on the regulations in another place on 2nd February my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State ran out of time and ended the debate in mid-sentence while saying "as to the future". I know that your Lordships would have preferred that he was able to finish the sentence, so I intend to start by taking your Lordships back to the future after dealing with the concerns raised tonight.
I have listened with care to the contributions which your Lordships have made this evening. Only last week we debated proposed changes by regulations to the child support scheme. I hope that these are still fresh in the mind so I will not repeat them here this evening. During the course of our debate last week and in the debate in another place, it was evident that there is still widespread belief in the basic principles of the Child Support Act.
The Government have a responsibility in framing social legislation to balance the needs of all concerned. In this instance our responsibility lies primarily with the children for whom we arrange maintenance. We have also to consider the parents with care; absent parents, second and step families and the taxpayers in our deliberations and I believe that all parties are treated equitably by the changes to the child support scheme.
There are, however, some aspects of the child support scheme about which noble Lords have indicated continued concern. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed concern about the costs incurred by absent parents in travelling to work and in travelling to see their children. They are, of course, very important items of expenditure, but absent parents will be able to meet the costs from the large margin of their net income which, under the formula, is left after meeting their maintenance obligation. Noble Lords will recall that as a result of the changes which came into effect this week more absent parents will have more money to meet these sorts of expenses.
Of course, there will be hard cases; but the majority of these are the direct result of the deficiencies within the old system. That system allowed other expenses to be placed before child support; it allowed absent parents to move to commuter belts to enjoy a better quality of life; it allowed their fares at the expense of their children. That cannot be right. It will be difficult for an absent parent with high travel costs to adjust their

1679
incomes to meet their new liabilities, but for years it has been an awful lot harder for parents with care and their children, struggling to make ends meet on woefully inadequate amounts of maintenance.
To try to incorporate into the formula a range of specific costs, such as travel to work and visiting first families, would provide a shopping list of items that would be viewed as essential by some but not by others and would have the effect of reducing the priority given to child maintenance. Indeed, under the old court system this is invariably what happened, resulting in unrealistically low levels of award.
This view was supported by the Social Security Select Committee which, in its recent report, concluded that it would be better to increase the level of protected income. As noble Lords will know, these changes were introduced last week.
Maintaining their children should be the parents' first priority. Allowing for individual items of expenditure in the formula would give those expenses a higher priority than child support. As a result of the increase in protected income, the net income of the absent parent will be at least £30 a week above the appropriate level of income support. In a substantial majority of cases the absent parent will be paying no more than 30 per cent. of his net income in maintenance even once the phasing period is over. As I said, the old system of allowing other expenses and debts before child maintenance, as the noble Lord mentioned, resulted in increasingly low levels of payment.
The noble Earl also said that the formula needs to take account of other individual circumstances. I believe that the formula already does take account of individual circumstances. It looks at the income and the outgoings of both parents, including housing costs and the ages and numbers of the children. It produces realistic amounts of maintenance which reflect the true costs of bringing up a child.
The formula produces maintenance assessments which reflect the true cost of maintaining a child, while also ensuring that absent parents can afford to meet the payments. There can be no comparison between tax and the needs of a child. It is true that for some absent parents the maintenance assessment represents a substantial increase in payments when compared with orders made by the courts. However, as I said, many court orders were very low, did not reflect the cost of maintaining a child and were not increased in line with the cost of living.
I make no apologies for stating again that there can be no clean break between parents and children. Under the court system, parents had the right to seek periodical maintenance for a child or to seek variation of an existing order following a capital or property settlement. It has always been open to the Secretary of State for Social Security to seek such a variation where the taxpayer became involved in supporting the children. Often, a property settlement which transfers the equity in the home also transfers a debt in the shape of mortgage repayments. Where the parent with care is on
1680
income support, as many are, the taxpayer foots the bill, not only for the day-to-day maintenance of the children but for the repayments on the mortgage as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will permit me to intervene. Does that mean that where a parent passes over a substantial equity without any mortgage liability to be borne by the taxpayer, the Minister accepts that there is an argument for that equity to be taken into account in the settlement?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have to allow me to finish what I am saying about clean-break settlements.
In its report, the Select Committee concluded that there is no sensible way in which the capital value of past settlements can be taken account of in current maintenance assessments. The formula already reflects the practical consequence of settling a house on the former partner. In such cases it is likely that the absent parent, unable to call upon the equity of the matrimonial home, will incur higher housing costs than would otherwise be the case. The absent parent's costs of rehousing himself and any new children are deducted pound for pound from his assessable income, so reducing his maintenance bill.
Your Lordships have expressed concern that in future absent parents will not so readily agree to clean-break settlements and that as a result the matrimonial home will be sold and the parent with care will be made homeless. Where there is a family home, the courts continue to decide how that asset is to be divided. They are required to give first consideration to the welfare of the children, which includes the need for a home, when they settle property issues in divorce. They will know in advance how child maintenance is worked out. So decisions about the family home can be made in full knowledge of how much child maintenance will be payable.
The situation of absent parents with second families which include step-children—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but can the Minister answer the question I put to him? I believe that the note may now have come from the Box.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness keeps interrupting and asking me questions when I am half-way through my speech. She really will have to contain herself and not be like a jack-in-the-box until I have covered all the points.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But—
Viscount Astor: No, I shall not give way. The noble Baroness must allow me to proceed with my speech. She has spoken and she must give the Government time to reply—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But the Minister is not replying.
Viscount Astor: Nor must the noble Baroness make sedentary interventions.

1681
I accept that there are circumstances where, for instance, the step-child is the child of a widow or widower or where, for some other reason, it is not possible for their other natural parent to provide them with financial support. However, I must reiterate that it is not considered to be right that an absent parent's step-children should be given priority over his or her own natural children. Where it is possible, the agency will seek to obtain adequate provision for the step-children from their natural parent, but where this is not possible the formula provides a safeguard for these children in the form of the protected income calculation.
The protected income calculation provides that an absent parent retains enough income after paying maintenance to meet his or her day-to-day needs and that of any second family. To ensure this, an adjustment is made to the assessed amount of child maintenance where the absent parent's disposable income would otherwise fall below his protected level. The protected level of income reflects the day-to-day expenses of the absent parent and his latest family. In this calculation, the entire second family is considered. In effect, therefore, the needs of the step-children are placed before the needs of the natural children. There would be cases where the protected income assessment abates the whole of the assessed maintenance, and in that case there is in effect no payment by the absent parent to the parent with care.
Your Lordships will recollect that one of the changes which we have just introduced increases the protected income levels for second families. This will benefit any step-children in the maintenance assessment unit, as will the new phasing provisions which I described earlier.
Your Lordships have mentioned the Australian appeal system. That system allows appeals against the amount of a formula assessment in certain circumstances. The appeal was originally to a court but since July 1992 the work has been transferred to the Australian Child Support Agency where it is carried out by specially appointed review officers. There are some very particular reasons why an appeal system is necessary in Australia. There are some very significant differences in the way in which child support is assessed which makes it essential to have a mechanism for varying the amount of maintenance in certain cases.
The assessment is far more broad-brush, taking the gross amount of the income declared in the absent parent's tax return for the year before last (multiplied by an indexation factor) and allowing for day-to-day expenses for the absent parent and any child of his own living with him. Unlike our system, there is no allowance for housing costs. Once this basic amount for living expenses has been deducted, the child support payable is a fixed percentage of the remaining income. The percentage varies according to the number of children involved; from 18 per cent. for one child up to 36 per cent. for five or more. The amount does not vary depending on the age of the child as it does in this country.
Moreover—and this is an important point—there is no equivalent of "protected income" provision which ensures that the absent parent and his current family
1682
keep a minimum amount of income after paying maintenance. In Australia, therefore, it is entirely possible for an absent parent's income after paying maintenance to drop below benefit levels, particularly if he has step-children. Thus discretion is required to avoid severe hardship which could otherwise occur.
There are two grounds of appeal. First, that the absent parent's ability to pay the formula amount is reduced because of the cost of providing for himself or another child or person he is liable to maintain; or because of the costs associated with access to the child of the assessment; or because he is meeting other particular costs of the child in the assessment.
The second basis for appeal is that there has been an unjust and inequitable result from the application of the formula because either it has not taken account of the full financial resources of either parent, or the value of a financial or property transfer made for the benefit of the child has not been taken into account.
On the surface a discretion-based appeal system seems like a simple solution to all the criticisms that have been levelled against the Child Support Act. Advocates of such a system argue that it would preserve the basic structure of the scheme while at the same time introducing an effective mechanism for dealing with hard cases. Such a solution is not the panacea it might at first appear. If the right of appeal were to be universal the flood gates would open. Everyone will apply and the Child Support Agency and the formula will, in effect, become redundant. This would herald a return to the old system where a whole list of expenses were placed ahead of the child's support with the result that many awards were for derisory amounts.
If a right of appeal were to be limited to specific circumstances we would still have another problem. If the entry rules were drawn too wide we would still be left with the situation that I have just described; if the definitions were too precise we would still be left with hard cases. This would leave us with the worst of all worlds: a formulaic system seriously undermined by discretionary adjunct that is divisive and unfair. To suggest, therefore, that we could introduce discretion through an appeal system that is open to all and capable of solving all problems, and yet preserve the integrity of the system, is not practical. The plain truth is that there are two options: discretion or a formula. These options are mutually exclusive; you may have one or you may have the other, but there is no middle road.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, why does the noble Viscount say that? Why are they mutually exclusive? Why can you not have, as in Australia, initially a formula to be applied and then a discretion to review it when it operates harshly and inequitably?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord is making, but I have described that the appeal system in Australia is very different and is done on a very different basis.
We believe that you either have to have a system that is discretionary or which has a formula. We tried discretion and it does not work. We know that the old court-based system failed the vast majority of parents

1683
with care and their children. There were far more hard cases under that system. The I million parents reliant on income support were a testament to that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount says that you cannot have a mixed system, but of course you can have a mixed system. We have already got it in the social security system. If a person is dissatisfied with his social security allocation, he can appeal to a tribunal. Surely that is possible for child maintenance. Why cannot that be done? There is a precedent for it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is talking about adjudication within the benefit system. Of course there is that adjudication in the benefit system, but it is based on law and what someone is or is not entitled to. It is based on case law built up over a period of time. Therefore, it is not a discretionary system in any way. We do not have that in this system and that is why it is different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is precisely the Australian system which we were recommending to the Minister; namely that it is a discretion which is shaped and laid down by law. What the Minister described as part of the social security system is exactly the same as that in the Australian Child Support Act in which, as I understand it, the absent parent's income is analogous to social security rates. The noble Viscount may have been misinformed about that matter. What he describes already exists in Australia and works perfectly well.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am well aware of what exists in Australia. I have already described that to the noble Baroness. However, I am trying to explain that the system is different in Australia because it is based on entirely different matters. That is why the Australian system cannot be transferred here and be made to work. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, disagrees with me. We shall have to disagree on that point.
We believe that the formula must be given time to work. It is inevitable that people must adjust their outgoings to meet their liabilities. We cannot escape that and I recognise that, for some, it will not be easy. However, I believe that the changes that we made last week will go a long way towards easing those transitional problems.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. The noble Lord talked about attendance in your Lordships' House. That is often a pleasure for many of your Lordships and, indeed, as noble Lords may have noticed, attendance in your Lordships' House can also be hard work for others. But I assure the noble Lord that work-related expenses are not taken into account when calculating an absent parent's net income.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, spoke about the 104-night rule. Where a child spends on average at least two nights a week with the absent parent, his maintenance is adjusted. Use of the figure of two nights ensures that absent parents have significant care of a child before the maintenance is reduced.
1684
He asked also about school fees. The formula takes no account of payment that absent parents make in respect of school fees because the basic needs of the child and, therefore, the cost of providing day-to-day support should come first. It would not be right for an absent parent to pay for a child's private education while the taxpayer pays for his every-day needs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, talked about, among other things, the transitional provisions. I believe that the provisions which we brought before your Lordships were not merely to correct mistakes but to deal with a transitional problem which was not previously identified. We could have made permanent changes to the formula. We could have achieved the same effect using the powers in Schedule 1 to the Act, rather than using a transitional power. Part 3 of the regulations merely modifies the formula, in some cases for a limited period. It does not amend the Act.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I clarify what the noble Viscount says? Is he saying that whenever the Government change their mind, that is transitional and, therefore, justified under transitional provisions?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, makes an interesting point, but here we are dealing with a specific aspect of the child support regulations which passed through your Lordships' House last week. I am replying to that. I am not dealing with all legislation which the Government may or may not produce before your Lordships. We must stick to the subject that we have before us, which is the noble Earl's subject.
As I have said, Parliament agrees regulations which are put forward by the Government. It was quite out of order for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to criticise civil servants. That is not a usual custom of your Lordships' House. Ministers are responsible to Parliament and the Government are responsible for bringing forward regulations. I believe the noble Lord knows that as well as anyone here tonight.
The Child Support Agency was set up to collect maintenance from absent parents who are not paying and to ensure that those who pay do so at a realistic rate. I must remind your Lordships that in 1979 50 per cent. of lone parents in receipt of income support were receiving maintenance payments, but by 1989 this figure had fallen to 23 per cent. In 1991 two-thirds of lone parents were dependent on income support to meet their day-to-day expenses. Clearly even where maintenance was being paid it was in many cases being paid at an unrealistically low rate.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also accused us of targeting payers. I do not think that is the case. It is not true that the agency has concentrated on the so-called soft cases. I must inform the noble Lord that of the approximately 1 million cases that the agency will deal with in its first year over 60 per cent. will involve absent parents currently paying no maintenance at all. The noble Lord must take account of that.
I now turn to the effect the child support scheme has had upon parents with care. One of the basic aims of the Child Support Act is that the burden on the taxpayer

1685
should be reduced where parents can afford to support their children. It is a natural consequence of receiving maintenance that many parents with care will no longer receive income support. Many lone parents tell us that they want to work and regular maintenance provides a platform between benefit dependency and total independence.
Of course, such parents will no longer automatically qualify for entitlement to free school meals and exemption from National Health Service charges such as prescriptions and optical and dental charges. But parents on low income will still be eligible to apply for a range of income-related benefits such as housing benefit, council tax benefit and family credit, as well as help with NHS charges on income grounds. This phenomenon is not new. It could have applied to those floated off income support due to maintenance arranged under the old court system or indeed to any other form of income the person may acquire.
It is true that free school meals are only available to children in families receiving income support, but the line must be drawn somewhere. I should also point out that an amount is built into the family credit rates to reflect the cost of school meals, so it is not a case of withdrawing assistance totally once people leave income support.
Some parents with care may be worse off. However, many will actually receive more in maintenance than they had been receiving on income support. And what is really important is that this now frees them from the benefit trap. For example, it could free them to take part-time work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what are the Minister and the Government proposing to do about those parents who the Minister recognises will now be worse off?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have said I recognise that some parents might be worse off but I hope I have explained the position clearly as regards family credit and the benefit trap.
For some parents with care the changes which we have just introduced will mean a reduction in the child maintenance they receive. However, most will still receive more maintenance than they did under the old court-based system, even after these changes have taken effect. Additionally, those in receipt of income support will have their benefit adjusted to compensate for the reduction in their income.
The noble Baroness asked me about the effect the changes will have on parents with care in receipt of family credit. Family credit is payable for 26 weeks and not normally adjusted for changes of circumstances. Changes in maintenance will not therefore be taken into account until a renewal claim is made. Because income can move up or down, some will gain because of this rule while others lose. Other in-work benefits, such as housing benefit, can be adjusted immediately, minimising the effect on any losers. Family credit is a broad brush benefit with the awards made for six months. There will always be people who will gain from changes of circumstance during the award and there will be people who will not. That is the nature of the benefit.
1686
Changes in maintenance during one duration of a family credit award are treated exactly the same as changes in any other income. Other in-work benefits, such as housing benefit, can be adjusted immediately, minimising the effect on the parents with care who will see their income reduce.
We have decided that it is inappropriate to disregard maintenance in income support, for various reasons. The first is that income support is payable as a last resort to people who have no other means of support. To allow a disregard would be to make double provision. Such a move would provide a perverse incentive to remain on benefit. For that reason we have put the disregards into the in-work benefits such as family credit. We know that the majority of parents with care wish to work, especially as their children get older, and regular payments of maintenance, together with the disregards in the in-work benefits, will help them to achieve that goal.
There is also an argument of equity. Why should one parent with care on income support be better off than another simply because the Child Support Agency has managed to secure maintenance for her?
Before maintenance is paid at all, allowances are made in the absent parent's net income for his essential living expenses—and housing costs, and living expenses and housing costs for any child living with him. The income left is known as the assessable income.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may check whether I heard the noble Viscount correctly. Did he say, why should a woman be better off than another previously on income support simply because the Child Support Agency had secured maintenance for her? If he said that, does he understand that he has made a fundamental statement about the purpose of the Act?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am aware of what I said. I gave the noble Earl a number of reasons why we feel that there should be no maintenance disregard in income support. He will recall that there were three reasons.
To return to the formula, the absent parent is expected to pay half this income as child maintenance only until the basic maintenance requirement is met. Where the absent parent has assessable income left over after he has met the basic requirement the formula provides for an "additional element" at the lower deduction rate to be paid. The lower deduction rate reflects the fact that as parents' income increases, a smaller proportion is spent on the children and more is retained by the parents to spend on themselves. The recent changes mean that an absent parent with one child will pay 15 per cent. of his remaining assessable income in child maintenance; a parent with two children will pay 20 per cent.; and one with three children will pay 25 per cent., up to the maximum amount.
Before any maintenance is paid, a check is made to ensure that the absent parent retains enough income after paying maintenance to meet his or her day-to-day needs and those of any second family. That is known as the protected income calculation. The recent changes to protected income significantly increase the level of income kept by lower-paid absent parents. The net

1687
income of absent parents will now be at least £30 a week above the appropriate level of income support. In a substantial majority of cases, the absent parent will be paying no more than 30 per cent. of his net income in maintenance.
The reforms introduced last week will deal with some of the anxieties raised over the past few months, in particular those highlighted by the Select Committee. We said at the introduction of the scheme that we would keep the legislation continually under scrutiny. That still holds good. However, we feel that it is vital to give the recent changes time to take effect. We expect the changes to have a more significant impact than most absent parents have recognised. Once they see how their maintenance bills have been reduced that will become readily apparent. Long-term changes should rightly be assessed over a period of time, but we have demonstrated that we can respond to anxieties after proper consideration.
I have listened with care to all the points that have been made this evening; and of course I shall study Hansard with great care. I shall indeed bring all the anxieties raised tonight by your Lordships to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, is he in a position to answer the question which I specifically asked? When the Act was introduced to us, a very large sum was held out as inuring to the benefit of the taxpayer due to increased contributions from absent fathers. I asked whether that figure has not now been modified by the regulations. Can he give us a few figures?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I took note of his question, which was: what is the reduction in savings to the taxpayer as
1688
a result of the changes? Next year's costs are expected to be in the region of £100 million, with long-term costs of £95 million. These estimates are derived using the original assumptions about volumes of cases, throughput, compliance rates and many other factors which affect the agency's work. With a brand new scheme such assumptions may obviously need to be reviewed in the light of experience. The cost of those measures may therefore change because they do not at this stage make allowance for possible variations on those assumptions.
I apologise for not answering the noble and learned Lord earlier. I trust that that has now answered his point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, on the contrary, I thank the noble Viscount for answering now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister will recall that my noble friend Lady Hollis asked him about clean breaks where a considerable sum of money had been handed over and there was no charge against that money. He promised to answer that question. Indeed, he refused to give way to my noble friend on the ground that he would come to that item. Will he now give us the answer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I gave the general answer to your Lordships. The point is that even where there is no outstanding mortgage, such a situation still leaves the taxpayer to meet the ongoing needs of the child in most cases.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to the Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ROHINGYA REFUGEES
  ROHINGYA REFUGEES
  KNOW HOW FUND
  KNOW HOW FUND
  PUBLIC BODIES: APPOINTMENTS
  PUBLIC BODIES: APPOINTMENTS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS SERVICE
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS SERVICE
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVE
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVE
  FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES
  FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES
  FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES: SAVINGS
  FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES: SAVINGS
  DRIVING LICENCE PHOTO CARDS
  DRIVING LICENCE PHOTO CARDS
  DRIVER NUMBER SYSTEM
  DRIVER NUMBER SYSTEM