Sitting of 23 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third Time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Economy
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss developments in the Scottish economy
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I have frequent contacts with Scottish Enterprise and representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on matters concerning the Scottish economy. I last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise last Friday.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that the removal of headquarters and decision making is deeply damaging to Scottish economic interests? What representations has he personally made to British Gas about the location of its new headquarters divisions? Is he now prepared to condemn its decision to locate all five south of the border and seek to reverse it or will he follow the lead of his Prime Minister, wash his hands of the situation and do absolutely nothing while another Scottish work force is taken to the cleaners by another British company?
    Mr. Lang: While it is always desirable to have company decision making in Scotland—and I am glad to see that 25,000 more companies have been created in Scotland since the Government came to power—it is inevitable that, from time to time, companies, for their own commercial reasons, will rearrange their decision-making plans. I have written to the chairman of British Gas about his recent announcement. I particularly seek clarification of his proposals to devolve operational activities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is shortly to meet British Gas and I understand that the chairman has invited all Scottish Members to meet him this afternoon.
    Ms Squire: Does the Secretary of State recognise the vital importance of defence-related jobs to Scotland's
    260
    economy and especially to that of Fife? If so, will he declare his support for the campaign to keep open Rosyth naval base and protect the 5,000 jobs associated with it because employment is threatened in a region which already has the highest overall unemployment rate in Scotland? Will the Secretary of State publicly declare his support for that campaign?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady will know my past record of support for the naval base and also the naval dockyard at Rosyth. I cannot help noticing that Labour is always calling for cuts in defence spending and is always at the forefront of calls for the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent, but complains when the consequences of defence cuts flow through. The important thing is to maintain economic employment levels in Fife and to generate new economic activity to sustain increased prosperity.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Who does my right hon. Friend think best speaks for Scotland—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who in Glasgow on Friday was proud to speak about a diverse and dynamic Scottish economy which in many respects is a world beater, or the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who glories in knocking Scottish achievements and revels in taking every opportunity in the House and elsewhere to talk Scotland down?
    Mr. Lang: I suspect that my hon. Friend shares my view that the better spokesman for Scotland in that respect is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I wish that Labour would not seek to talk Scotland down because that damages Scotland's economic prospects. Why do the Opposition not recognise that Scotland's share of UK manufactured exports is now at an all-time high and 24 per cent. per head higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that Scottish exports are growing in all sectors of the economy? There is a great deal of good news in Scotland and it would help Scottish interests if Opposition Members would draw attention to it from time to time.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Did the Secretary of State write to or advise the Prime Minister on the statistics contained in the Prime Minister's speech, as the picture that he painted was not one of the Scotland that I know?
    Mr. Lang: I am not accountable for the hon. Gentleman's ignorance. I draw his attention to the fact that unemployment in Scotland, although still too high, is now lower than unemployment in England, Wales or Northern Ireland—for the first time in more than 70 years. Unemployment has fallen in five of the past six months and is 11,500 lower than it was a decade ago. In the last decade, 162,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that he has nothing to boast about when he says that unemployment in Scotland is lower, as it is still approaching 250,000 and only marginally less bad? As for young people out of work and those out of work for six months or more, will the Secretary of State comment on the reports from the unemployment unit showing the poor performance of people in statutory training schemes in Scottish local enterprise company areas? When he talks to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, will he suggest that

    261
    one of the criteria for training performance might be the ability to place people in jobs after training rather than simply obtaining paper qualifications?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman talks about those who have been unemployed for six months or more. He will know that two thirds of those who lose their jobs are back in employment after six months and off the unemployment register. In regard to the relative performance of enterprise companies, the hon. Gentleman will know better than most that there are bound to be differences in costs and results, depending on geography, demography, the nature of training courses and the level of qualifications being sought. Scotland has a good record on many of those aspects.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Secretary of State recall how he and his colleagues cheered when it was announced that the Germans had taken over the Rover group? Did they cheer last night when it was announced that French firm Valourec had taken over the last remaining steel plant in my constituency? Does he not feel some slight shame that in the 14 years during which he and his Government have presided over the Scottish economy the once thriving and vast steel industry has been reduced to absolutely zero in Motherwell, North? There is no British-owned steel industry in my constituency. Does he feel no shame? Could he at least give the work force some guarantee that their employment will be secure and that the North sea will continue to be provided with steel tubes made in Britain by a British firm, or will he cop out on that as well?
    Mr. Lang: If there is a case for shame, it is among the Opposition. The steel industry has suffered in recent years because it was starved of new investment when it was nationalised, when the commanding heights of the Scottish economy were taken over and control moved south to London. The lack of investment in nationalised steel companies led to their uncompetitiveness and demise. If the takeover by a French company leads to new investment, that is more likely than nationalisation would ever have been to secure jobs for the future.
    Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State admit that the 250,000 unemployed Scots, who were joined last Thursday by another 14,000, must have been absolutely gobsmacked if they were listening to the Prime Minister's speech on Friday when he said:
    "Employment prospects are vastly better than they were 15 years ago"?
    Being intelligent people, would they not find the Prime Minister's use of figures both self-serving and slippery when he claimed there were 160,000 more jobs in Scotland than there were 10 years ago? They will be wise enough to realise that the Government came to power 15 years ago, not 10 years ago, and that far from creating 160,000 jobs in those 15 years, the Government have destroyed 12,000 jobs all over Scotland. How can Ministers have the cheek to add statistical fraud to the human and economic misery that they have caused in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman may not like the statistics, but they happen to be correct. The civilian work force in Scotland has increased over the past 10 years by 162,000—that is more than 16,000 jobs a year on average, 1,300 a month or almost 350 a week. Let me cite some locations where new jobs have been created as a result of announcements in the past four months. They include
    262
    Cumbernauld, Glasgow, Coatbridge, Bathgate, Livingston, Glenrothes, East Kilbride, Larkhall, Dundee, Aberdeen, Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Hamilton, Cumnock, Port Glasgow, Kinross, Irvine, Elgin and Bothwell. There are lots of jobs being created in Scotland. It is a pity that the Labour party will not acknowledge that.

    Forestry Commission Land
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many access agreements have been reached with private purchasers of Forestry Commission land in each of the past five years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Access agreements are not made between the Forestry Commission and private purchasers.
    Mrs. Ewing: Why not?
    Sir Hector Monro: They could not be guaranteed in perpetuity.
    Mr. Kynoch: Under the current local government structure, regions are obliged to draw up indicative forestry strategies. Will that be a requirement of the new unitary authorities? If so, will there be co-operation and co-ordination between them?
    Sir Hector Monro: Yes. I expect close co-operation between the new unitary authorities and the forest authorities and Forest Enterprise—or whatever is in place when the new councils come into being in 1996. Co-operation will be the watchword—particularly in terms of access, which is most important.

    Rail and Car Transport
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likely growth in rail and private car transport in the south-east of Scotland over the next 20 years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend and I have regard to a wide range of information when forming transport policy for Scotland. That includes national forecasts for rail and road use produced by British Rail and the Department of Transport. The Scottish Office conducts more detailed studies in connection with individual transport projects.
    Mr. Darling: How can the Government justify a second road bridge at Queensferry, which will pour hundreds of thousands of unnecessary cars and lorries into Edinburgh city centre and cause environmental damage, when that will result in tolls increasing to between £3 and £6 per crossing, which is the experience with other private sector controlled bridges? Will the Government agree to a wide-ranging public inquiry so that alternative modes of transport, such as the underused Forth rail bridge, can be examined, or has the Minister been captured by the road builders in the Scottish Office and by construction companies, some of which have made generous donations to the Conservative party?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that a decision has been made, but it has not. Traffic levels are steadily increasing. The national road

    263
    traffic forecast shows that over the next 20 years traffic levels will rise 40 to 60 per cent. If we did nothing, we would rightly be blamed. Were the project to proceed, the toll would depend on the outcome of any future competition to design, build, finance and operate any new bridge and roads. It would be subject to close scrutiny, and a maximum level would be set by the Government. Suggestions of a toll of up to £5 are wholly unrealistic and bear no relation to reality.
    The hon. Gentleman wrote to me about a planning inquiry, and I am replying today. The normal statutory procedures require rigorous assessment of development proposals and provide for a local public inquiry if necessary. The kind of inquiry for which the hon. Gentleman asks has never been held in Scotland. We believe that the normal statutory processes should proceed.
    Mr. Hood: There is great concern in Scotland about coach transport, especially at this time. Today, the funeral of Francis Scorgie took place in the village of Carnwath in my constituency. His family and the whole constituency is mourning the death of that 15-year-old boy, who left his home last Thursday to travel with 34 other school friends on the school bus to Biggar high school. Within minutes, tragically, he received fatal injuries when the bus collided head-on with an articulated lorry. My constituents, the family of that young boy and the people of Scotland are calling for Government action. It is known beyond reasonable doubt that a seat belt would have saved the life of Francis Scorgie and avoided serious injury to the other children. When will the Government act?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments in sending deepest sympathy to the family concerned. I agree that the safety of pupils must be a matter of top priority. Their safety is the statutory responsibility of the education authorities concerned. The Department of Transport is undertaking a review of the fitting of seat belts in all buses and coaches, and will report in due course. The Scottish Office is contributing all the evidence that it has from Scotland. We are looking at that matter actively just now, in co-operation with our colleagues at the Department of Transport, which has lead responsibility.

    Training
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish Enterprise to discuss training.
    Mr. Lang: I last discussed training with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise on 2 November last year.
    Mr. Ross: When will we hear from the Secretary of State the distinctive Scottish circumstances that suggest to him that he should opt out of the proposed national development plan launched by the Secretary of State for Employment for 150,000 apprenticeships? Does the Secretary of State think that Scotland is so different that our young people do not deserve apprenticeships, or that our manufacturing base is so strong that we do not need young people in apprentice training—just in case the economy ever picks up?
    Mr. Lang: Labour Members are usually busy telling me how different Scotland is and how important it is that
    264
    it should have its own arrangements. I am keeping closely in touch with the development of the apprenticeship scheme at the Department of Employment for use south of the border. One of the reasons why we are not automatically and immediately linking ourselves with it is that we are already achieving 30 per cent. Scottish vocational qualification level 3, which is the target that has been set for the apprenticeship scheme. We are already ahead of what they are aiming at south of the border in that regard. Nevertheless, we will learn from the scheme as it is developed in the south. If it has application in Scotland, I am sure that it will be applied there.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the comments that he has made on the gaining of qualification under the training schemes, the new skill seekers scheme that is on offer presents a great opportunity for Scottish youth and allows youths to choose the training of their need with the employer of their choice? That will benefit them greatly in future years.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will welcome the fact that youth training credits should be applicable throughout Scotland by 1996.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Secretary of State last met Scottish Enterprise, did he discuss its successful initiative into Vietnam, which identified a number of viable hydro-electric projects which would have provided training and employment in Scotland and in my constituency? Will he discuss with the Overseas Development Administration and his colleague in that Department why there has been no response and why there is ongoing delay, and when the funding will be provided to make those projects become viable?
    Mr. Lang: That was not on the agenda for our discussion when we met in November. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will in due course hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Galloway: Will the Secretary of State ask the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Mr. Crawford Beveridge, what he was doing last weekend at a Conservative party fund-raising dinner at an hotel in my constituency—the Focus on Scotland dinner which Sir Michael Hirst, the chairman of the Conservative party, tells Malcolm Rifkind is immensely important and raises around 30 per cent. of its income? Why were a whole host of heads and high officials of Government quangos there, including a reported sighting of Mr. Lawrence Peterken, the expensively transferred health official about whom the House has heard much in recent months? Is it healthy for individuals who owe their livelihoods to Government patronage to be seated around tables raising funds at an immensely important Conservative party fund-raising dinner?
    Mr. Lang: There were almost 900 guests at that dinner. A further 200 would have liked to come but were unable to get seats. That is a reflection of the strength of support for the Government among the business community in Scotland. If Mr. Crawford Beveridge was brought as a guest of one of those business men, that is entirely a matter for him. So far as I am concerned, he and any other guests brought to that dinner were equally welcome. I only wish

    265
    that some Opposition Members had been invited by businesses in their community. They might have learnt quite a lot.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Secretary of State tell the House when he expects to meet Professor Donald Mackay to discuss the skills crisis in Scotland, because, despite the ludicrous answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), 83 per cent. of trainees on employment training in Scotland leave without a qualification and 76 per cent. of young Scots after being on youth training leave without a qualification? Surely the Secretary of State will not continue to be complacent about the future of so many young Scots. Scottish Enterprise is letting him down. He is involved in a widespread sell-out of the Scottish unemployed. It is a national scandal and he should make a statement about it today.
    Mr. Lang: Again, the Opposition are trying to talk Scotland down by presenting selective statistics and facts. The hon. Gentleman might have chosen to draw attention to the success of adult training—a scheme that is no more expensive in Scotland than in England and has produced a higher success rate in Scotland. He might also have pointed out that 30 per cent. achieve Scottish vocational qualification level 3 and above—much higher levels than are achieved in England—and that 80 per cent. aim for level 2. He might have mentioned that more youth and adult trainees than ever before are gaining recognised qualifications and that a larger proportion of adult trainees go into jobs, further education or further training.
    The fact is that the quality of training in Scotland is improving considerably.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to visit the north-east of Scotland to discuss local government spending.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend plans to visit the north-east of Scotland again before long. Local government spending will probably be among the matters discussed.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister recognise that when his right hon. Friend visits Aberdeen he will meet citizens who are full of anger, outrage and downright disgust at the £287,000 early retirement package given to the disgraced chief executive who, although guilty of dishonesty and deception, faced no disciplinary proceedings from the council? What can be done to ensure that the affair is investigated fully and independently, and that those citizens secure the result that they want—no more wasting of public money by councillors who have failed in their public duty?
    Mr. Stewart: A reading of the press will probably lead to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman's remarks reflect widespread public opinion. I must tell him, however, that the district council is an independent corporate body. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office have no powers to intervene in such decisions. The council must, of course, be accountable to taxpayers, official bodies and the law.
    Mr. John Marshall: As a former member of Aberdeen town council, may I support the plea of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) against Aberdeen district council's complete misuse of public funds? I am sure that it would not have happened when I was a member of the council, or when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was a member.
    Mr. Stewart: The consensus seems to be that Aberdeen's affairs were in better hands when my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) were on the council.
    I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected the widespread public anger that is felt, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can act only within statutes passed by the House. The council is an independent statutory body.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister agree that we should send our good wishes to Tom Paine, the leader of the council—who had a stroke two days ago—and wish him a speedy return to full health?
    Does the Minister also agree that hindsight is a marvellous aid to decision making—the only trouble being that it is not available when it is needed? Will he at least make one point clear—which I wish to do, although I personally do not agree with the final decision? Will he make it clear that that decision was made in good faith, not because of any lack of accountability or responsibility, and that public funds were not misused in the way that both the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) have disgracefully sought to imply?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that the whole House will want to send best wishes to Councillor Paine for a speedy recovery.
    The decision was, of course, made by the council. I merely expressed agreement with hon. Members' view that widespread public concern has been felt.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he employed in determining the size of the proposed new local authorities.
    Mr. Stewart: The Government took into account a wide range of factors in determining the boundaries for the new councils. Those were set out in detail in the consultation paper "Shaping the New Councils".
    Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister realise that no one in Scotland wants local government reorganisation—apart from some Tories in the gerrymandered areas—and that it will become even more unpopular once people realise the costs and the effect on services? Will he now confirm that as the proposed number of new authorities increases, the already substantial costs will also increase? How can the several small authorities that he has proposed possibly deliver the range of services that is necessary? Is not it true that he does not care, so long as he can create a few flagship Tory authorities to spearhead his real agenda, which is the handing over of service delivery to private contractors?
    Mr. Stewart: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that every political party in Scotland at one time or another has been committed to a unitary system of local

    267
    government, for good and understandable reasons. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on the changes that we announced in relation to Lothian, after listening to all-party public opinion. I have received congratulatory letters from West Lothian and from Midlothian, areas near the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    As for the size of authorities, if it is the hon. Gentleman's view that small authorities cannot deliver services, it is astonishing that two out of only three votes on detailed boundaries that the Opposition forced in Committee were to make fairly small authorities smaller.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that, in places where the proposed new local government boundaries cut across school catchment areas, parents and local education authorities will not have to bear the burden of extra transport or any other costs if parents choose to send their children to schools on the other side of a boundary? If the Minister cannot give us such an assurance, will he do the decent thing and withdraw the Bill, which is one of the most blatant pieces of political gerrymandering in the history of Scottish local government?
    Mr. Stewart: I have offered to meet the hon. Member and his parliamentary colleagues in Central region to consider the options that would best serve the interests of his constituents, but obviously he does not want to take up that offer on behalf of his constituents.
    As for the school question, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education and housing has given assurances to the Committee and will table an amendment on those matters.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Front-Bench Members divided the Standing Committee only three times when we were discussing boundaries in Scotland and that once we got down to the detailed scrutiny of the boundaries they could not sustain or justify the gerrymandering charge that they have unfairly bandied about during the past six months? Much of what the hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) say on television bears little resemblance to reality.
    Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Opposition Front-Bench Members endeavoured to stifle debate on boundaries. The number of recommendations that were made by Labour-led district councils in Scotland was extremely interesting—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It was remiss of me not to stop the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). We have procedures here whereby we do not refer to what is taking place in Committee. That Committee work stands on its own until it is reported to the House. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is now at the Dispatch Box can compose a proper answer without referring to the Committee.
    Mr. Stewart: The Government's developing policy will continue to reflect the need for a sensible unitary system of local government in Scotland and we shall continue to take into account the sensible proposals that we are receiving from many local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. George Robertson: The House will understand why the Minister with responsibility for local government
    268
    was put up to answer local government questions rather than the Secretary of State, who wants to stay well away from this gerrymandering subject. However, this is the Minister who has started to admit that the creation of the new additional authorities will increase costs and eliminate any savings from this unwanted, unnecessary and completely gerrymandering council carve-up. Will he now tell the whole truth about what it will cost the people of Scotland? This ideological fiasco, whose credibility is declining with every day that it is discussed, will mean yet another financial imposition on Scottish household bills. On top of the £10 a week that the people of Scotland will have to pay for economic incompetence and broken promises on taxation, they will have to pay a heavy gerrymandering surtax for the butchery of local government for which they never asked and which they certainly do not want.
    Mr. Stewart: That is either the 25th or the 26th time that I have heard the hon. Gentleman pronounce such nonsense. The costs and savings have been clearly identified. If he does not believe me, I urge him to read the submissions of Labour-led councils up and down the land about the savings and efficiencies that they believe a unitary structure of local government in Scotland will deliver to their voters. Members of Labour's Front Bench are simply not representing Labour district councils in Scotland in these matters.
    Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional quangos and joint boards will be created as a result of the proposed reforms of Scottish local government.
    Mr. Stewart: The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill proposes the creation of a maximum of seven new non-departmental public bodies, including a staff commission for the transitional period. We expect to establish four new joint boards for police and fire services.
    Mrs. Adams: Should not the Minister be hanging his head in shame? Is not it an admission that the Government do not believe in democracy in Scotland that they have to go for appointed boards? Will he at least tell us what the criteria for the appointments will be? Will he agree to set up a register listing all members of quangos, their interests and political affiliations so that the people of Scotland might at least know who these unelected people are who are increasingly running their lives?
    Mr. Stewart: The lists of people who are members of non-departmental public bodies are well known, as they are all published. We appreciate the hon. Lady's disappointment at not being selected at the last minute for the Committee considering the Bill, due to the traditional sexism of the Labour Whips Office. I assure her that under this Government the number of non-departmental public bodies in Scotland has not increased but has fallen from 240 to 160.
    Mr. Dalyell: If, as the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), costs have been carefully identified—I use his own words—he will be able to tell us, will he not, to the nearest £10 million, what is the latest cost estimate from the Scottish Office on local government reform?
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking precisely that and it will be answered today.
    Mr. McFall: Will the Minister ensure that any future quangos will not follow the lead of Dumbartonshire Enterprise, which, I have just discovered, has given a grant of £60,000 to the Helensburgh-based Royal Northern yacht club to stone clean its premises? He will know that it is the headquarters of the exclusive Mudhook yacht club, whose 40 rich and famous members include royalty and even Cabinet Ministers. Is he aware that, in an area of high unemployment, not one job was created as a result of the grant? Does he agree that this or any future quango should not provide substantial grants to organisations to finance projects that offer no economic benefits and which could easily and properly be funded by members of that exclusive rich man's club?
    Mr. Stewart: I believe that Dumbartonshire Enterprise spends taxpayers' money cost-effectively. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to someone with great experience of quangos, there is the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who was a member of the Police Advisory Board, of the board of the Scottish Development Agency and of the Scottish tourist board, at a time when his only obvious qualification for those important positions was his membership of the executive of the Scottish Labour party.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he will make available to ensure that homeless people in Scotland are able to receive the full range of health care available under the NHS.
    Mr. Stewart: Health boards are resourced to purchase health care services for their resident population including those who are homeless.
    Mr. Watson: Despite that response, the Minister must be aware that homeless people in Scotland, as in other parts of Britain, face major and often insurmountable obstacles in getting access to the national health service, largely because of the unwillingness of general practitioners, who are the main source of referral for most NHS services, to accept them on to their registers. Does he accept the view of Dr. Harry Burns, the director of public health in Glasgow, who said that providing better health care for homeless people must be a priority for 1994? Statistics for London show that tuberculosis is already beginning to raise its ugly head again among homeless people, including those in hostels. Will he tell us, and homeless people in Scotland, clearly what he is prepared to do to ensure that homeless does not continue to mean healthless?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I know Dr. Harry Burns and have the highest regard for him. In May 1992, the Chief Medical Officer asked health boards to carry out a health care needs assessment of their homeless and residential population. Last October, the CMO asked health boards to develop their services for the homeless and boards have already been instructed to undertake a whole range of specific actions to help in that area.
    Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend and his colleagues are discussing resources and health care facilities, do they bear carefully in mind the necessity, when a cottage hospital such as Meigle has been resourced from its birth with an adequate endowment that would keep it going for ever, of taking that fact carefully into account when considering the information presented before such a hospital is closed?
    Mr. Stewart: The whole House will know of my hon. Friend's campaign on Meigle hospital. As always, he has been a most meticulous and determined constituency Member of Parliament. As the House also knows, the Secretary of State himself replied to the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend initiated on Meigle hospital and I know that my right hon. Friend, as he said at the time, listened most carefully to what my hon. Friend said.
    Mrs. Fyfe: First, may I put on record the Labour party's continuing support for cottage hospitals?
    On the original question, the Minister must know that bad housing creates bad health and the health of those who do not even have a roof over their heads is even more at risk. Does he agree that it is a scandal that in 1992–93 more than 45,000 households—almost 1,000 every week—applied to local authorities as homeless and that many of the people concerned will not be registered with a doctor? Will the Minister therefore reject for Scotland the proposal from the Department of the Environment to tell local authorities that they need not house those in the greatest need—the people who are literally on the streets—but may provide short-term accommodation only? Will he promise today that the impact on the health of the homeless will lead him and the health and housing Ministers in the Scottish Office to reject out of hand any proposals to weaken homelessness legislation?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Lady will know, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing has allocated an extra £27 million for programmes specifically designed to deal with the problem of homelessness. With regard to the hon. Lady's general point about legislation, I can say that we envisage a consultation paper on possible reforms of homelessness provision, including legislation. That paper will be issued in the spring.

    Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future funding of Strathclyde passenger transport executive, in the context of Scottish local government reorganisation.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under our proposals for local government reform, the Strathclyde passenger transport executive will be funded by grants made by the Strathclyde passenger transport authority.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister understand—I doubt it —that the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, which is a highly successful operation, is now threatened by the twin nonsenses of rail privatisation and local government reorganisation? Does he realise that these destabilise investment and threaten vastly increased fares? Does he recognise that a leasing deal for rolling stock ordered by Strathclyde PTE has been thrown into limbo by the fact that nobody who will be involved in financing the deal knows where, in a few years'time, Strathclyde PTE

    271
    will get the money to pay for the rolling stock? Does he recognise also that the access charges announced last week by Railtrack have been passed on, in huge measure, to Strathclyde PTE? Ministers have guaranteed that Strathclyde PTE's additional charges will be covered for one year. Can the Minister confirm that the guarantee is for one year only? What will happen after that? If the money to meet these charges does not come from the Government, will it come from the local government taxpayer or from the passenger?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the costs concerned will be taken fully into account. I also confirm that, together with Councillor Malcolm Waugh and the Minister for Public Transport, I shall have a meeting on Monday with Lombard, to which the hon. Member has referred. Leasing and funding are matters for Strathclyde regional council, but I make it clear that the Scottish Office strongly supports Strathclyde's efforts to conclude a rolling stock leasing deal. Obviously I shall take a very close interest in all aspects of the negotiations. Indeed, I have already attended one meeting with the Minister. I shall let the hon. Gentleman know the outcome.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson). The Strathclyde passenger transport executive—in particular, Councillor Malcolm Waugh—has done an excellent job building up both rail and road transportation for the public, especially those who cannot afford cars. I should like to put on the record the fact that Strathclyde PTE opened two small railway stations in my constituency—at Cowlairs and High Possil Park—and that it would be a great shame if either of those was endangered as a result of our losing out on the passenger transport service.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I confirm that the local government reform proposals should present no impediment whatever to the satisfactory conclusion of these matters. I shall look in particular into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. With regard to boundaries, the remit and responsibilities of Strathclyde PTE will not change as a result of local government restructuring. The new Strathclyde PTA will, of course, replace Strathclyde regional council as the passenger transport authority.
    Mr. David Marshall: What changes will have to be made to the travel concession scheme in Strathclyde as a result of reorganisation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I confirm that there is no reason why local government reorganisation should adversely affect the availability of travel concessions. The hon. Gentleman's theme is incorrect.

    Funding (Highland Region)
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the allocation of funds for Highland region.
    Mr. Lang: Subject to the House approving the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1994, Highland regional council will receive aggregate external finance totalling just under £212 million next year.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State will have heard his colleague—the grey-haired and worried Minister beside him—refer to the fact that there will be a great increase in the volume of road traffic. What, then, is the logic of cutting by £5.7 million Highland's grant aid for road maintenance? At a time when the Highland region has been defined by the European Community as a deprived area worthy of regional structural funds, what is the sense in cutting grants generally?
    Mr. Lang: In other circumstances, I might have described the hon. Gentleman's question as hair-raising.
    The allocation of resources for roads is, of course, a matter for the regional council. The capping principles that I have enunciated for next year will enable it, like most other regional councils, to increase spending by up to 1.75 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should not forget the substantial resources amounting to £240 million over a period of time which will be available to the highlands and islands under objective 1. Some of that could be used for roads.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State accept that the structural and economic disadvantages of the west highlands and the outer islands are among the most deep-seated and intractable in the whole United Kingdom and that that played a large part in the award of objective 1 funding for the highlands and islands? Does he agree that that is a powerful argument for siting the committee to administer the funds in the west highlands rather than the east highlands, because that is where the problems are greatest? Will he make a decision soon about the location of that committee?
    Mr. Lang: Those are not entirely matters for me, but the hon. Gentleman's case will have been noted.

    Tourist Boards
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce his conclusions on the review of the area tourist boards in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish tourist board has submitted a recommendation on a new area tourist board structure to my right hon. Friend. This is being considered carefully and an announcement will be made in due course.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that the seven or eight-board structure that has officially been recommended by the Scottish tourist board to the Minister represents fewer than half the number of area boards recommended in the Scottish tourist board's detailed staff consultation with the industry? Does he agree that it is necessary for boards such as the borders and the islands tourist boards to retain a geographical distinctiveness so that they can market tourism effectively? What assurances can he give the House that that local identity will not be sacrificed in the review and amalgamation of tourist boards that he is currently considering?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am currently considering the representations of the hon. Gentleman, who came to see me with a deputation on the subject. I can tell him that one of the clearest messages that emerged from the tourism review was that there should be a more

    273
    co-ordinated framework of area tourist boards for the whole of Scotland and that, at 31, there were far too many. Although the Scottish tourist board has encouraged voluntary amalgamations, that approach simply has not worked. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point with the utmost care before conclusions are reached, undoubtedly within a few weeks.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware of the important part that the Greater Glasgow tourist board has played in the past few years in selling events such as the garden festival, Glasgow City of Culture and the international jazz festival? Is he aware that if the proposals of the Scottish tourist board were put into force, the expertise in selling local amenities, attractions and services, which is an essential part of the area tourist board, would be lost?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. We regard the review as a matter of supreme importance because tourism is now the largest employer in Scotland. It is not the largest employer south of the border, but it is in Scotland. We are absolutely determined to get the review right. We are considering the matter deliberately thoroughly, but it will take a little time to come to informed decisions.
    Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is considering this difficult and complex matter, will he bear it in mind that Perthshire tourist board—which, by any standards, is one of the more successful, if not the most successful, board in Scotland—is deeply worried that it could be merged with areas that have not been so successful and would be much more difficult to market?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest and of the points that have been made in his constituency, but I repeat to the House that the pressure for change has come from the tourism industry itself through its responses to the tourism review, and it is the tourist trade and the area tourist boards which have said that there are at present far too many area tourist boards. That is why some action must be taken.

    Training Companies
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make public the funding paid to training companies for each training place that they provide.
    Mr. Lang: Responsibility for the delivery of training in Scotland is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and their networks of local enterprise companies. The negotiation and agreement of funding paid to training companies is a contractual matter between the local enterprise companies and the training provider.
    Mr. Worthington: Is not it shocking that we cannot know the price that is paid for the training of our young people and of the unemployed? Has the Secretary of State seen the evidence being given by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in which it contrasts the fact that local authorities are told to do everything in public with the fact that local enterprise companies are told to everything in private? Is not it disgraceful that we should be unable to
    274
    protect our young people by having information about what is paid to private companies to train them or to exploit them?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the resources going into training are substantially greater than under the last Labour Government. As regards the publication of the specific details paid under contracts to individual training providers, that is a matter for the local enterprise company. They are not prevented from publishing the details, but it is a commercial matter. Local enterprise companies are private sector companies and each is accountable to Scottish Enterprise for the fulfilment of its obligations and delivery of training. So there is proper accountability and efficient, commercial use of resources.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Highlands and Islands Enterprise on its announcement that its books and the books of its LECs will be open to the public?
    Mr. Lang: Yes, and I would welcome it from others.

    Local Government Accountability
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to strengthen the accountability of local government in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: The proposals contained in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to establish a single-tier structure of local authorities will significantly strengthen the accountability of local government in Scotland.
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will already have heard this afternoon of the deep unrest in the north-east over the so-called early retirement of the chief executive of Aberdeen city council. May I add the deep concern of my constituents about the situation? In the light of that, and of the allegations about Monklands district council and other Labour-controlled councils, will my hon. Friend give some reassurance to my constituents that, in the transfer to unitary authorities, staffing matters will be dealt with in a proper and professional manner?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important point in relation to council tax payers, the public interest and the interests of employees themselves. The transitional arrangements for staff have been discussed. We are setting up a staff advisory committee and, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, a staff commission. I am glad to have the agreement of a number of Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend's announcement of the chairman of that commission, Mr. Robert Peggie, is widely and warmly welcomed.
    Mr. McAllion: I can follow how the quangos created by local government reform will be accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. What I cannot understand is how the Secretary of State for Scotland is accountable to the Scottish people, particularly since three out of four of them at the last election voted to remove him from the office that he now holds. Does the Minister agree that, as long as the Secretary of State for Scotland holds his high office in defiance of the democratically expressed wishes of the Scottish people, no aspect of government in Scotland

    275
    is truly accountable, there is no Scottish democracy and, in every sense of the word, Scottish people are already living in an unelected state?
    Mr. Stewart: That probably confirms that it is only a matter of time before the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) joins the Scottish National party, where I am sure he will be warmly welcomed. Ours is a United Kingdom Parliament and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is fully accountable to the House, as is every other Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament.

    Homelessness
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to end the duty of Scottish local authorities to provide permanent housing to all homeless people.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office will circulate a consultation paper in the spring on the possible reform of homelessness policy. The paper will
    276
    raise issues similar to those addressed in the consultation paper for England which was distributed on 20 January. The consultation in Scotland will also take account of the findings of recent research into the 1991 code of guidance on homelessness.
    Sir David Steel: The consultation paper issued by the Department in England proposes to repeal a section of the law that places on local authorities a duty to provide permanent homes for homeless people. May we have an assurance that no such proposal will appear in the Scottish consultation paper?
    Lord Douglas-Hamilton: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the contents of the consultation paper have not yet been finalised; they will take into account the results of the research. We expect the paper to ask questions about all the main issues of the current homelessness legislation—I refer to questions, not proposals, as it will be a genuine consultation exercise. The present duty applies only to those who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. George Robertson: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek advice in relation to the way in which Scottish Question Time was conducted this afternoon. At the beginning, the Secretary of State announced that he was to link Questions 1 and 7. I had been notified that that was his intention and phoned his private office before lunch to say that the Opposition would find that objectionable.
Question 1 asks when the Secretary of State
"last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise".
Question 7 asks when the Secretary of State
"next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress".
Both questions relate to discussions on the Scottish economy, but involve two radically different organisations that are likely, despite their common concern about the way the Government run the Scottish economy, to have two different views on the remedy.
The Secretary of State answered only three questions out of the 15 reached in today's Question Time. If he then chooses to link two of the substantial questions, he reduces even further our opportunities to cross-examine him. Surely there should be some safeguard for the House against a Cabinet Minister unilaterally choosing to link questions because there may be an apparent connection between them. If that policy were taken to its logical conclusion, all the questions could be linked because they related to Scotland.
Madam Speaker: I have done a little calculation myself, and the House may be interested to know that I called seven supplementary questions in connection with the two linked questions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising my conduct. The decision whether or not to link questions is entirely at the discretion of the relevant Minister.
Mr. James Wallace: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. in reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the Under-Secretary said that the consultation document would involve genuine consultation. Can the House have guidelines on which consultation exercises will be genuine and which will not?
Madam Speaker: That was a very good move on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but it was certainly not a point of order for me.
Mr. William Ross: It is more a matter of guidance than a point of order that I wish to raise. It relates to an organisation that you chair, Madam Speaker, so I thought that it should be brought to your attention.
In a foreign legislature yesterday, and earlier in the Anglo-Irish conference, decisions taken by the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Boundary Commission were called into question. It was alleged that the decisions taken by that organisation were discriminatory.
That raises a matter of constitutional importance of interest not only to the House but to the whole country. A foreign Government are now trying to overturn decisions made by a commission of which you, Madam Speaker, are
278
the chairperson. I should be grateful if you would tell the House what steps the House and Her Majesty's Government may take to refute that interference by Dublin, which goes beyond all reasonable bounds.
Madam Speaker: I shall look at the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which is currently unknown to me. I shall make urgent inquiries about it and come back to him.
Mr. Brian Donohoe: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why, during the past four Scottish questions, have I failed to catch your eye? My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says that it has something to do with my tie. Will you advise me whether that is the case?
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I promise that I am not cringing, but I have no complaints to make.
Madam Speaker: The latter point of order is most welcome. I recognise that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has stood up on practically every question. It is not possible for me to call all Scottish Members during question time—
Mr. John Home Robertson: All the Conservatives get called.
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has a criticism to make, he should stand up so that we can have a proper exchange about it. I am replying to a point of order, and do not expect seated interventions when I am on my feet.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has stood up on every question. I regret that I have been unable to call him. I look on that Back Bench because it contains many handsome Members. Without any commitment, the hon. Gentleman can be sure that I shall look his way in future.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am in a little difficulty, because the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) made an interesting contribution to the debate on the intelligence services, in column 205 of yesterday's Official Report. The only problem is that the speech is attributed to me. Although I agree with much that he said, the record should be corrected.
Madam Speaker: Absolutely, and I am sure that the Editor of the Official Report will have heard what the hon. Gentleman had said.
Mr. Brian Wilson: The point of order that I wish to raise with you, Madam Speaker, is on the transferring of questions. I wish to establish where responsibility lies and what powers the Chair has to protect the interests of hon. Members.
My specific example is that I tabled an oral question for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the subject of the fish farming industry. Unilaterally, the Ministry has transferred the question to the Scottish Office. If I wanted to ask the Scottish Office, I would ask the Scottish Office. on such a matter, there are shades of opinion and different roles. The crucial point is that the lead Ministry in dealings with Europe is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There are salmon farms in England as well.
Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Member says, salmon farms exist in England, too.
Mr. William Ross: And in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Wilson: And in Northern Ireland. Clearly, the question has been transferred to avoid political difficulty. That is not a good enough reason.
Madam Speaker: The Minister himself determines where his responsibilities lie and whether he is responsible for the question. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a question has been transferred unjustly and unnecessarily, he should raise the matter with the Minister.
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a member of the Opposition Front Bench to visit the Press Gallery? I spent some 19 years up there and have never known that to happen before.
Madam Speaker: I should have thought that a Member elected to this House had access to all parts of it. I have never been in the Press Gallery, but I understand that all the press can see of me are my buckled shoes.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to a previous point of order, Madam Speaker, on Members' rights regarding the linking of questions. It is a more general point than the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). When questions are linked, it is for the convenience not of Members but of the Executive.
The House does not exist for the convenience of Ministers, but for the convenience of hon. Members. There have been many occasions when the linking of questions has not been notified in time to hon. Members whose questions have been linked. When questions are linked, even if that is admissible, it is a matter of interest not only to the Ministers and hon. Members whose questions are linked, but to any hon. Member who might wish to participate in Question Time and who might come in for Question 8, but find that it has already been dealt with after being linked with Question 1.
Is it beyond the wit of the organisation of the House for notification of which questions are being linked to be available in the morning to all hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: If hon. Members are seeking to change our procedures on the matter, it may be something that the Procedure Committee could usefully consider. The hon. Gentleman advanced two interesting points. He was right to say that sometimes hon. Members are not notified. That has happened when I have been in the Chair. When it occurs, of course I allow the hon. Member concerned to ask his question separately and I have done so recently.
280
When questions are linked, I understand the extent of interest, and I tend to allow more supplementary questions and I call hon. Members who are interested in the issue. The first point may be a matter that the Procedure Committee will wish to consider.
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to apologise if I irritated you earlier. I assure you that I was not complaining, but simply observing that Scottish Conservative Members can always be called at Scottish questions. That is clearly a problem of Scottish political arithmetic. It has nothing to do with you, Madam Speaker, and I assure you that I was not complaining.
The substantive point of order that I want to raise concerns another matter. There has been another instance of a very important announcement, which should have been made through an oral statement by a Minister in the House, appearing as a planted question on the Order Paper.
I am referring to Question 180, which deals with further redundancies in the Army. That is a serious matter, which affects many people in the armed forces, including some personnel on active service in Bosnia. I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to put it to Ministers that, where possible, statements of that nature should be made as oral statements in the House, and should not be sneaked in via planted written questions.
Madam Speaker: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the preamble to his point of order. He knows that it is entirely up to the Minister whether he makes a statement at the Dispatch Box or in answer to a written question. I understand that the answer to today's question is the third such announcement under the Government's "Options for Change" policy—there has been no change of policy. It is not for me to make the Government's case; I am simply trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that a written answer is not unusual in these circumstances.

BILL PRESENTED
  HARE COURSING
  Mr. Colin Pickthall, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Elliott Morley, Mr. Edward O'Hara and Mr. Roger Stott, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal; to prohibit the use of any place for or in connection with hare coursing; to provide for the confiscation of any animal or equipment used or to be used for or in connection with hare coursing; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 March, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

  Pensions Reform
  3.42pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for employers' and employees' pension contributions to be paid into personally owned funds registered for the purpose of future pension payment.
  A lot of attention in the House and elsewhere has rightly been paid to the problems that are caused when pension funds are embezzled and illegal action takes place.
  I pay tribute to the work being done by the Select Committee on Social Security, which is trying to bring a public focus to bear on the issues that are raised. There has also been a lot of focus on the mismanagement of pension funds. Out of respect to my right hon. Friend the Member Selby (Mr. Alison), who I see present, I shall not say too much about the Church Commissioners.
  What has not received enough attention is the perfectly legal disadvantage suffered by many pensioners as a result of their decision to move jobs for one reason for another, or because they have been made redundant.
  The problem of early leavers is particularly acute, and that is what I want to address by means of the Bill. As a society, we increasingly expect mobility. The age when my grandfather left school at 14 and worked for the same employer for the whole of his working life has long since passed. Most contemporary workers would expect to work for more than one company and perhaps in more than one industry in the course of their working lives. If the provisions of private pensions disadvantage those people in moving from job to job or from industry to industry, the matter needs to be addressed and set right.
  Hon. Members have said many times that civil servants should be able to move backwards and forwards from the civil service to industry, local government and academia, and even to consultancies. Everybody would benefit from that, but the constant block is the consequence for pensions, and only secondment is possible. People are unwilling to move from job to job because of the loss of pension entitlement that would result.
  The matter concerns many hon. Members and also worries many people who come to my surgery, especially during a time of recession, when people may be made redundant and have to change careers. I expect that almost every hon. Member has had such experiences in his surgery.
  The present pensions system seems to be entirely based on those who always work for the same company, those who are fortunate enough to work in an industry that has
  282
  a common pensions system so that when they change companies they are not disadvantaged, or those who are powerful enough to negotiate, as part of their package for changing jobs, an enhancement of pension rights so that they do not suffer.
  Those who are particularly disadvantaged are people whose occupations have high job mobility and for which there is no common scheme. The disadvantaged also include women who may stop working to have a family or because they wish to have experience in other professions, whether related to their own or in an entirely different field, or perhaps in voluntary work. Others return to part-time work in later life. As a result of redundancy, especially in later years, many people are forced to draw an early pension and do not receive the benefit they might otherwise expect.
  Present pension fund arrangements mean that people can draw the pension when they reach pension age, and perhaps their wives and husbands can draw it when the person dies, but there are restrictive rules about accumulated pension rights being passed to families or charities or to any other beneficiary that the pension holder had in mind.
  The Bill sets out to ensure that employers' contributions, like those of employees, are set aside and accumulated with profits, so that if someone wishes to change his job, he can simply take them to the next job. The effect is cumulative, in that the employers' and employees' contributions and profits are added throughout the career of the worker. The Bill also provides an opportunity for additional contributions, which will result in more benefits later in life.
  The issue will come to the House again and again because, as society changes, more and more people will undoubtedly find themselves caught out by the present arrangements. I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. John Marshall.

  PENSIONS REFORM
  Mr. Robert B. Jones accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for employers' and employees' pension contributions to be paid into personally owned funds registered for the purpose of future pension payment: 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 58.]
Orders of the Day

  Sunday Trading Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot understand why my amendment to delete Wales from the provisions of the Bill was not selected. No other amendments are anything like that amendment, and there is no opportunity for me or my colleagues to raise the issue, because, once again, the amendment has not been selected.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman complains about the non-selection of his amendment. The selection of amendments is the responsibility of the Speaker. I have looked at them carefully to make my selection for today's debate.
  Mr. Jones rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman as gently as I can that the selection of amendments is entirely at the discretion of the Speaker.

New Clause 1

  LOADING AND UNLOADING AT LARGE SHOPS ON SUNDAY MORNING
  `(1) A local authority may resolve that Schedule [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning] to this Act is to apply to their area.
  (2) If a local authority do so resolve, Schedule [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning] shall come into force in their area on such date as may be specified for that purpose in the resolution, being a date at least one month after the date on which the resolution is passed.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3—Meaning of "local authority"—and Government amendments Nos. 50, 49 and 52 to 55.
  Mr. Lloyd: I gave a commitment in Standing Committee to consider the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), among others, about deliveries to large shops in residential areas on Sunday mornings. The worry was that, if shops opened at 10 am, local people could be disturbed by deliveries arriving early in the morning.
  We have discussed the matter with local authority organisations and retailers, and I am extremely grateful to them, particularly the local authority organisations, for their prompt advice.
  As I said in Committee, there are already a range of powers to deal with noise nuisance, and most stores want to be regarded as good neighbours, especially by potential customers living nearby. However, the local authorities were clear that they would like a specific power between exhortation and general statutory powers. The new clause and schedule bridge that gap.
  284
  The new clause permits a local authority to take the powers in the schedule which will enable it to prohibit deliveries before 9 am—late enough to preserve the quiet of an early Sunday morning. If the local authority proceeds in that way, a shop may still apply for consent for deliveries to take place before 9 am. Consent must be granted after consultation with local residents, unless the local authority believes that the deliveries will cause undue disturbance to those living nearby.
  Mr. William O'Brien: in the discussions with local authorities and local authority associations, was any comment made about the fact that local authorities are so strapped for resources that it would be extremely difficult for them to police such activities on Sunday mornings? If not, will the Minister seek their views on policing them?
  Mr. Lloyd: That point was not put to me. Local authorities are glad to have a more simple power, so that they may use fewer resources than if they were to use the wider statutory powers they already have. Although I understand that all local authorities would like more resources, it will not use up more resources but will enable them to carry out their task more speedily and efficiently in the interests of local residents.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that local residents would also be efficient policemen of that power? If they were disturbed by lorries before 9 o'clock where that permission had been refused, I guarantee that they would be willing to be witnesses and to complain to the authority the next morning, if not that day.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite right. All I would add to what I have just said is that there are a number of other amendments in the group. They are all technical, defining "local authority" for this purpose and the purposes of the Bill in general.
  I am quite sure that everyone, whether they are in favour of or opposed to Sunday opening, will welcome the extra powers that local authorities will now have to deal with the noise nuisance that opening may cause.
  Ms Joan Ruddock: The Minister's speeches are always very brief. I shall take a little more time, because I believe that this is an extremely important issue.
  As the Minister acknowledged, Labour raised in Committee a number of amendments designed to explore the environmental impact of Sunday trading.
  The Minister referred in Committee, as he did today, to the measures already available to local authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Environmental Protection Act 1990. We acknowledge their importance and the existing provisions of planning law, but maintain that additional powers should be granted to local authorities, to recognise the consequences of much-increased Sunday trading.
  In pursuing that matter, we reflect the concerns of our constituents and their local authority representatives. I am glad that the Minister accepts the importance of the issue and, through these amendments, has allowed us to address it. Both the hon. Gentleman and I have maintained close contact with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other organisations, which in turn consulted their members.

  285
  The response of the director of health and community services for Gateshead metropolitan borough council is typical. That authority confirms that it has had to deal with disturbance to residents caused by deliveries to supermarkets. Gateshead's director of health and community services wrote:
  "Disturbance can be widespread and at locations remote from the supermarket due to the movement of large articulated delivery lorries passing through residential areas.
  Noise at or near the supermarket is caused by the manoeuvring of large delivery vehicles; lorry reverse warning signals; the idling of lorry engines which is required to power ancillary equipment such as lifts; the movement of large metal containers over hard surfaces, and the shouting of delivery/supermarket personnel.
  It is the experience of this Authority that people living near or on the route to a supermarket will tolerate a certain degree of disamenity from the above-mentioned sources, but only during less noise-sensitive times of the day eg Monday to Saturday, 8 am to 6 pm."
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have sympathy with some of the hon. Lady's points, but does she not concede that vigorous application of highways Acts would discourage and make illegal deliveries before 9 am, if that caused a nuisance?
  Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may have shared my experience and that of other hon. Members. When constituents bring noise problems to one's attention and one requests the local authority to address them through the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the process is cumbersome and lengthy. The nuisance must be caused before action can be taken, whereas the merit of the Minister's proposals is that it would be possible to try to prevent the nuisance arising in the first place.
  The letter from Gateshead's director of health and community services continues:
  "Planning legislation and planning conditions are a useful means of avoiding disturbance from deliveries and have been used effectively by this Authority. However planning conditions will only apply to new development and cannot be applied retrospectively.
  Early morning or late night deliveries can cause acute noise problems and complainants demand a speedy remedy.
  The Noise Abatement Zone provisions and procedures of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which are lengthy are therefore not the answer.
  Not every superstore is in a location where there is a potential for disturbance, however many are, and so each case must be judged on its merits. I would support a procedure which would require each superstore to notify a local authority of its intentions so that the effects on local residents can be assessed. The procedure should promote discussion between Local Authorities and superstores so that sensible agreement can be reached."
  That "sensible agreement" would, we hope, follow notification of Sunday opening by large stores to their local authorities under the registration scheme that is central to the Bill. However, experience tells us that, often, much damage is done and offence caused before remedies are provided under existing environmental protection law.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Will the hon. Lady confirm that these problems arise mostly from what she is describing as superstores? Whichever way we look at it, there will be some activity, whether it is noise, or those people who are having to work to prevent noise and police the whole thing. Does she accept that those problems could not arise were those large stores simply not allowed to open on a Sunday?
  Ms Ruddock: There is an undeniable logic in that point, but, as the hon. Member will recall—as I recall today and recalled during much of the proceedings in Committee —the House in its wisdom decided that the larger stores, the superstores, should be allowed to trade on Sunday for a limited period of six hours.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Lack of wisdom.
  Ms Ruddock: If they are to trade, I consider it my duty and that of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to endeavour in every way possible to try to ameliorate the problems that could be so caused.
  4 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I agree with her that a lack of wisdom was shown. Does that mean that she will now support the amendments to be called later today to limit the size of shops that can open?
  Ms Ruddock: I fear that the hon. Gentleman misheard. It was a woman's voice—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Mine.
  Ms Ruddock: — saying that there was a lack of wisdom, but I did not say that; he is mistaken. He knows from our discussions and deliberations in Committee that, on that matter, I shall probably be on the other side, although there have been matters on which we have agreed. I know that the hon. Gentleman very much wanted to see some amelioration of environmental impacts should they occur after the Bill be passed.
  I believe that protection is required, particularly in relation to older premises, many of which are situated in residential neighbourhoods. As I said in Committee, I believe that many stores would not need to have any deliveries on a Sunday; many do not have perishable goods and there is no reason why deliveries should be made.
  However, where they are taking place—I believe that there would be fewer than on other days of the week—there is a need to try to see that the least possible disturbance is caused. The modest provisions of the new clauses and amendments should be eminently workable, and are patently in the interests of those who live adjacent to such stores and who have every right to expect some protection from increasing commercialisation.
  Finally, much could be done in addition to early morning restriction of deliveries. A number of changes have already been entered into by some companies in consultation with local authorities and have led to a considerable reduction in noise nuisance during existing weekday deliveries: the re-routing of delivery vehicles, a common request with which we would expect all firms to comply where it is possible; development of acoustic loading bays; use of wooden pallets; and secondary double glazing of residents' homes. Those are all proven examples of positive local action to ameliorate the environmental impact of large-scale deliveries.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: The hon. Lady mentioned doubling glazing of residents' homes. Obviously that is a benefit. Does she agree, however, that that is the benefit of last resort, that limiting the emanation

  287
  of noise is the key factor, and that, when one has to double-glaze, it is an admission that one has failed in the first place?
  Ms Ruddock: I accept that. The force of the new clauses and amendments is that there should be prevention rather than cure. Of course those measures are measures of last resort, but it is important that we note that such things have been done, that there are examples, that companies have been obliged to take such measures to protect local neighbourhoods. Those measures are important. The burden of my case is that we should expect all possible measures to be put in place if the Bill becomes law.
  Many local authorities have been conscious that prevention is better than cure, and have therefore built into their planning consents restrictions on Sunday activities, such as the time when deliveries may be made or, in some cases, that no deliveries are allowed. These constraints tend to apply only to the most recent supermarket and other large store developments.
  Furthermore, I believe that, if the Bill becomes law, companies will seek the lifting of the existing restrictions.We are pleased to have on the record the Minister's assurances, given in Committee, that a new Sunday trading law could in no way provide automatic relief from those restrictions; none the less, we feel that these new measures are necessary.
  I believe that hon. Members will welcome the protection from the curse of noise nuisance that the new clause and amendments would give their constituents. Large companies must consider themselves under a public duty to reduce noise wherever possible; while we must expect them to make much of that effort voluntarily and willingly, the prohibition of early morning loading and unloading would give more force to what I am sure all hon. Members want—the protection of the local environments of our constituents.
  Mr. Alton: The new clause and amendments are worthy of our support, because they constitute an attempt to improve the Bill; I am tempted, however, to see them as yet another example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. How much easier it would have been had the House decided at a much earlier stage to limit Sunday opening to small shops.
  I was extremely disappointed to hear from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) that, although no changes had been made to provide proper employee protection and no guarantees had been given on such issues as premium payments and double-time working, she was prepared to budge at all in the votes that will take place later. Those votes will give the House a chance to think again, and to try to undo some of the damage done by earlier votes.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether he agrees or disagrees, the House decided on 6 December that shops should be allowed to open on Sundays? There was no three-line Whip—at least on either Labour or the Conservative party—and, given that the House made the decision, it is arrogant in the extreme to argue in Committee and on Report that it should be deferred.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman should realise that, until the Bill receives Royal Assent, it remains a Bill, and we in the House of Commons—and, indeed, the other
  288
  place—have the right to reform it at any stage. When hon. Members voted at an earlier stage, they did so with a false prospectus before them: they were told that emplolyment protection would be provided, but it was never set out in the Bill. Nor were they told that the House would be presented with another Bill—the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—which would allow shops to open from Monday to Saturday, 24 hours a day. If they had been told that, I do not believe that they would have voted as they did.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Some hon. Members—including me—voted on the options before us after saying, in points of order, that the way in which we were being asked to vote was wrong, and that employment protection should have been debated first. We voted conditionally, on the basis of what that employee protection—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The debate is about loading and unloading, but we are moving very wide of that subject.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) makes a fair point, however. I shall return to the new clause immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is fair to point out that votes were conditional. That is my response to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We repeatedly warned that that would be the result, and that shopworkers would be affected. Now Opposition Members are ruing their actions.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady reinforces my point: hon. Members voted without the necessary information before them and with no knowledge of the other agenda with which they would be presented.
  Now there are attempts, such as those in the amendment, to tidy up the Bill, to give it a more attractive face, but those are superficial amendments and the House should not be conned into believing otherwise. The amendments before us are, as the hon. Member for Deptford said, modest. That is a charitable use of the word. They are minor amendments, which will simply tidy things up.
  If we think about the real environmental pressures that are linked in the amendment to the trading and the opening of shops on Sundays, we can obtain some idea of what will happen when Sunday becomes yet another Saturday. There will be increased energy consumption, greater air pollution and greater noise.
  I draw the attention of the House to a report that appeared in The Independent on 6 December 1993:
  "A shift to widespread Sunday trading could result in an extra one million tonnes of carbon dioxide being emitted when the Government wants to cut ten million tonnes per annum from Britain's present emissions in 2000, to comply with the Rio climate protection treaty."
  In other words, however much good the amendments do in trying to reduce the environmental impact on a Sunday, widespread Sunday opening will have a catastrophic effect on the environment because of the extra noise, the extra air pollution, the extra wear and tear on road surfaces, and the traffic that will be generated as a result of all that extra trading.
  There is clear evidence of lower levels of nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide in London on Sundays at present, which makes life easier for asthmatics. How much worse it will be for them—and for

  289
  anyone else who cares about their children, in the light of reports that we have seen in the newspapers recently about the high concentration of air pollution at the level of prams and cots, as people take their children on walks through high streets. They will not even be able to do that on a Sunday in the future without coming into contact with that air pollution.
  In addition, the cross-party Association of District Councils warned of the dangers from Sunday trading in increasing traffic congestion, which would force them to levy the increased costs of traffic wardens on the motorist through car park charges. That report appeared in the Financial Times on 10 December 1993.
  I believe that those reasons show why we are wrong, as a House of Commons, to give widespread powers to shops to open as and when they wish on a Sunday, and indeed every other day of the week, but, if they are going to do so, new clauses such as this at least try to limit that. For those reasons, I would give what the hon. Lady called "a modest amendment" my support.
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Alton: Before concluding, I will give way to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Lord: Are not all the things that we foresaw starting to happen? We are discussing noise in the vicinity of supermarkets, but we have to think of policemen, of traffic wardens, of refuse collection and of those people in local authorities whose job it is to regulate shops and their activities. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is all coming about as those of us who did not want Sunday trading prophesied. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not too late for those people who think that they were misled earlier in the debate to change their minds today and ensure that we keep our Sundays.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is right. All those things were laid before the House, but some people felt that the arguments about employee protection would be met later; that they were conditional—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing employment protection: we are discussing loading and unloading. The hon. Gentleman must get back to the new clause.
  Mr. Alton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try not to be led astray again.
  Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman express a view on the subject of arrogance in dealing with relevant issues now? Surely it is the job of the House, and the business of elected representatives, to make the necessary changes—if changes are to be made—now, before the Bill becomes law. Is it not arrogant to suggest otherwise?
  Mr. Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, I not only think that we should support the amendment now, modest though it is, but hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his argument forcefully to the House in later debates.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: New Clause 1 on unloading and unloading demonstrates well the dangers
  290
  and difficulties that arise with Sunday trading. The Government are supposed to be taking regulations off people's backs, but here are more regulations. As the schedule relates to unloading before 9 am, lorries will arrive before 9 am, disturbing other people en route. Local authorities will have to apply for powers to deal with that problem, but I already have a problem in my constituency.
  Lorries make deliveries to a 24-hour operation called Allied Colloids, where there was a major fire about two years ago. There is a group of houses near the factory to which lorries make deliveries at all hours, although Allied Colloids has asked them not to do so. At 6 am or 7 am, people have to ask the lorry drivers to switch off their engines or move away. Some drivers are helpful and co-operative, while others tell them to get lost.
  4.15 pm
  Lives are being permanently disrupted because of gross pollution. Hon. Members are in a difficult position. The new clause is designed to remedy such pollution and the intrusion into people's lives. By and large, they will agree to the clause because they believe that it might help people who will be oppressed by this wretched legislation.
  However, those are only peripheral matters. The very existence of the new clause is a recognition of the fact that lives will be intruded on by deliveries and unloading. Pollution and noise will be created first, and only after they have occurred will people, as a reaction, have to try to stop them. The fact that the new clause is necessary is a measure of the deterioration that will occur on Sundays.
  The new clause is a sop to get the legislation passed. The sop will no doubt be accepted by the House, but there is an alternative. If hon. Members are seriously concerned about providing decent quiet lives for people—and, incidentally, about providing protection for people who work on Sundays—they must vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
  Mr. Wolfson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) because some of his constituents are clearly in exactly the same position as some of mine. My constituents have two problems.
  The first involves an organisation called the West Kent Cold Store in Sevenoaks from which lorries move at all times. There are some limitations on their movements, but it is a continual battle to get them to conform. My experience is that, by and large, the traffic commissioners tend to give increased leeway to such companies when they apply for a more liberal regime which means that the residents lose out time and again.
  The problem will, of course, get worse when there is an increased demand for activity on Sundays. Sundays will be busier and there will be more traffic and more lorries waiting outside people's homes with their engines running to keep the refrigeration going, whether or not it is allowed. As the hon. Member for Bradford, South said, when residents remonstrate with a driver they get a mouthful. That will be no more pleasant on a Sunday than on any other day of the week.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Although the Bill does not apply specifically to Northern Ireland, I understand the arguments being presented. This week, we have been told that we should not pass legislation that will be difficult to police. Some of us have had experience of trying to get the law on quietness enforced six days a week

  291
  but what will it be like trying to get this law enforced on the seventh day? Will it not be impossible to enforce properly?
  Mr. Wolfson: It will certainly be very difficult to enforce, which brings me to my second point.
  Under the new law the local authority will be given increased powers. Will the Minister clarify for me whether there will still be the opportunity for companies to appeal against its decisions, so that they can be overridden? When Sainsbury's opened a superstore in Sevenoaks, which we were happy to have, no sooner was the ink dry on the consent to build, the building ready and the store about to open, than the company appealed against the original restrictions set on traffic movement. I want to know whether that difficulty will be adequately dealt with, because in my experience superstores tend to get what they want, even if it takes a long time for them to get it.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: The council's decision will be made through its power to pass a resolution to take advantage of the new schedule introduced by the new clause. If a store does not like a local authority's decision—for instance, if it has applied to the local authority to deliver before 9 o'clock and been refused—as things stand it may go for judicial review if it can argue before a judge that the decision was unreasonable. That is the only route available, but it is the usual route with administrative decisions of that nature.
  Mr. Wolfson: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the position.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: Although the hon. Gentleman is thanking the Minister for clarifying the position, does he agree that he has clarified it into such a mess that it can hardly be untangled? Will we not have to untangle what the Minister said about the process and the judicial review that he suggested would have to take place?
  Mr. Wolfson: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to develop my argument I shall come to that.
  Certainly my hon. Friend has clarified the position, but my experience of the way in which the superstores look to their own opportunities at the expense of local residents does not make me feel optimistic about how the provision will work. Superstores have the resources, the opportunity and often the desire to go to judicial review, so that may well happen.
  I support the new clause and the amendments because they help to deal with a problem that the House has created by agreeing to a relative free-for-all on Sunday trading, but I firmly hold to the view that I greatly regret our having taken that decision. Having seen some recent Sundays in London, I know that the city is already becoming a great deal busier than before the decision was taken. As other hon. Members have said, we are already seeing many of the problems that were aired on Second Reading coming to light. The amendments are designed to deal with them, but they will not deal with them satisfactorily.
  Mr. John Hutton: In general terms, the amendments should be welcomed. If they are carried, as I suspect they will be, they will represent a modest improvement to the Bill. But, following what the
  292
  hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, I must tell the House that I have some specific concerns about the collection of amendments, especially No. 49.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the position on appeals against local authorities' decisions, and the Minister said that any company that had received an unwelcome decision from a local authority could exercise its right to go for judicial review.
  The group of amendments and the other issues that we shall deal with today concern matters that are in the main related to planning. It is normal and customary for there to be an appeal to a planning inspector in respect of planning applications, so it is rather bizarre for the Minister to tell the House that the best solution for a dissatisfied company is to exercise its right to go the High Court and seek judicial review. That is an immensely expensive option. I wonder whether underlying the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's question is something of a lack of preparedness on the part of his Department with regard to the issues raised by these amendments.
  I should like now to say something about my second concern with regard to the amendments. They lay down a detailed procedure relating to local authority decisions on any restrictions that are to be imposed on the delivery of goods at a superstore on a Sunday. I welcome this move, but it seems that the amendments contain nothing concerning a procedure for revoking a council's original decision. We know what will happen when a council wants to exercise its powers under these provisions, but what procedure will it have to follow if it wants to revoke its original decision?
  As the amendments are constructed, it is reasonably clear that a council will be able to exercise its powers only if a written application is received from a company that wants to open a large shop on a Sunday. What will happen if, for example, as a result of complaints from residents, a council wants to tighten restrictions that it has imposed —perhaps to lessen noise or inconvenience? What revocation procedure does the Minister have in mind? It seems to me that the amendments contain nothing to address that issue. The Minister may well say that a council wanting to revoke a decision will simply have to pass a new resolution. It seems to me that the amendments contain no such provision.
  Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is talking about judicial reviews and a whole variety of processes. Is not the history of this problem one of people hiding behind long, drawn-out legal processes, whether in this country or in Europe? Those of us whose constituencies have noise problems can envisage the judicial process grinding along for months, if not years, while the lorries continue to run and the noise and all the other problems remain.
  Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about delays in the legal system, though it may well be outside the scope of the amendments. One of the problems about judicial review is that delay is built into the system. I am not here to argue the case for the supermarkets and the big superstores—they have their own lawyers—but it seems logical that these amendments should incorporate an appeals procedure. This is quite clearly an omission, which I hope the Government will take into account in another place.
  The crucial point is that the amendments contain nothing by way of power to revoke a local authority's

  293
  original decision. As I have said, it is hardly good enough, by way of response, to say that a local authority can pass another resolution amending its original decision. Such a procedure does not appear to be envisaged in the amendments.
  Anyone looking at amendment No. 49 will see that a local authority must carry a resolution within 21 days of submission of the written application to the local authority. In the nature of planning applications—and it is right that these amendments should be considered as an aspect of planning procedure—21 days is a remarkably short period. I wonder whether it will be sufficient to enable the consultation with residents that the amendments envisage. I have in mind in particular a number of superstore developments right in the centre of my constituency that continue to cause immense disturbance to residents. I do not believe that the period of 21 days is sufficient for consultation that most council taxpayers would think acceptable.
  With these quite substantial reservations about their accuracy and comprehensiveness, I express my general support for the amendments, as they represent an improvement in the Bill. My point to the Minister is simply that there are three gaps or holes in the new clauses and amendments on which I urge him to respond and reconsider and, if necessary, in another place ask his right hon. Friends to table further amendments.
  Mr. Lord: Throughout the debate, some of us have argued that if Sunday is totally deregulated it will become just another day of the week—just another working day. We all know that from Monday to Friday or perhaps Monday to Saturday, 9 am is the time at which we all start work—perhaps not in the House but in schools and most offices, it is the beginning of the working day. Thankfully, until now 9 o'clock on Sunday has not meant a great deal to anyone. The time at which we go to church or go about our Sunday activities is not scheduled like the rest of the week.
  On the specific point dealt with in the new clause, by talking about "9 o'clock", "before 9 o'clock" and "after 9 o'clock", we are admitting that we are bringing Sunday into the working week and no longer is it a special day.
  4.30 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The point that I should like the Minister to clarify for me in the light of the amendments is whether any assistance will be given to local authorities in funding the additional costs that will inevitably occur. In my constituency, the two supermarkets that come to mind are older and literally cheek by jowl with residential areas. It will not be sufficient for the local authority simply to write yea or nay on the application by the owners of those supermarkets to trade on a Sunday. The local authority will physically have to change parking arrangements that already exist and, indeed, are posited for my constituents.
  To make such changes is no small thing. Will the local authority be assisted with changing notices, repainting lines and redefining bays? If one of the superstores wishes to open on a Sunday, residents of the street will have no right whatever to park in the spaces because it will be physically impossible for a lorry to draw up to the delivery
  294
  bay. That is where my constituents, and their families who may be visiting, park their cars on Sundays when parking restrictions in delivery bays are lifted.
  On the face of it, the procedures proposed in the new clauses and amendments seem simple for the local authority to undertake. They are simply the granting or denying of permission for lorries to deliver at 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. However, for my constituents in two particular areas, if such permission is given, it will not only be vastly deleterious to their Sundays by virtue of the noise that they will have to endure, the fumes that they will have to breathe and all the points that hon. Members on both sides of the House have already made, but it will involve costs for their local authority. I believe that those costs will be sizeable.
  One of the earlier points was about the cost of policing this particular arrangement. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said that the best policemen would be the residents. He said that they could alert their local authority on the day if noise was worrying them. But that presumably would mean that the local authority had to set up on that Sunday, either at the town hall or in some office so designated, employees to take phone calls, log complaints and forward complaints to the necessary committee.
  There will be a great deal of hidden expense for local authorities in the new clauses and amendments, if the House sees fit to pass them. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some idea of whether central Government will assist local authorities, if the Bill is passed. If not, will the Government enter into negotiations with the owners of superstores to help relieve local authorities of an undoubted financial burden?
  Rev. William McCrea: I shall not detain the House long in speaking to these new clauses and amendments. I want to point out two things. First, while the amendments are an improvement on what we had before, they are an acknowledgement that the legislation on Sunday trading is flawed. If the Bill goes through and becomes law, it will cause serious problems and anxieties to local communities. The amendments themselves are an acknowledgment of problems that were dismissed with a wave of the hand in the original debate and were regarded as foolish, not only by the Government Front Bench but by the Opposition Front Bench—something which genuinely surprised me because there are a lot of other rights that I thought they would have been concerned about.
  Ms Ruddock: If I have understood him correctly, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Opposition Front Bench has not been concerned about these issues or has not expressed such concerns. I can assure him that if he reads the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill, he will see the extent to which we were concerned, as shown by the number of amendments that we raised. If he had listened to my opening remarks today, he would know full well that I dealt in detail with our concern about the environmental impact of Sunday trading. I relate our responsibility, as I said earlier, to the fact that the House made a decision. The decision having been made, our task has been to try to ameliorate some of the effects which we agree would be adverse.
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but it was the Front Bench of the Labour party who, with other hon. Members, helped the Bill through, so

  295
  they cannot now say that they have a particular concern. We should not be discussing the legislation today had they joined many other hon. Members in taking a pat-ocular stand on Sunday trading, so they cannot piously wipe their hands now.
  Coming back to the issue—I could easily be led off the track by the hon. Lady on this particular issue, and one would not desire to do that—of lorries and deliveries after 9 o'clock, mention was made of the large stores having adequate legal advice of their own on this. They also have adequate resources of their own.
  The people who concern me are those in the community who have few resources or none at all with which to defend their rights. They are being cast aside. Ordinary members of the community will be unable to afford to establish even the rights that this Bill would give them.
  That is why I believe that the legislation is flawed and why I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will think again, if they are really concerned about the Bill's environmental and other effects on the community.
  Mr. Ray Powell: There is one question, in particular, that I should like the Minister to answer. He refers, in new clause 1 and amendment No. 49, to local authorities having the right to agree to applications for loading and unloading to take place at big stores before 9 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) made an important point when she referred to the expense incurred by local authorities in introducing this provision. The Shops Act 1950 puts a responsibility on local authorities which over the past 10 years they have failed to meet, yet the Government have taken no action whatever to ensure compliance with the law on Sunday trading. Can the Minister tell the House what action he will take if this new provision becomes part of the law and the local authority does not implement it, either because it is not prepared to meet the expense involved or for any other reason? It is possible that large companies such as Tesco, B and Q and a number of others will put a lot of pressure on local authorities to allow them to be serviced by this agreement.
  We know the problems that are encountered when large shops are serviced by large vans, as happens on weekdays and, illegally, on Sundays when such shops are open. I do not want to encourage the two branches of Tesco—one each end of my town of Bridgend—to be serviced in that way. I do not want my authority to grant those stores licences allowing big vans to load and unload before 9 am on Sunday. Bridgend is a market town of some 25,000 to 35,000 people, and the district has always enjoyed the tranquillity of Sundays. But the position is getting worse by the week, with more shops and large stores opening. If the licence is granted, it will cause great concern and difficulty.
  Listening to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), I was alarmed at what I thought I heard. My hearing is not all that good and I do not know whether I caught what she said correctly. I am of the firm belief that the Bill must contain employment protection for people who deliver goods to the stores and are expected to work on Sunday.
  In the last debate on the Floor of the House on the subject of transport workers, I read out a letter from start to finish. I shall not read it out again today as it can be seen in the Official Report. The letter dealt with the protests of workers who will have to drive their lorries early in the
  296
  morning to deliver and take away goods from big stores. Those people do not want to work on Sundays. Most of them—long-distance lorry drivers—say that they have never worked on Sundays, but will be expected to do so in the future.
  Employment protection is highly relevant to the group of new clauses and amendments. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said that she thought that we had won some employment protection measures from the Government through minor amendments. I am not satisfied that the Government have made any amendments involving employment protection that would allow the Opposition Front Bench team to support the Government. We should not support the Government unless they give us more guarantees on employment protection before the end of the debates. Those guarantees should be stated clearly and precisely by the Minister so that we know the exact position.
  Ms Ruddock: I shall help by hon. Friend and the House, without passing comment on my hon. Friend's hearing. I have not mentioned employment protection at any time during my contributions. The most important vote will be on Third Reading, and we have made it clear that that is to be a free vote.
  Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if I presupposed her remarks, but I have probably saved myself a later intervention as she has been warned of my intentions.
  Before we vote on this group, particularly amendment No. 49, I should like an assurance from the Minister that local authorities will implement the legislation and that the Government will not show the indifference that they have shown to the Shops Act 1950.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I thought that this would be a short debate and did not even propose to reply to it. I shall not respond to most of the issues raised because many of the contributions rehearsed general attitudes to the Bill. They did not engage in debate on the principles or practicalities of the new clause.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend spoke of matters that we have rehearsed, but the Opposition were under a misapprehension. They thought that they had won certain conditions which we warned them that they would not be granted—the ball game has changed.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: My hon. Friend seems to be saying that the ball game is just the same.
  I shall reply to three questions posed on new clause 1. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) animadverted that the new clause was prepared quickly. He was right—I made an undertaking in Committee and wanted to produce the new clause on Report. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is no appeal process. I am aware of that and I will certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman's words to see whether it might be sensible, in another place, to introduce an appeal process. I am not convinced that it would be for two reasons. First, it would lead to some extra expense for local authorities—that in itself is not decisive. Secondly, it would encourage some companies to appeal rather than simply obey the local authority's determination. The possibility of a judicial review remains, but I would not encourage people to take

  297
  that option—although it is widely used—unless they felt that the procedures and the reasons used by the local authority were unreasonable. The judicial review remains a possibility for anyone who seeks to use it in relation to an administrative decision.
  The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, on which I shall reflect. Usually, it is the Opposition who call on the Government to find ways of setting aside decisions. I am willing to be convinced, but I am not yet convinced. I shall consider the matter and there will be an opportunity to adopt the proposal in another place should it seem sensible to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible for a local authority to revoke permission once given. Yes, it would be possible to revoke permission or to provide additional conditions. A local authority could do that and, no doubt, there will be occasions when it will want to do so.
  Mr. Hutton: The Minister says that the local authorities have the power to revoke an earlier decision. What procedures will they have to follow if they want to do that? The new group of amendments and new clauses contains no information about the procedures that a council will have to follow if it wants to revoke its original decision.
  Mr. Lloyd: A local authority would have to use a fair and equitable procedure. It would doubtless do so on the basis of complaints received from local residents or knowledge that noise and disturbance were being caused. The local authority would have to talk to the store and its suppliers to see whether the problem could be remedied and to draw the store's attention to its displeasure. That would be done when consultation had taken place, but failed to resolve the problem. If the local authority did not do that, it would lay itself open to a judicial review because it would be proceeding unfairly and unreasonably.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again—he is being very indulgent.
  If it is appropriate for the amendment to specify a procedure giving the authority the power to grant exemption from the 9 o'clock rule, why is it not appropriate for the Government to introduce in the House a procedure for allowing the local authority to revoke such permission? The Minister has rightly described a number of administrative and procedural methods that a council can use. But, in the context of such an important issue, if it is right to specify how the permission should be granted, should not it also be right to introduce a procedure for the withdrawal of that consent?
  Mr. Lloyd: It would certainly not be wrong. As I said, I am perfectly prepared to look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. I do not want to make the procedure too complicated. I want to retain the benefit that the provision grants to local authorities—it gives them extra muscle. It does not give them powers that they could never acquire under other legislation, but it allows them to gain powers more speedily and accurately so that they can deal with the problems that arise, even now, early on Sunday mornings.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) seemed confused when he said that my response to one of my hon. Friends had confused him further. He was definitely confused. Were a council to impose a ban
  298
  that was then challenged at judicial review, the ban would remain in place until the court set it aside. So the hon. Gentleman's worry about the matter going on for several years should be entertained no longer.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister answered an earlier point about a council's ability to revoke a decision and the fact that nothing on that matter is included in the Bill. He will be sensitive to the problem that councillors have been surcharged. If they revoke a decision, they can be surcharged by a district auditor. If there must be clear rules within which councils can operate, in circumstances where two factions are arguing, such as residents and a large store, would it help if the Government made it clear that a local authority that decides for or against will not be subject to local authority surcharge?
  Mr. Lloyd: This is not a matter of surcharge. The hon. Gentleman is muddling it up with a different worry. I agreed with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that the new clause was brought in rapidly to take account of a real worry expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In the light of this debate and, particularly, anything that local authorities may wish to tell us—we have already conversed with them—I shall look at the matter again. We want the new clause to be effective and clear. I hope that that also satisfies the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked a number of questions, including whether we would give financial assistance to local authorities. I responded to that point on an intervention by another hon. Member earlier and said that those were not the sort of circumstances in which we would consider doing so. Rather than giving new powers and responsibilities to a local authority, the Bill enables them more speedily and effectively to discharge the responsibilities that it already has.
  The hon. Lady's second point was about parking in some of the streets in her constituency. That is a problem for the store concerned and those delivering to it. If, early in the morning, cars are parked in such a way as those delivering to the store cannot make an early-morning delivery, that is a problem not for the local authority but for the store and those who deliver to it. They need to find an acceptable way to make that delivery, perhaps adapting the size of the delivery vehicle. The point is not directly germane to the powers of the local authority.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The point that I was trying to make was that those matters all affect my constituents. If the local authority assented to such a request, it would mean, in the street that I have in mind, the local authority having to introduce earlier than it intended a residents parking scheme to facilitate the entry of lorries to stores. That will have a knock-on effect on the lives of my constituents and also involve the local authority in additional costs.
  Mr. Lloyd: As matters stand, deliveries may be made very early in the morning. The new clause will give local authorities the power to say that deliveries may not be made before 9 am. I do not believe that the new clause worsens the position of local residents or creates an additional problem for the council. Rather, it gives local authorities a new weapon with which to deal with such a problem. The local authority associations say that they are

  299
  already engaged in consultation with local residents and retailers throughout the country about perfectly lawful Sunday deliveries for perfectly lawful Sunday opening. But they do not have specific powers to deal with them early on a Sunday morning, which is what we are providing.
  The hon. Lady and several other hon. Members mentioned extra costs imposed by traffic regulation. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy thought that, on balance, there would be no extra cost because local authorities would gain back any extra costs from parking charges and other such imposts. On policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers said that, if Sunday trading produced any extra work at all, it would be minimal and manageable. So the problem is one of enforcement rather than cost.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) asked whether the Government would make local authorities use that new power and I replied that, obviously, we would not. We are giving the new authorities a power that they want, but it will be up to the local authority when to use it. If they do not use it when they should, that is matter between them and angry local residents and voters, not a matter for the Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 2

    CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN LEASES AND AGREEMENTS
    `(1) Where any lease or agreement (however worded) entered into before the commencement of this section has the effect of requiring the occupier of a shop to keep the shop open for the serving of retail customers—

    (a) during normal business hours, or

    (b) during hours to be determined otherwise than by or with the consent of the occupier,

    that lease or agreement shall not be regarded as requiring, or as enabling any person to require, the occupier to open the shop on Sunday for the serving of retail customers.
    (2) Subsection (1) above shall not affect any lease or agreement

    (a) to the extent that it relates specifically to Sunday and would (apart from this section) have the effect of requiring Sunday trading of a kind which before the commencement of this section would have been lawful by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Shops Act 1950, or

    (b) to the extent that it is varied by agreement after the commencement of this section.

    (3) In this section "retail customer" and "shop" have the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 51.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and some other hon. Members expressed the concern in Committee that a small shopkeeper might not wish to open on a Sunday but might be obliged to open by virtue of a general provision in his or her lease requiring him or her to open during normal business hours. I undertook to consider whether it was possible to frame a narrow provision to meet this concern, which is what the new clause does. We have been helped considerably in framing the new clause by information and advice offered by Mr. Silman, a solicitor referred to us by
    300
    the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, the John Lewis Group, the Boots Group and others, and I am grateful for that help.
    The new clause provides that, where any term in an existing lease or agreement, however phrased, has the effect of requiring the occupier of a shop to open during normal business hours or to open otherwise without the occupier's consent, such a term cannot oblige an occupier to open on a Sunday. That does not extend to the situation where a leaseholder—perhaps a newsagent—can already engage in lawful Sunday trading under the 1950 Act and has a lease that provides for that. Nor does it extend to leases entered into in the future.
    Rather, the new clause deals with the central concern expressed in Committee, particularly by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, that shopkeepers should not be obliged by a general term in a lease to open on a Sunday. When a lease is taken out, there may be no consideration on either side of the possibility that phrases like "general business hours" might include Sunday. It would therefore be unfair if such a provision could in future, because of this legislation, involve a compulsion upon the leaseholder which he or she had not considered or agreed to when signing the lease.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the new clause apply to circumstances in which a local authority took a policy decision to open a market hall? Would the protection then apply to the existing leaseholders of the shop units in the market hall where there is no current obligation to open on Sunday? Were the local authority to change its policy, could it force unit holders to attend their stalls on a Sunday?
    Mr. Lloyd: It would depend on the nature of the previous agreement between the leaseholders—the stall holders—and the council. If the agreement said that they will open on a Sunday and if the council ever decided that Sunday opening would be introduced, the new clause would not protect them. If the agreement did not specify Sundays or said, "normal business hours", it would protect them. It depends on the nature of the agreement.
    We are seeking to ensure—I think that we have succeeded in doing so—that, in the case of agreements entered into where there was no expectation of Sunday working and where the prospect was not taken into account in the drafting of the agreement, this change in the law will not oblige a leaseholder to do what he or she does not want to do, had never intended to do and had not reasonably been in a position where he or she might have expected that it could happen.
    Mr. Alton: Will not the Minister again admit that the decision to introduce the proposal is a tacit admission that those pressures will be placed on shops? However good the agreements are, shops will face commercial pressure to open because of the profit factor. Shops—particularly if they are up against the wall and face bankruptcy—will have no choice but to open, regardless of how many worthy clauses of this sort are included in the Bill.
    5 pm
    Mr. Lloyd: The proposal is a sensible change to ensure that such pressures are not put on small leaseholders. Of course, if businesses want to open, they may do so. Some will not want to open for commercial reasons—they may not think that they will do enough trade on Sundays. No

    301
    pressure should be placed on them to do so. The new clause makes a small, useful change that takes care of a problem identified by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
    Ms Ruddock: I am again grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained the new clause. He mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate; in Committee, she and other Labour Members envisaged that an existing lease that provided for a general trading agreement could be interpreted to mean that small shops in, for example, a shopping centre could be obliged to open when they considered that it was not in their interests to do so.
    We are all familiar with the concept of the shopping centre that contains a large store, which will perhaps exercise its right to open for the limited period provided for in the Bill. As a consequence, the freeholder might attempt to ensure that the maximum amount of trade occurs and might ask all leaseholders to comply with the new Sunday opening arrangements. That would be grossly unfair and we are pleased that the Minister has found a way to give force to our argument.
    We are aware that it was exceedingly difficult to do so. We are particularly pleased that Mr. Silman, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, has assisted the Government. I sent the new clause to Mr. Silman and he responded immediately, so I shall tax the Minister a little further. Mr. Silman has told me that the reference to the occupier in the second and penultimate lines of new clause 2(1) may present a problem. I am aware that throughout the Bill "occupier" is the relevant term, but Mr. Silman, who I presume is an expert on commercial leases, suggested that a contract could be with a tenant, but the covenant could be with the original tenant and could still make that person liable, although he or she is not now the occupier. Will the Minister respond to that small point?
    In the main, we very much support the new clause. It appears to achieve our aim of ensuring that small shops or leaseholders do not have to open if they do not wish to do so. They may believe, for example, that it would not be economic to open. Small shops in shopping centres may employ only a few workers who might not want to work and employers may accept that working on a Sunday should be voluntary. For all those reasons, the new clause is very satisfactory.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I thank the Minister for his kind words, but credit should first go to Mr. Silman, who brought the loophole to my attention. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) for facilitating my approach to the Minister.
    I thank the Minister for giving his time and attention to Mr. Silman. I hope that he will pay due heed to the point that he has raised via my hon. Friend and will change the wording of the Bill because that matter greatly concerns many shopkeepers, especially those in small shopping centres. Many are single-man businesses and I know that they, Mr. Silman and I are most grateful to the Minister.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the remarks that have been made and I hope that the House will support the new
    302
    clause. I should be most interested to receive Mr. Silman's letter, to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred, so that I may consider the matter.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 3

    MEANING OF "LOCAL AUTHORITY"
    '.—(1) In this Act "local authority" means any unitary authority or any district council so far as they are not a unitary authority.
    (2) In subsection (1) above "unitary authority" means (a) the council of any county so far as they are the council for an area for which there are no district councils,

    (b) the council of any district comprised in an area for which there is no county council,

    (c) a London borough council,

    (d) the Common Council of the City of London, or

    (e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New Clause 4

    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.
    Mr. Purchase: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I agreed to withdraw a similar new clause in Committee so that the Minister could explain why he thought it was unnecessary. He suggested that employment protection issues had already been properly and fully covered in the Bill—I think he said that there were "no loopholes". I am not sure that that is relevant to my new clause, which aims to pick up on the International Labour Organisation's views about non-abatement and minimum rates of pay under the British wages councils.
    I have tabled the new clause because the Bill has few enough provisions on worker protection and it will require a great deal of effort if a worker wants to enforce any of them. The new clause would at least help workers in the difficult task of trying to prove their case against an employer.
    The Minister confidently suggested that there were no loopholes, but I refer him to a national newspaper article that appeared on 21 February 1994, with the headline "Gap in code on Sunday working". It dealt with an industrial dispute at a Tesco distribution complex at Crick, near Northampton. People involved in the dispute believe that a loophole in the Sunday Trading Bill
    "will leave tens of thousands of workers without protection".
    The article continues:
    "Tesco management is demanding that nightshift workers at the warehouse… put in at least three in seven Sundays from April in response to extra weekend demand at Tesco stores."
    Although the Bill is not yet law, we are already starting to see how it is structuring employer-employee relationships. The employee is an exceedingly vulnerable

    303
    position in relation to Sunday trading. There is a massive reserve army of people waiting to walk into jobs at any rate of pay and under any conditions or terms that are offered. That is happening in advance of the Bill becoming an Act and we shall see what transpires when we vote later.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the article in The Guardian on 21 February. He missed out the last paragraph of the article, which referred to a person who would not be able to go out with his family and young children, go fishing or enjoy the the pleasures of Sunday because of the present circumstances and pressure from Tesco, which has disrupted his family life.
    Mr. Purchase: I did not overlook the final paragraph and I shall come to it in due course. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important in the context of what is happening while the Bill is still being processed.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had listened to our warnings we would not now be in this position.
    Mr. Purchase: Many a true word is spoken in jest. I welcome the hon. Lady's support, but she must be jesting because I did my best to warn many people about the Bill's inherent dangers. I coerced many of my hon. Friends who have great knowledge and experience in these matters to vote against Sunday opening. I am glad that the hon. Lady was with us on that occasion.
    The heart of the matter is that many of my hon. Friends have been misled, not least by having sprung upon them the new Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. As I have said before, with the advent of deregulation, people's shopping wants should be fully met by the shops that will remain open until perhaps midnight. People who have said that because of their hours of work they cannot do their big shopping until Sunday morning, will be able to choose to do their shopping over a longer period. That will impose enormous strains on workers.
    The Government's concessions on the Bill are completely inadequate and will not provide even slight worker protection. That is important because my hon. Friends did not know that the Deregulation and Contracting,Out Bill was on the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that she believed that, in good faith, the Government would include worker protection in the Bill to enable her to support the six-hour option. As my hon. Friend has said, she is disillusioned and will certainly not vote for the Government's proposals.
    I should like to refer to a paper prepared by the Small Business Research Centre at the department of applied economics at Cambridge university. It states:
    "In the absence of controls on trading hours, employment protection legislation is unlikely to provide effective guarantees for the rights of retail workers not to work on Sunday and to receive a wage premium for… working."
    The article to which I referred earlier mentions a new twist, the issue of shift working at the Tesco distribution complex at Crick near Northampton. It tells us that in advance of the Bill slightly different patterns of trade are emerging that necessitate deliveries and night shift working at the warehouse. People will be required to work four Sundays in seven. What new twist will there be in 12 months or in two years? How will trade change after deregulation? None of us can be sure about that, but we know that all the shops involved will be competing for the same amount of trade over a greater number of hours. The
    304
    Small Business Research Centre paper states that we can expect increased Sunday trading to push up costs. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will push them up further.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend quoted from a report which says that people will be required to work four Sundays in seven. Town centre car parking on Sunday is currently free because the parks are little used. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill becomes law the attendants at those car parks will be required to work on Sunday, thereby being forced to change their working pattern?
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend makes an eminently sensible point. What he predicts is bound to happen. The shift pattern at Tesco in Crick is part of a new annualised system of hours of work. Some hon. Members may not have heard of this new phenomenon. It simply means that instead of working a weekly or daily number of hours people will agree, under their new contracts, to work an annual number of hours. They may be called on to work them at any time and in any sequence whether or not that suits their social or family arrangements. That change was implemented in industry some time ago and has created difficulties and now it is to extend to the retail trade. That system of annualised hours will have to be used to meet the new pattern of trading.
    Mr. James Paice: Is not the hon. Gentleman confusing the retail trade with the distribution system? I accept that they are part of the same company in his Tesco example, but does not he agree that distribution work on Sunday has been carried on for many years because of trading on Monday and has nothing to do with trading on Sunday? Tesco already operates this system in four of its eight warehouses and has undertaken not to force the system into operation. It is currently consulting through the normal employer-staff channels at Crick.
    Mr. Purchase: I am grateful for that intervention because it leads me nicely to another point about Crick. The article, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, states:
    "Representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers say that workers, who earn £4.23 an hour, were repeatedly assured that Sunday working would not be introduced."
    This is a case of the biter bit because unfortunately USDAW has been playing an odd game. It is common knowledge that people behind USDAW have been promising the moon, but I am sure that that will be reversed. The small print of the deal that USDAW thinks that it has reached with the employers includes an employers' clause saying that should trading conditions change, they reserve the right to change the agreement. That agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: USDAW's specific instruction had three points—
    "Total deregulation… No; Keep Sunday Special… No; 6 Hour Option… YES."—fOfficial Report, 8 December,1993; Vol. 234, c. 368.]
    That is why we have reached our present position.
    Mr. Purchase: I am sorry to say that USDAW will not emerge from this episode with an enhanced reputation.

    305
    However, what it does should not impinge on the judgment of the House about the welfare of people who work on Sunday.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that if any reputations are being damaged, it was not the annual conference of USDAW, but the executive who took that decision in isolation and in opposition to the conference?
    Mr. Purchase: I am not a member of that union, but I have read the same document as my hon. Friend. I understand that the USDAW annual conference voted against what has become the Sunday Trading Bill and that the executive, no doubt after some pressure, changed its mind. Part of that pressure was, to use a phrase that one of my very illustrious Labour colleagues used in the House many years ago, something of an unholy alliance between certain very large retailers and a union obviously wanting to do the best for its members. I understand that, but the massive pressure on workers and their organisations means that USDAW's decision may be understandable.
    Part of that pressure has manifested itself in the House. I understand that the alliance among employers to get the Bill through resulted in an average expenditure of £5,000 per hon. Member, in terms of the propaganda that they have sent us.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is healthy if unions and others can change their minds after listening to the arguments and seeing what happens in the House and in Committee? Would it not be equally healthy if hon. Members were prepared to change their minds, even at this stage, before the Bill becomes legislation?
    Mr. Purchase: It would be a wonderful world if we were all open to persuasion. I am open to persuasion and if the Minister can satisfy me on many points, I shall reconsider the entire matter. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have already referred to the fact that at least two critical changes have taken place since the initial vote in the House and I shall enumerate them again. The first was the publication of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and the second was the inability of the Opposition to make the Government put meaningful worker protection into the Bill.
    Mr. Ray Powell: My hon. Friend mentioned the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, part of which refers to the extension of licences for shops to open perhaps 24 hours a day, six days a week providing 144 hours of shopping a week from Monday to Saturday. Therefore, there should now be no need for the Sunday Trading Bill. Perhaps the Minister should consider whether it would be better to abandon the Sunday Trading Bill and rely on total deregulation.
    Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend, with his vast knowledge of the subject, hits the nail on the head. The Bill would be better abandoned; there is no question about that. However, the shopping needs of the entire population could well be met at hours convenient to them. The major shopping that households need to do can surely now be done between Monday and Saturday.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in effect, the pressing need for the large superstore managers is less offering service to their customers by opening on Sunday than increasing their market share? One has already heard stories of such superstores closing on a Monday, for example, or cutting out the two additional hours for late-night shopping on a Thursday because they can increase their market share and their profit by opening on a Sunday. It has nothing to do with facilitating their stores being open to the will of the customer, and everything to do with cashing in on the profit that they can make on that one day of the week.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we go too far down that road, hon. Members are straying wide of the debate, which is about enforceable contracts.
    Mr. Purchase: I understand what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to speak to new clause 4.
    I was trying to set the scene. I shall be brief in finishing that point, so that the Minister may get the flavour of what I am trying to achieve.
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: On enforceable contracts, does my hon. Friend agree that there is no need for the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill because people could get their shopping perfectly adequately during the present legal hours, particularly if the supermarkets employed more people to staff their checkouts?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is now getting rather wide.
    Mr. Purchase: It is almost irresistible, but I shall resist replying to my hon. Friends who raise valid points. The Bill offers workers little protection.
    Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend will be aware that the long title of the Bill precludes any amendments covering Scotland. Does he agree that it is absolutely inconceivable for major store chains such as Tesco to adopt different employment practices in England and Wales from those in Scotland? That is why I shall be in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend tonight.
    Mr. Purchase: I take my hon. Friend's point which was well made. If, in its final form, the Bill were to include certain amendments, particularly in regard to premium pay, double time and time and a half, the need for my clause would be infinitely greater.
    In the current economic circumstances, the protection of those hard-won concessions on premium times, expressed in a later amendment, will need to be underwritten by the strength of the law. Notwithstanding how little protection there is in the Bill, there are so many ways in which employers can bring pressure to bear on their employees, that an additional safeguard such as I am proposing could do no harm at all.
    If the Minister is minded to say that the Bill is already well covered by the worker protection measures it contains, such as they are—and I have to keep qualifying them—in terms of closing the loopholes, in the light of our experience with the Tesco distribution centre, as reported in the newspapers, anything could happen as a result of changed working patterns and changes in demand that cannot be anticipated in financial terms. When one prepares a budget, it is foolish not to make a provision for

    307
    contingencies. When the bank asks what they are, one says, "I don't know. Although I do not know what will happen, I know that something will. That is the way of the world."
    Dr. Tony Wright: My hon. Friend spoke about the inadequacies of the Bill's protection for workers. Has he considered that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will not only abolish weekday restrictions but enable the Secretary of State to make orders to abolish or amend anything in the Sunday Trading Bill? Is that not the greatest outrage?
    Mr. Purchase: My hon. Friend raises a wide and difficult question about the nature of our parliamentary democracy. I speak for many when I say that there is a considerable battle to be waged over that particular insult to the democratic process. My hon. Friend reinforces the need for as much packing, padding and support for workers' rights as we can devise in their favour.
    5.30 pm
    In present market conditions, demand for labour is much less than its supply. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that wages councils were needed because even in times of relative balance between labour supply and demand, shop workers in particular were exceedingly vulnerable to low pay, poor conditions and little in the way of benefits. Nothing has changed.
    It is selfish of people to demand that others work on Sunday just to meet their wants.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am at a loss to understand why some of my hon. Friends—particularly on the Front Bench—and trade union leaders delude themselves that the Government, having abolished wages councils for low-paid workers, will correct any mistakes that they made when preparing the Bill and will include any form of employment protection?
    Mr. Purchase: I understand that the precursor to making corrections is an apology—and it is not in the Government's nature to apologise. They never apologise for anything, however much harm is done to people. I suspect that my hon. Friend is right in thinking that no corrections will be made.
    How do we make a plea to our trade union colleagues? Most Opposition Members have been trade unionists for many years. In my case, I am proud to say that I have been a union member for 35 years. I have seen many union leaders come and go. There is acute pressure on USDAW officials to—dare I use the term?—cave in to the major stores lobby.
    Mr. Lord: Although it may be difficult sometimes to accept this, right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House care deeply about workers, particularly in respect of this issue. As constituency Members of Parliament, we have evidence already of pressure being brought to bear on shop workers over Sunday trading. Sometimes it is anecdotal, and sometimes the people who write to us ask for their identities not to be revealed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a employee wants to object to Sunday working, it is difficult to do so without in some way jeopardising his or her employment? We cannot make a fair assessment of the situation, so the only satisfactory solution is for stores to remain shut.
    Mr. Purchase: I am conscious of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. A newspaper article published on 15 January reported a spokesman for a Peterborough-based store saying:
    "Mrs. Love was not sacked for refusing to work on a Sunday but because she refused to move to another store under the terms of her contract."
    That is just the kind of situation that we must make watertight. An employer might say, "You are perfectly within your rights not to work on Sunday, but we shall want you to move to another store 25 or 30 miles from your home. You must be there half-an-hour earlier."
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not significant that such examples of discrimination are coming to light at a time when the stores are clearly on their best behaviour, because they know that they are being watched and scrutinised, and that any examples of discrimination will be publicised? What will happen when, having made a massive investment in Sunday trading, stores are able to do precisely as they want—as the Government imply that they will? What will happen then to the touching faith of USDAW and others, who imagine that a Government who got rid of wages councils will look after workers' interests?
    Mr. Purchase: I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention.
    Although trade unions represent 250,000, 300,000 or 400,000 employees, 1.5 million others look to the House for protection. I give ground to no one in terms of my trade union membership, the union work that I have done and the workers for whom I have been responsible. I have an honourable record, if I say so myself. The House is given the task of being the trade union for the 1.5 million workers who do not have direct protection. We cannot give that job away, and we cannot duck responsibility for looking after those people.
    Whatever the Minister says, I do not believe that the Bill will look after those 1.5 million people. The right hon. Gentleman may argue that new clause 4 would not do so, but at least it attempts to set in concrete the punishments that could be imposed by a tribunal.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill would not be before the House in its present form had members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches not joined in trying to thwart the will of the people of this country?
    Mr. Purchase: I hear and understand the hon. Gentleman, but no one would expect me to comment.
    I ask the House to acknowledge the importance of right hon. and hon. Members acting as the shop stewards of the 1.5 million workers not covered by the deals, which I believe were the result of collusion, entered into by major traders and, foolishly in my estimation, trade unions. I shall not go further, because it would not help the cause one little bit to do so. There has been collusion. Our duty is to ensure that those 1.5 million for whom we must act take control of our conscience so that we vote in favour of worker protection. If we cannot get that protection, which is so vital to their cause, we should vote against the Bill.
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) made a powerful case for the new clause. I hope that it will commend itself to everyone

    309
    in the House. It is a belt-and-braces new clause and—no doubt the Minister will say this—reinforces a principle that purportedly is in the Bill anyway.
    The truth is, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, that the employment protection provisions in the Bill are limited. As the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said, there is so much concern among workers in this country about the systematic erosion of their rights that the latest proposed legislation comes as a further blow to them. They are right to be apprehensive and concerned about the erosion of their rights.
    The new clause seeks to ensure that nothing that is in the scope of the Bill can be written out of it by an employer forcing a new contract with an employee. The new clause is worth while, because it will add a double safeguard to people working in the big shops.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East cited the infamous Crick case involving Tesco. I want to return to that briefly, because it is important, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) intimated earlier, that the House should understand, if that is happening now, how much worse it will be when the Bill has been enacted and the great stores and shops know that their actions cannot then be put under the microscope by the Chamber. Fears that Sunday trading will have a ripple effect will then increase.
    Eighty workers staged a lightning 24-hour walkout at Tesco's warehouse at Crick, near Daventry, in protest. They say that it was about new working arrangements and being lied to by the company. In a changeover to a system of working based on annualised hours, workers asked repeatedly whether Sunday work was included. They were told categorically that it was not.
    Ten days ago, workers from Crick rang to tell me what had happened to them. I advised them to speak to The Guardian and other newspapers, where the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred has subsequently appeared. It is right that the public and the House should know in detail what has already happened as a result of the proposed legislation, and the assumptions that are already being made by major employers.
    Shift cycles recently issued to those workers show that they would have to work three Sundays in a new seven-week working cycle. If they want overtime, it could be four Sundays. The annual hours proposal was rejected initially, with only seven of the workers at Crick voting for it and 1,550 against. A Tesco worker subsequently commented:
    "I need family time, and I need the money premium pay brought me when I could work extra hours during the week"—
    not on Sundays.
    "When am I going to see my kids? How can I get away on holiday?"
    The workers say that they need their premium pay. Their present pay, as we have heard, is about £4.23 per hour. Tesco has also increased the length of shift work in some cases from eight to 10 hours. How, then, can those men and women live a reasonably normal life? It is not fair that low-paid night workers should lose a further measure of their freedom. That is why I remain extremely concerned about the lack of employee protection available for Sunday workers, which, under the Bill, includes only shopworkers, not workers in warehouses, in transport or in distribution.
    310
    Let the House recall, as it considers the worth of the new clause, that legal aid is not available for industrial tribunal applications, that the current industrial tribunal system is heavily biased towards the employer, that remedies that are awarded are always totally inadequate, and that applications to industrial tribunals are subject to delay.
    The burden of proof of discrimination for refusing to work on Sundays lies with the employee, and it is extremely difficult to satisfy. That is why we need to add as much as we possibly can to the Bill, which takes away so much that workers expect to have as their right—not to have to work on a Sunday. For that reason, I hope that this belt-and-braces new clause, moved so well by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, will be accepted by the House.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I thought that it might help if I intervened at this point, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) directed a couple of questions at me.
    This is something of a lengthy reprise of what was a short debate in Committee on the same new clause. I promised to consider the issue carefully with expert legal advice. I have done so. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman's general fear, as indicated in the wording of his new clause rather than the animadversions that he made on it, that an employee might be bribed, cozened or persuaded to contract out of his rights under the Bill, particularly under schedule 3, are groundless. The wording of the schedule is proof against that.
    5.45 pm
    The hon. Gentleman raised a particular case—if I follow him correctly, I think I know the one—about Tesco and transport workers. That is not covered by the Bill and the schedule. We debated that kind of question on the last day of the Committee of the whole House.
    When the hon. Gentleman spoke to the new clause before and then withdrew it, I said that I hoped that he would come to see me with any loopholes that he thought might exist and that might have to be closed were those rights to be absolutely assured. He did not come to see me, so I presumed that he did not have any, and that it was only a general worry.
    I understand the general worry, but I have now taken legal advice. It does not exist in the form that the hon. Gentleman expects. People cannot give up their rights under the proposed legislation, most particularly under schedule 3, by signing documents that would then enable them to be dismissed, where otherwise they would have been able to opt out of Sunday working.
    However, it seems to me that there may be one potential difficulty with the right not to suffer detriment under paragraph 10 of the schedule. It is a complicated point. I have not yet managed to find suitable words and have them drafted. I should like to have done so by this stage.
    The hon. Gentleman's new clause does not meet the point. It covers only what is covered already. It misses the bit that I think is exposed. I hope that he will accept that on this issue at least—the inalienability of the rights under schedule 3 and the Bill—we are of like mind. I want to be quite sure that the full rights are there and cannot be lost by any particular agreement.
    I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House an assurance that the Government intend to table a suitable amendment in another place to cover the point that I think

    311
    is exposed, and any other point that he can convince me —or get others to convince me—exists that I have not yet seen and which can be covered in another place.
    Mr. Alton: The Minister adverted a moment ago to the omission of transport workers, warehouse workers and others from the employment protection provisions in the Bill. Is it his intention to widen the scope at any stage to include those workers?
    Mr. Lloyd: We discussed that. It covers shopworkers —people whose job is in or about a shop. We had a considerable debate on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on that issue. I remain of the view that it is a broad protection for those who work in or about a shop, but it does not extend to workers beyond that.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister has been generous in saying that he will seek to remove any ambiguity in respect of the ability of an employee to barter away his rights. I press him in respect of the narrow definition of a shopworker. It is clear that a number of people whose livelihood is directly concerned in shop working are likely to have their position adversely affected as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
    Will he therefore be prepared to consider, although he said that it has been canvassed to some extent in Committee, giving a somewhat broader definition of "shopworker" to cover those who will certainly be penalised if the Bill goes through?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have no plans to do that. The people referred to in the debate are, for instance, delivery drivers, many of whom already deliver on Sunday for Monday's sale.
    We discussed the matter at length in Committee; we did not merely touch on it. Such action would not be practicable, even if it were desirable—and I do not think it would be either desirable or right.
    Mr. Cryer: What amendment does the Minister intend to table in the other place to deal with the omission that he perceives in the schedule to which he referred? In what way would that amendment differ from, and be superior to, new clause 4? If new clause 4 merely spells out what is implied in other parts of the Bill, why should it not be included? It could improve the Bill, rather than detracting from it.
    Mr. Lloyd: I see no point in inserting in a Bill verbiage that gives no extra protection, power or authority; that only confuses the position. In this instance, I said that I thought a loophole existed—a small loophole, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East had not had in mind, and which was not covered by his new clause.
    I have undertaken to introduce, in another place, amendments or new clauses that fill that loophole and any others that may be identified between then and now. I will not, however, undertake to introduce belts where we already have perfectly adequate braces.
    Dr. Wright: Is not the greatest loophole of all the fact that, under the deregulation proposals that the House is now considering, a Minister—having established that the Bill's provisions for worker protection, inadequate though they are, constitute a burden on business—can make an order and sweep away all those provisions? He can sweep away, for instance, the six-hour provisions, by means of
    312
    the power to make orders that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill provides. If the Minister is prepared to confirm that, will he also assure the House that that order-making power will not be used in relation to this Bill?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly do not intend any order-making power to be used to diminish the rights that we have carefully and laboriously put into this Bill. The deregulation Bill has begun its passage through the House; I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, and he cannot tell me, in what shape it will end up and how far its powers will extend. I am certain, however, that if it is to be used to alter other legislation, it will have to go through the processes already outlined in it.
    I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how much of this Bill could be changed by the use of processes in the deregulation Bill, because I have not the expertise. I can tell him, however, that we intend the rights that we are including in the Bill to be there—that is why we are including them—and to remain there. I want to ensure that they are completely effective and contain no loopholes.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps the Minister will explain what he has just said about the failure of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) to recognise the loophole. Are we dealing with the issue that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House or not? Are we dealing with another issue, which the Minister is convinced is a loophole? We need to know that.
    Moreover, if—as the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) suggested—a Minister has the power, by means of an order, to destroy existing provisions almost with the stroke of a pen, what good is that to workers? Are the Government going to bluff them, saying, "You have safeguards," although a Minister need only sign an order for those safeguards to be ended?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman cares, at his leisure, to read schedule 3(10), he will see the area where I believe a loophole may exist. It may be possible to make arrangements where an individual suffers detriment through deciding that he does not want to work on Sundays. There is no question about the existence of his right to opt in or out, and to avoid dismissal; the issue of detriment, however, is complicated and, for that reason, I have not yet secured wording that I consider deals with it satisfactorily.
    I have exposed to the House a problem that may well exist, before examining it closely and producing a solution. I have, however, told the House that, if there is indeed a problem—as I believe there is—I intend to find a solution.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Minister conceive that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has raised an extraordinarily important point? If the protections provided by the Government—however inadequate we consider them—can be removed as easily as my hon. Friend suggests, is that not important?
    As the Minister is dealing with this point, can he not find out speedily whether, under the current provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, a Minister can remove the protection in this Bill?
    Mr. Lloyd: No Minister can simply remove items of earlier legislation in that way; he has no power to do so

    313
    freely, on his own. The hon. Gentleman, however, has asked a reasonable question. As I have explained, I am familiar in general terms with the deregulation Bill. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific point, I think—with the advice of the Chair particularly in mind—that it may be possible to return to the matter on a later group of amendments, when I may be better informed.
    Dr. Wright: I well understand why the Minister should seem surprised and shocked by the suggestion that a Minister, simply by order, could sweep away the Bill's provisions. That, however, is precisely the power being claimed for Ministers in the deregulation Bill.
    Mr. Lloyd: That is right—[Laughter.]—but the hon. Gentleman said it. The order must come before the House, and the protection must be construed as other than necessary protection. I regard this as necessary protection. The definition of necessary protection makes me a little reluctant to be drawn to the extent that I should like by interventions about another Bill that I do not manage. I am being entirely frank with the House. I can only say that it would be more sensible if I returned to the matter later in the debate.
    As for the specific rights that the Bill gives employees, I want them to be completely watertight in the terms of the Bill, so that they cannot be accidentally lost through an agreement unwisely made by an employee, or through some other act on the part of that employee or his employer leading unintentionally to that result—or, indeed, doing so intentionally. The rights, as contained in the Bill, cannot be given away even if it is the intention of both parties at the time to do so.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give an assurance that only an affirmative resolution will be involved? He has said that Ministers cannot take such action, but we in Northern Ireland have a sad history of what Ministers can do. They can change, change and change. We also know what happens to prayers in the House. I am glad that prayers to the Almighty are more effective than prayers in the House; otherwise, I would be permanently out of business.
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give assurances about the final outcome of a Bill that is only just beginning its passage through the House—a Bill, moreover, that I do not sponsor, and with whose policy my Department does not deal. However, as I have said, I hope to be able to tell the House rather more later this evening.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I support new clause 4. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) did not mention industrial tribunals in depth and detail because he had many other matters to mention.
    It is necessary to refer to a report on the Sunday Trading Bill by S.F. Deakin, fellow of Peterhouse college and lecturer in law at the university of Cambridge, and K.D. Ewing, professor of public law at King's college, university of London. They say:
    "The sanctions available to employees who are unfairly victimised for refusing Sunday work are inadequate for a number of reasons.
    314

    (a) The Bill would replace criminal sanctions (fines against retailers who open in breach of the law) with weaker civil sanctions (damages and re-employment) administered by industrial tribunals.

    (b) The onus will be on employees themselves to assert employment protection rights before industrial tribunals; these rights will be very difficult to enforce for the following reasons."

    6 pm
    In order to put them on the record, I must read out the five different sections. The most important is as follows:

    "(i) Legal aid is not available before industrial tribunals, while legal representation is not, in practice, available to most employees who do not have access to trade union support;

    (ii) There are significant delays in the hearing of industrial tribunal cases which will discourage many workers from making claims, and the Bill makes no provision for this point to be met by the availability of interim relief to employees whose rights are infringed;

    (iii) The burden of proving that the reason for a dismissal or other detriment is the employee's refusal to do Sunday work will rest throughout on the employee, and will be difficult to overcome."

    Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is absolutely and completely wrong. The burden of proof lies on the employer. The Bill refers to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which was put on the statute book by a Labour Government, makes it perfectly clear that the employee has to show only that he is dismissed; it is for the employer to show why he was dismissed and to show that that reason was a fair reason for dismissal. The document from which the hon. Gentleman quotes is wrong. I understand that it is his bible in these matters, but it is not accurate.
    Mr. Powell: With all due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take the advice of two professors, and I would accept the professors' advice far more than I would accept advice from the Minister.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I noticed that the Minister did not intervene in respect of the other advice of the learned professors: that, as a result of the ability of the employer —the respondent—to prolong proceedings, which in any event take quite a long time, by adjournment and otherwise, it is likely that, as a result of the disproportion of power between the employee, or former employee, and the employer, the employee will be frightened away long before the end of the process. As the Government well know, the protection that they purport to give is, in practice, nugatory.
    Mr. Powell: I accept the advice of my hon. Friend, in his learned capacity, on those issues.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I think that that remark was directed at me. I do not intervene every time that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) gets something wrong, because I think that other hon. Members should get a word in edgeways sometimes. However, most cases of unfair dismissal and unfair treatment of that type do not reach the tribunal, simply because two thirds of them are settled well beforehand by the employer, who, knowing that he is wrong, would prefer them not to go to the tribunal. It is therefore simply not true that the law is ineffective.
    Representation will be similar in such a case to representation in any other case that goes to a tribunal.
    Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We cannot very well have intervention on intervention. Mr. Powell.
    Mr. Powell: I shall continue, to ensure that the quotation goes on the record, and I will return to the Minister:

    "(iv) On the evidence of current practice, an industrial tribunal is hardly ever likely to order the re-employment of an employee who has been unfairly dismissed;

    (v) Where an industrial tribunal orders compensation, current practice indicates that damages will not be set at a level designed to deter employers from taking similar action in the future; damages will most likely be a small fraction of the legal maximum which an industrial tribunal is empowered to award to an unfairly dismissed employee;

    (vi) An industrial tribunal will have no power to order the promotion of a worker who has been subjected to a detriment by being denied promotion for refusing Sunday work."

    I hope that if the Minister has not listened to what I have said, he will read it and perhaps give an explanation. All Members of the House are fully aware that even if a worker wants to protest and go to an industrial tribunal, the provision gives him or her no chances of emerging financially better off or protected in any way, shape or form.
    There is no provision for legal aid. How much legal advice could a shopworker, earning about £2 an hour, afford for an appearance before an industrial tribunal? The chances of affording that and winning the case are remote.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to employment protection, which is a very important part of new clause 4. Many promises were made to us in Committee. We are now told that we will not have an answer tonight, but that an answer might be forthcoming when the Bill goes to another place, if it goes to another place. The Minister is pushing it off, but he is not prepared to give a definite answer about how he will protect those workers on a Sunday.
    The new clause would do much to assist. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East referred to an article in The Guardian. I do not want to repeat what he said, but I think that it is time to consider carefully what is happening. We speak about sleazy deals in Government circles; I do not know whether those sleazy deals are now flowing over into the trade union movement. Some trade union leaders will be as renowned in the 1990s as Jimmy Thomas was for his role in the 1930s.
    I know the feelings that Torvill and Dean must experience, having performed with honesty and hard work and finding the contest rigged. The 22 million people who viewed the skating on television this week have reached their verdict of indignation, and that is what will happen tonight. Hon. Members will show their contempt for the sleazy deals of those people who enjoy champagne and caviare breakfasts and lunches or Savoy dinners.
    We could give details of what has happened during the past couple of months. If that is what trade union leaders believe to be the answer, after 15 years of Thatcherism, I have no wish to identify myself with their contemptuous, phoney deals.
    I say that because the role of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has been mentioned in great depth and detail. USDAW has been committed to the Keep Sunday Special campaign since 1985, and it was committed to the campaign in the 1986 Shops Bill debate.
    I have been a member of USDAW since I was a shopworker at the age of 16. I have always respected the union and worked for it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I have always been
    316
    committed to the trade union movement. I have been sponsored by USDAW for the past 15 years, and am now a senior member of it.
    However, the union's executive council recently took a decision that was not the decision of its 300,000 members —who, in May last year, decided unanimously to support the Keep Sunday Special campaign and my Bill. It was referred to as the Powell Bill, but it was sponsored and supported by Keep Sunday Special and, indeed, by USDAW. Without consulting the hon. Members who are sponsored by USDAW, the annual delegates' meeting or anyone else, the executive council took a decision. Therefore, Conservative Members were correct to attach the defeat of the Keep Sunday Special proposals to USDAW, because USDAW had a responsibility for that defeat.
    We have to wonder what is happening when we see the sleazy deals that were done only last week between trade union leaders and Tesco workers. I also wonder whether a Bailey bridge was erected over the rift between the usual channels in respect of the Sunday Trading Bill. What happened has been passing strange, to say the least. I spent 10 years in the Whips office and this is the first time to my knowledge that there is to be a three-line Whip on Report but a free vote on Third Reading. It does not make sense, and I am sure—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should relate his remarks to new clause 4, which deals with agreements between shopworkers and employers.
    Mr. Powell: With all due respect, I was just coming back to that aspect of the new clause.
    Members of all parties will appreciate that the support that we are receiving from this side of the House for certain issues is a farce, and perhaps a rigged farce. I shall conclude my remarks, and I know that you will be relieved to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    In The Guardian on 7 December 1993, Hugo Young referred to "Sunday Trading Bill Tests." He wrote:
    "How many Labour MPs have had their brains so addled by years of defeat that they will surrender to one of the least convincing promises ever made by Capital to Labour?"
    I am sure that that applies to some of our trade union leaders, too.
    Mr. Tom Cox: The new clause has opened up the heart of the debate. The Minister's speech and the way in which he dealt with interventions from members of all parties made it clear that he has not done his homework. He could not deal satisfactorily with any of the points made by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) who moved the new clause.
    Hon. Members know that the matters of the greatest concern are the rights and protection of workers. We know from day-to-day contact with our constituents that the people who work in the retail trade are invariably the most vulnerable. I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) who touched on an important matter. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that if a worker was not happy with his terms and conditions of employment, and if the employer believed that the worker was going to become a little

    317
    difficult, it would not be long before the employer would be advising the worker what he should do because he—the employer—did not intend to change the working patterns.
    Comments have been made about the abolition of the wages councils. I shall not deal with that issue in detail, but there are already reports about the effect of that abolition, which took place only a few months ago. We know what is happening, but Ministers are making no attempt to reconsider. They are not saying that they were perhaps too hasty and did not consider the issue in the necessary depth or that they should seek to reintroduce protection for workers. It is to the credit of many Conservative Members that they are as worried as Labour Members about the lack of protection for working people.
    6.15 pm
    I shall cite an example to highlight the problem and perhaps the Minister will respond to it. A lady constituent came to see me. She has worked full time for a firm for seven years and is quite happy to continue working for that firm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, the big companies are behaving themselves at the moment because they do not want any more adverse publicity than is already surfacing. The woman to whom I referred assumed that the company was also happy for her to continue in its employ, but she was called into the manager's office one day and told that the working patterns were being changed. She was offered part-time employment or redundancy, neither of which she wanted. Where is her protection as a worker? She is being forced to work part time or leave the firm altogether. That is but one example of the type of cases that are worrying many hon. Members.
    The Minister did not respond in any way to many of the issues that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred to industrial tribunals. There are any amount of tribunals, but, even if people receive legal aid, they are rarely satisfied with the outcome. Those of us who represent constituencies in the big cities know that people who believe that they are being forced to pay extortionate rent increases by rent assessment officers rarely win the cases that they take to the tribunal, even though they have a legal framework in which to present them. The Minister has not dealt satisfactorily with the issues raised by hon. Members, irrespective of party.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have debated tribunals at least twice during our consideration of the Bill. Tribunals can be most effective when employees make use of them and, clearly, Labour Members believe that when it suits their purpose. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who described tribunals as wholly useless, has tabled a later amendment on premium pay, which relies on industrial tribunals to reinforce it.
    Does the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) think that his hon. Friend is being absurd, ridiculous and stupid in trying to have his amendment made effective by that route or does it suit Opposition Members to condemn tribunals when they do not like the rule and to applaud them when they do?
    Mr. Cox: That is an interesting point and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore will be able to deal with it himself when he speaks to his amendment. It is regrettable that the Minister should seek to introduce a party slant
    318
    because, as he knows, while we have been debating the new clause, hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the lack of protection for working people.
    Of course there should be tribunals and of course the people who go to them sometimes win, but in the vast majority of cases the person loses, because the odds are stacked against him or her. Whether such people get legal aid is obviously important, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore said, that will not apply in the cases that we are discussing.
    We are entitled to expect from the Minister, not at some distant future date or in the other place but tonight, before Third Reading, a suitable and acceptable reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said about new clause 4.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I shall speak briefly to the new clause because it appears in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). It has become clear from the debate that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the lack of worker protection on the face of the Bill. That is the central issue.
    Major changes are being imposed on the lives of millions of working people in this country because of Sunday trading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East tellingly pointed out, most people who work in shops are represented in any possible dispute with their employers by no one other than Members of Parliament. It is our responsibility to speak for those who are not in a position to speak for themselves as a uniform or united group. It is our responsibility—indeed, our duty—to strengthen with the will of the House people in such confrontations, who are inevitably weak because they are individuals.
    I sincerely hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will find it in their hearts to support new clause 4.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Like the leadership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I believe in the essential goodness of human nature. Like them, I believe that the vast expenditure by the stores on cars and on lunches at the Dorchester was all incurred in the public interest, and because the stores have the interests of the workers at heart. Scarcely a moment of the day passes without the senior management of Tesco and Sainsbury saying to themselves, "What can we do now for our workers, poor chaps?"
    If, perchance, my faith in human nature is not borne out in practice, I shall be reminded of the poor Scottish pastor in a story that our good friends from Northern Ireland probably know already. After his death, rather to his surprise, the pastor found himself not in heaven but in hell, with the flames licking round him. He looked up to the good Lord and said "O Lord, I didnae ken, I didnae ken." and the good Lord, in his infinite wisdom and mercy said, "Ye ken the noo." I expect that a little while after the shops have been given the powers granted in the Bill, our good friends in USDAW will make their plea to the House, saying, "We did not know, we did not know; our confidence was misplaced."
    Initially, the Government did not wish to introduce any measure of employee protection—that was their main agenda—but, as a result of the concern expressed, they introduced what they claimed was some protection for

    319
    workers. However, anyone who practises in industrial tribunals, as I have done on both sides, knows that the protection afforded is small indeed. Many shop workers will not be protected by their trade unions in any event, and they will be somewhat intimidated by the procedures, which can be spun out over a long period by wealthy employers who are usually legally represented and who know all the rules.
    The poor litigant in person will lose heart as he sees the time slipping away, even if that person has sufficient commitment and is sufficiently gifted to take and continue his case—or, as is more likely, her case. As we are speaking of shop workers it is more likely to be a woman who goes to the tribunal, and she is more likely to be overawed and intimidated—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is a sexist remark.
    Mr. Anderson: It is more likely to be a woman because more woman are employed in shops.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that a woman was more likely to be intimidated.
    Mr. Anderson: I am sorry. If I unintentionally made a remark that proved offensive to the hon. Lady, I unreservedly withdraw it.
    We know that the amount of compensation likely to be awarded by industrial tribunals is relatively small, and only in the rarest of cases will a tribunal reinstate a worker in the job from which he or she was dismissed. Therefore, there will be an enormous temptation for major stores, for whom the compensation likely to be awarded is small change, to get rid of any worker they think is being difficult and to go for an easygoing and complacement work force. I therefore reject as wholly inadequate the gift that the Government offer. As we say in some parts of Swansea, "Timeo Danaoset dona ferentes."
    Furthermore, we should consider not only the Government's relatively last-minute insertion of the so-called employee protection provisions, but their attitude in other areas. I am thinking not of the wages councils, which some of my hon. Friends have already mentioned, but of the spirit and practice of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is making a bonfire of controls. It would surely be consistent with the spirit of that Bill to remove the unfair burden that weighs upon employers.
    With all due respect to the Minister, I should have thought that he would know what the Government seek to do in the deregulation Bill, and would realise the direct potential relevance of that Bill to what the Government seek to give in the Bill before us. Clearly if he were doing his job properly he would have been briefed about the potential relevance of the other Bill, so that he could tell us whether even the minor protection that the Government purport to give here is likely to be wholly illusory in practice, because what they give in this Bill they can easily take away tomorrow by using one of the orders under the deregulation Bill.
    The Minister was wrong not to come here adequately briefed, but I hope that by the end of the debate he will be able to tell us clearly not only about the Government's current intention—that will probably disappear in smoke as soon as the Bill is passed—but that in no way can orders
    320
    under the deregulation Bill be applied to the Bill before us in such a way as to allow the Government to take away later what they are offering now.
    Rev. William McCrea: Many hon Members on both sides of the House have expressed genuine and deep concern about the protection of workers. It cannot be said that one side is more concerned than the other. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He asked us to reject new clause 4, saying that in another place the Government may introduce a provision to close a loophole in paragraph 10 of schedule 3. However, he gave us no indication of the substance of such an amendment. He is therefore asking us to throw aside the substance of new clause 4 for something about which we do not have a clue. The Minister said that it was not desirable, at the stroke of a pen, to cast existing provisions aside. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's good faith, but, as he knows, his promise will not bind his successors. We should not be carried away by such a promise.
    6.30 pm
    I should like to refer to a matter that puzzles me. The Minister probably approaches this problem with a perspective and a philosophy different from those of other hon. Members, including Opposition Members. On the question of the protection of workers, I should like someone to explain what happens to an Opposition Member when he or she moves from the Back Benches to the Front Bench. The attitude of such people seems to change. They become willing to give Ministers the nod and to accept undesirable legislation. It seems that something dramatic happens: there is a road to Damascus conversion. The people of the United Kingdom deserve to be told why Opposition Front-Bench Members nod when a Minister gives them an assurance. If they were still on the Back Benches they would raise many of the matters that still trouble ordinary people.
    Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman should be careful what he says. Many Opposition Front-Bench Members have consistently voted against this legislation and in favour of worker protection. My colleagues and I have done so and will continue to do so on Third Reading.
    Rev. William McCrea: The nub of the matter is that we should not be confronted with this problem if the Opposition Front Bench had taken a stand against Sunday trading.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: What about your own lot?
    Rev. William McCrea: As I said earlier, I do not understand the apparent unanimity between the two Front Benches.
    Ms Ruddock: It should not be necessary to remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision was taken by the whole House, with extraordinary attendance, on a free vote. This was not a Labour Front-Bench decision, and I deeply resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there has been collusion between Labour Front-Bench Members and the Government. I responded positively to the Minister's new clauses 1 and 2 because they were introduced as a result of points that we raised in Committee. It was most appropriate that I should acknowledge the Minister's positive response.
    Rev. William McCrea: I remember the incident very well. To the best of my knowledge, Hansard will show that on that occasion the hon. Lady voted with the Government.
    Ms Ruddock: On a free vote.
    Rev. William McCrea: Yes, on a free vote. But this matter goes to the very heart of the industrial life of the community and of workers' rights. It is not good enough for us to tell the people that we are really concerned about workers' rights, but, at the same time, to support legislation that will remove many of those rights. The pious pleading from the Opposition Front Bench cannot be accepted.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way, other hon. Members will have to resume their seats.
    Rev. William McCrea: I must make it abundantly clear that the charge of collusion has been made by many hon. Members, and not just from this side of the House.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman's uncalled-for charge will be refuted from the Opposition Front Bench, with very good reason. There is no reason for such an allegation, from whatever part of the House. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how often in the past 10 years he has gone through the Lobbies to keep that lot afloat?
    Rev. William McCrea: I can assure the House that I shall use every opportunity for a free vote in the best interests of the people who sent me here. That is very different from the attitude of Opposition Members. The Bill strikes at the very heart of workers' rights. A basic right stems from the fact that the Lord's day is a special day. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) should be defending people's rights.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Every amendment put forward in Committee for the purpose of protecting workers' rights and wages came from the Opposition, and when our proposals were voted on Members on the Government side voted categorically, totally and in unison against them.
    Rev. William McCrea: As I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I shall accept what the hon. Lady says. However, Sunday trading is the basic problem, and these other matters are peripheral. Many hon. Members from all parts of the House have stood side by side in support of Sunday trading. Some of them ought to know better.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are dealing specifically with new clause 4. It seems to me that the debate is becoming very wide indeed. Hon. Members are doing re-runs on who voted and why. Let us return to the new clause.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has made an absurd allegation about how Ulster Democratic Unionist party Members vote. The hon. Gentleman would do well to consult Hansard to discover how we voted on questions concerning the miners and on matters of confidence—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing precisely what I said should not be done.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Rev. William McCrea: I do not propose to go down that road, but the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) should examine the voting record of my hon. Friends and me. It is one of which we are rightly proud. Others will have to answer for their decisions. I shall certainly speak for myself and answer to my constituents for my votes on this legislation.
    Mr. Alton: I support the hon. Gentleman's case. In the Standing Committee I represented the minority parties. After consultation with the other minority parties, I tabled amendments on employment protection. Those parties have overwhelmingly supported the new clause now before the House. I hope that all their hon. Members will go through the Lobby in support of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase).
    Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.
    In conclusion, new clause 4 is important and it is worthy of our consideration. I do not believe that we should withdraw it on the promise that something may be done in another place. The House should support it tonight.
    Mr. Purchase: In the light of events. I am not satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister. I apologise to him for not attending the meeting that he kindly offered. I assure him that that was entirely due to a misunderstanding between me and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. However, I do not think that if I had gone to see him I would have been reassured on the substantive points that he wished me to bring to him. Just a few days ago, you assured me that there were no loopholes. Today, a few days later, you come and say that there may be one. I feel that belt and braces—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that he is addressing me and not the Minister.
    Mr. Purchase: I apologise for not using the correct terminology, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will finish the point and then conclude.
    I apologise to the Minister for not attending the meeting, but it would not have been possible for me to be reassured on any of the substantive points that he asked me to bring to him. I am not a lawyer, but instinctively, intuitively and from my industrial experience I know that all employers find ways of minimising costs in the face of any law that this Government or any Government introduce. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology. I should have liked to talk matters over with him. It would have been useful to go through several of the matters that he raised which troubled him. I did not promise him last time that there was no loophole. I said that I saw no loophole, but that I was taking legal advice. We have found a loophole in paragraph 10 of schedule 3. The hon. Gentleman's new clause does not cover it. That is why I offered to bring back suitable wordings in another place. I still intend to do that. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will reject the hon. Gentleman's new clause because it does not do what needs to be done.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 312.

    Division No. 140]

    [6.41pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dowd, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Allen, Graham

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Alton, David

    Eagle, Ms Angels

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Enright, Derek

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Etherington, Bill

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Ashton, Joe

    Fatchett, Derek

    Austin-Walker, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Barnes, Harry

    Fisher, Mark

    Barron, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    Battle, John

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beggs, Roy

    Foulkes, George

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bell, Stuart

    Galbraith, Sam

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Galloway, George

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Gapes, Mike

    Benton, Joe

    Gerrett, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    George, Bruce

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    George, Bruce

    Betts, Clive

    Gilberth, Rt Hon Dr John

    Blair, Tony

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Blunkett, David

    Godsiff, Rogar

    Boateng, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boyes, Roland

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bradley, Keith

    Graham, Thomas

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gunnell, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hain, Peter

    Byers, Stephen

    Hall, Mike

    Caborn, Richard

    Hanson, David

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Heppell, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hoey, Kate

    Clapham, Michael

    Home Robertson, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoyle, Doug

    Coffey, Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hutton, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ingram, Adam

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cousins, Jim

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cryer, Bob

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Darling, Alistair

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davidson, Ian

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    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

    324

    Livingstone, Ken

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Randall, Stuart

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Raynsford, Nick

    Loyden, Eddie

    Redmond, Martin

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Reid, Dr John

    McAllion, John

    Rendel, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooker, Jeff

    McFall, John

    Rooney, Terry

    McKelvey, William

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    McLeish, Henry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    McMaster, Gordon

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McWilliam, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    Madden, Max

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Maginnis, Ken

    Short, Clare

    Mahon, Alice

    Simpson, Alan

    Mandelson, Peter

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marek, Dr John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Snape, Peter

    Maxton, John

    Soley, Clive

    Meacher, Michael

    Spearing, Nigel

    Meale, Alan

    Spellar, John

    Michael, Alun

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Milburn, Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Miller, Andrew

    Stott, Roger

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Straw, Jack

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Tyler, Paul

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Vaz, Keith

    Mudie, George

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Murphy, Paul

    Wallace, James

    O'akes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Walley, Joan

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Wareing, Robert N

    O'Hara, Edward

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Olner, William

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Neill, Martin

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, Brian

    Patchett, Terry

    Winnick, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Wise, Audrey

    Pickthall, Colin

    Worthington, Tony

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pope, Greg

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Prescott, John

    Mr. Ken Purchase and

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Ms Glenda Jackson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Baldry, Tony

    Alexander, Richard

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Amess, David

    Bates, Michael

    Ancram, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Ashby, David

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Atkins, Robert

    Body, Sir Richard

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Booth, Hartley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Boswell, Tim

    325

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bowis, John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    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

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hague, William

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Hannam, Sir John

    Butterfill, John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cash, William

    Heald, Oliver

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    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

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Congdon, David

    Horam, John

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hordem, 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, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cran, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dicks, Terry

    Jessel, Toby

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dunn, Bob

    Key, Robert

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dykes, Hugh

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Eggar, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Elletson, Harold

    Knapman, Roger

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evennett, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Faber, David

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Legg, Barry

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Leigh, Edward

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lidington, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lightbown, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lord, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fry, Sir Peter

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Gallie, Phil

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Madel, Sir David

    326

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Malone, Gerald

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mans, Keith

    Soames, Nicholas

    Marlow, Tony

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mates, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sproat, Iain

    Merchant, Piers

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mills, Iain

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Stephen, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Stem, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stewart, Allan

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Streeter, Gary

    Moss, Malcolm

    Sumberg, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sweeney, Walter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Sykes, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Norris, Steve

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thomason, Roy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Paice, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

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

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tracey, Richard

    Pawsey, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Viggers, Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Walden, George

    Rathbone, Tim

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Waller, Gary

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Ward, John

    Richards, Rod

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Riddick, Graham

    Waterson, Nigel

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Watts, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wells, Bowen

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Whitney, Ray

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Whittingdale, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Wilkinson, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Sackville, Tom

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Wood, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Yeo, Tim

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Sims, Roger

    Mr. Derek Conway.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 6

    SHORT TITLE, REPEALS, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Amendments made: No. 50 in page 2, line 25, at end insert
    'section [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning]'.
    No. 51, in page 2, line 25, at end insert
    'section [Construction of certain leases and agreements]'.—[Mr. Patnick.]

    Amendment made: No. 49, a new schedule,
  LOADING AND UNLOADING AT LARGE SHOPS

    ON SUNDAY MORNING
    Meaning of "large shop"
    1. In this Schedule "large shop" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act.
    Consent required for early Sunday loading and unloading
    2. The occupier of a large shop in respect of which a notice under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act has effect shall not load or unload, or permit any other person to load or unload, goods from a vehicle at the shop before 9 a.m. on Sunday in connection with the trade or business carried on in the shop, unless the loading or unloading is carried on—

    (a) with the consent of the local authority for the area in which the shop is situated granted under this Schedule, and

    (b) in accordance with any conditions subject to which that consent is granted.

    3. A consent under this Schedule may be granted subject to such conditions as the local authority considers appropriate.
    Application for consent
    4. An application for a consent under this Schedule shall be made in writing and shall contain such information as the local authority may reasonably require.
    5. An applicant for a consent under this Schedule shall pay such reasonable fee in respect of his application as the local authority may determine.
    6. —(1) Where an application is duly made to the local authority for a consent under this Schedule, the authority shall grant the consent unless they are satisfied that the loading or unloading of goods from vehicles before 9 a.m. on Sunday at the shop to which the application relates, in connection with the trade or business carried on at the shop, has caused, or would be likely to cause, undue annoyance to local residents.
    (2) Before granting a consent under this Schedule, the local authority shall consult such persons residing in the vicinity of the shop to which the application relates as appear to them to be likely to be affected by any loading or unloading at the shop.
    (3) The authority shall determine the application and notify the applicant in writing of their decision within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the application is received by the authority.
    (4) In a case where a consent is granted, the notification under sub-paragraph (3) above shall specify the conditions, if any, subject to which the consent is granted.
    Publication of consent
    7. Where a local authority grants a consent under this Schedule, the authority may cause a notice giving details of that consent to be published in a local newspaper circulating in its area.
    Offence
    8. A person who contravenes paragraph 3 above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Schedule 1

    RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY OPENING OF LARGE SHOPS
    Amendment made: No. 52, in page 3, leave out lines 10 and 11.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 18, leave out `retail'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 25 to 34.
    Mr. Lloyd: After another debate in Committee, and consequent on an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), I undertook to consider whether it was possible to ensure that outlets that combined retail and wholesale trade, such as Costco, could be
    328
    restricted in respect of trading on Sunday to the same extent as outlets that engage entirely in retail sales. That is the purpose of the group of amendments.
    In the Shops Act 1950 "shop" is so defined as to catch any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on. It catches wholesalers who also engage in retail trade. But the definition stretches widely. It catches certain outlets that provide services or hire out goods. It catches premises where any retail trade is carried out, however minimal and whatever the premises' main purpose.
    The Shopping Hours Reform Council adopted a different approach in developing the model that the House selected and defined "shop" as any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the retail sale of goods. That has advantages as it excludes hire purchase and service shops as well as buildings such as churches, where the odd postcard might be sold. It also excludes outlets where the predominant trade is wholesale, even where significant retailing takes place. The amendments seek to remedy that defect while preserving the benefits of the definition as a whole.
    Amendment No. 27 amends the definition of "shop" so that it becomes premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods. No distinction is drawn between wholesale and retail for that purpose. However, if we left matters there, the Bill would inadvertently bring into the net all wholesalers and suppliers irrespective of whether or not they engaged in retail trade.
    Amendment No. 28, which amends paragraph 2(1) of the schedule, would prohibit large shops opening on a Sunday to serve retail customers instead of just customers. As I forewarned members of the Committee, guaranteeing that the schedule applies to mixed wholesalers and retailers, without causing further mischief to the schedule, is a complicated business. That is shown by the fact that it took no less than 11 amendments to achieve. However, in substance, all that the amendments achieve is that any large outlet engaged wholly or mainly in the sale of goods is restricted to six hours retail trade on a Sunday and has to apply to the local authority for listing so to do.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we move on to the formal amendments, I must say that I do not take kindly to the host of private conversations taking place. If hon. Members wish to engage in them, they should do so outside the Chamber.
    Amendments made: No. 25, in page 3, line 18, at end insert—
    '"retail customer" means a person who purchases goods retail;
    "retail sale" means any sale other than a sale for use or resale in the course of a trade or business, and references to retail purchase shall be construed accordingly'.
    No. 26, in line 19, leave out `retail'.
    No. 53, in page 3, line 23, at end insert `and'.
    No. 27, in line 25, leave out `retail'.
    No. 54, in line 25, leave out from `goods' to end of line 33.
    Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 36, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)' and insert 'sub-paragraph (2)'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following amendments:
    No. 2, leave out lines 44 to 46.
    No. 38, in line 45, leave out from 'shop' to end of line 46 and insert—

    (a)in respect of any Sunday other than a Sunday specified in sub-paragraph (b) below, before 1 pm, and

    (b) in respect of any Sunday falling within the period in any year commencing with 27th November and ending with 24th December, before 4 pm.'.

    No. 14, in line 46, at end insert
    'but this sub-paragraph has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4) below.
    (4) The exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply where the Sunday is Easter Day or Christmas Day'.
    No. 3, in page 4, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 2 on page 5.
    No. 39, in line 38, leave out from 'Sunday' to end of line 41
    No. 40, in line 43, leave out from 'notice' to 'cancel' in line 47.
    No. 41, in page 5, line 1, leave out
    'superseded by a subsequent notice or'.
    No. 4, leave out lines 4 to 21.
    No. 42, in line 7, leave out from 'shop' to end of line.
    No. 43, leave out lines 15 to 21.
    No. 5, leave out lines 26 to 28.
    No. 6, leave out lines 29 to 35.
    No. 45, in line 32, leave out
    'specified in a notice under paragraph 4 above'.
    Mr. Alison: The effect of amendments Nos. 1 to 6 is that the broad structure of the option that the House chose last December is left in place. There is no reversion to the "type of shop" approach that the House rejected on 8 December. The amendments retain the provision that all small shops, under 3,000 sq ft or 280 sq m, should be allowed to open. They also provide for a short list of exempt shops of any size at any time on a Sunday. Importantly, they delete the provision allowing large shops to open for six hours on a Sunday—the aching tooth that I seek to extract from the gum of the Bill. That extraction greatly shortens and simplifies the Bill. We no longer need a notification scheme or rules governing precisely how and where large shops can open. The list of offences is reduced. Most of the amendments tabled in my name shorten the Bill because the provisions are no longer necessary.
    The main reason for once again asking which shops should be allowed to open on Sundays is the publication and subsequent Second Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. That allows shops to open from Monday to Saturday for 24 hours a day if they wish to do so. Although some reference was made to the possible introduction of the provision in the Government's White Paper on the deregulation Bill which was published last October, there was no confirmation that the provision would be included before the debate on the Sunday trading options on 8 December. It is striking that, in all that long debate on 8 December, no mention was made of the possibility of full deregulation from Monday to Saturday.
    Clearly, the deregulation of shop opening hours during the working week has a major impact on the main arguments used against Sunday trading. I shall list a few of the implications for full weekday deregulation on the connected issue of Sunday trading, the first of which relates to consumer convenience. Many of those who argued in favour of Sunday trading at the end of last year did so on the ground that consumers needed the extra hours to shop on Sunday owing to the pressures of their weekday
    330
    commitments. It was argued that many people could not get to the shops easily between Monday and Saturday and needed them to open on Sunday. It was alleged that it was extremely inconvenient for such people that shops did not open on Sunday. If shops can open from Monday to Saturday up to 10 pm or 11 pm, instead of closing at 8 pm —or 9 pm one night a week—as under the present law, weekday deregulation will add at least an extra 11 hours on to the 67-hour shopping week of Monday to Saturday. That is a 15 per cent. increase in shopping hours and represents a much longer additional period than is offered on Sunday under the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals. If shops open until 11 rather than 12 o'clock, it will add a further six hours and represent an increase of 20 per cent.
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has been my sparring partner on this issue for several months. Although I take his point about the deregulation Bill and the extra hours that will be available on weekdays, when it comes to acquiring fresh food, plants and so on does not he accept that supermarkets still need to be open on Sundays? The extra hours on weekdays will not satisfy housewives' needs for shopping on Sunday mornings and afternoons.
    Mr. Alison: The next paragraph in my speech will address precisely the point about supermarkets' hours of opening.
    Mr. Barron: If the right hon. Gentleman has such misgivings about the deregulation Bill, why did he vote for it on Second Reading?
    Mr. Alison: I am very happy with the deregulation Bill and am not criticising it. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am merely showing that the deregulation Bill's provisions were so sweeping and beneficial that there are good grounds for the House to decide that the need for the extensive opening of large shops on Sundays has been evacuated and eviscerated. Three cheers for the deregulation Bill, precisely as a result of that provision.
    Mr. Barron: The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of the effects of Sunday trading, especially the issue of employees. Does he think that shop employees should work until 11 or 12 at night?
    Mr. Alison: It is not for me but for the shops to determine the hours that they may open during the week. The hon. Gentleman has probably received, as I have, a letter from Sainsbury. He may treat it with a grain of doubt, but it says that it does not propose to open any extra hours during weekdays. That remains to be seen, but it is not for me to decide.
    In the light of the deregulation Bill, it must be decided whether large shops still need to open on Sundays. We can expect major supermarket chains, such as Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Gateway, to open frequently in the evenings until 10 o'clock if there is public demand, which is the key point. They have expressed a great willingness to try to meet the convenience of consumers, often claiming that they earn little additional profit in doing so. If large numbers of employed women find it difficult to shop during existing opening hours, we can expect supermarket chains—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) —to open late in the evening to accommodate that wish.

    331
    I ask hon. Members to bear the following point closely in mind when envisaging what will happen on Sundays. I am reliably informed that, in the United States, 34 per cent. of supermarket chains open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Over there, it is difficult to find a large supermarket that is not open until 10 or 11 pm every day of the week. If all those extra hours are available on weekdays, the argument that we need Sunday trading for the convenience of consumers, including those who use supermarkets or fresh food stores—we shall also keep smaller shops open on Sundays—loses much cf its impelling logic.
    7.15 pm
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: It is mostly women who go shopping and, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, these days most of them go to work. Will he take it from me that, if a woman has been at work all day, shopping late in the evening, particularly getting home in the dark in the winter, is extremely unattractive? Does my right hon. Friend agree that shopping in daylight hours on Sundays and being able to take one's children and, if one is lucky, one's husband to carry home the shopping, is a much more attractive arrangement for women who work?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will agree that even better things can be done with one's family on a Sunday than haunting the halls of supermarkets if it is possible to get one's shopping done during the week, even in the dark. I am sure that a few fluorescent lights will be brought to bear on the supermarket environment. Better pursuits, such as my hon. Friend would want to engage in with family and friends, can then be indulged in on a Sunday.
    Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend seems to be producing a shopping pattern for insomniacs rather than average families. Does he accept that most people would like to shop at midday rather than midnight and that, although America has many supermarkets open on Sundays, Sunday shopping there is accompanied by much greater church attendance than in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend's reference to church attendance is superfluous and irrelevant because people who want to go to church on Sundays will do so and will find a chance to shop at other times. He makes too big an issue of the unsurpassed, ecstatic joy of being able to shop at midday, as if shopping in daylight were a sure sign of all the possible enticements, inducements, benefits and joys that could accrue to a human being. I remind him that shopping in daylight at 12 o'clock on a particular day of the week is not what everybody lives for. People want to engage in a vast number of other activities. On Sundays, they can find plenty of things to do other than shopping if the shopping chore can be dealt with during the most convenient hours, by day or night, from Monday to Saturday. My hon. Friend's point is, therefore, not compelling.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is making an interesting case. I agree that shopping, at any time, is a chore and that shopping on Sundays is not the height of family values. Will he deal with the point relating to the freedom to shop during the week? If his argument is consistent—he says that it is up to shops to decide how long to open—surely the same applies to Sundays. If people decide voluntarily to shop in the evening when that
    332
    becomes possible in the light of the deregulation legislation, the demand for Sunday shopping will no longer exist and shops will therefore decide not to open. The Bill does not oblige shops, whatever their size, to open, but gives them the possibility to open if the demand from the public is persistent.
    Mr. Alison: Sainsbury may have written to my hon. Friend, as it has written to me, saying that following deregulation it does not propose to increase its current weekday opening hours. But it may discover that Tesco, Asda, Waitrose, or Budgen intend to stay open until 10 or 11 or 12 o'clock on weekdays. In that case, I draw an analogy with people watching a spectacle. At first they are all seated, but one stands up to get a better view and slowly everybody else stands up to get a better view. In the end, they all stand up and no one gets a better view.
    The application of that little analogy is that, one after another, shops will all be forced to open on weekdays until a much later hour. One will find that if one large shop is permitted to open on Sunday, the same phenomenon that I described for weekdays will occur. One after another, shops will, of necessity and due to commercial pressures, have to open on Sunday. No one will be better off and everyone will find that Sunday has become just another day. I have attempted to give a rational response to my hon. Friend's intervention.
    Mr. Pike: When Sainsbury started to open on Sundays, it said that it had entered the Sunday market only because its competitors had done so and it felt that it had to follow suit. Does not that underline the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman? His predictions of what will happen with late weekday opening will prove correct, despite what Sainsbury says in the letter to which he referred.
    Mr. Alison: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of, and support for, my analysis. I am sure that he is right and that we have correctly diagnosed the pattern that will evolve.
    I do not want to delay the House too long, so I shall move on to my second argument in favour of restricting the opening of large shops on Sundays. One of the major concerns expressed about allowing Sunday trading concerned its impact on small shops. If large shops open on Sundays, most small shops will have to open to compete. The owner of a small shop cannot afford to keep his shop shut when his competitors' shops are open. Even the loss of a few percentage points in market share could lead to small shops having to close. We have seen the widespread closure of small shops in the past decade. Many run close to the margins of profitability.
    Opening small shops on Sundays, however, adds greatly to the stress of family life. It means that there is no longer even one day when shopkeepers can rest quietly with their families. If, under deregulation, they face competition every evening of the week, potentially until 10 or 11 pm at night, what will be left of their family lives? Many small shops will need to stay open much later in the evening to compete with larger shops.
    Sir David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend said that small shops will be forced to open on Sundays and that family life will be damaged. Perhaps he does not fully appreciate that small shops need to open on Sundays and provide a good service because supermarkets are closed. It is the economics of being able to open on

    333
    Sundays that enables small shops to stay in business. My concern and, I hope, that of my right hon. Friend is that many villages will be deprived of their small shops if their trade is swamped by the supermarkets on Sundays.
    Mr. Alison: The purpose of my amendment is to leave in place the proposal to allow the unrestricted opening of small shops of under 3,000 sq ft. My hon. Friend's argument is well taken. Those shops will have at least one day when the competitive pressures are such as to enable them to determine for themselves where their real interest lies.
    The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) keeps returning to his bone of contention about the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. If he thinks that that Bill will be responsible for some of the pressures on small shops during the week, he should at least endorse the principle that keeping big shops shut on Sundays makes the best of what is, in his view, a bad world.
    Mr. Barron rose—
    Mr. Alison: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that I supported the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which he introduced.
    Mr. Barron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that support. He was advancing the argument that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will impose stress because shops will be able to open 24 hours a day.
    Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman has diagnosed stress, let him accept the remedy, prescription, pill or drug—whatever he wants to call it—that I have prescribed to reduce it. That remedy involves shutting the big shops on Sundays and giving the smaller shops a chance to catch up some of the ground. The logic of his objection to the extra stress is for him to support the proposition that big shops should not be allowed to open on Sundays.
    Everyone knows that there is no potential for increased turnover from opening on Sundays. Everyone agrees that extra money will not be spent if shops open for longer hours—the butter is simply spread more thinly over the bread. The argument in favour of protecting small shops from the pressure of competition from large shops on Sundays and the pressure imposed on their family lives by having to work all hours of the day and night is doubly strengthened by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and its impact on Sunday-to-Saturday trade. More than ever, those who run small shops need one day when they are free from competitive pressures and when they can have a day of rest and quiet with their families.
    Similar arguments apply to the 1 million or so shopworkers who will feel additional pressure to work on a Sunday. Longer weekday working hours will mean more irregular hours away from the home and family and will make it more difficult for shopworkers to spend time with their children when they are out of school, and with the spouse or partner when he or she is home from work. If we want to protect the home lives of our citizens and encourage families to stay together, we must pay attention to the impact of longer weekday hours on shopworkers. Longer weekday hours mean that it is even more vital to protect Sundays, when they can be at home with their families.
    334
    Urban residents will also suffer from longer weekday hours. Noise, bustle and general disturbance, including parking problems, will afflict them into the evening if shops can open until 10 or 11 o'clock, or even later.
    Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend said that he has received the same letter as I received from directors of Sainsbury, which said that there will not be a significant lengthening of the hours that it will open during the week. That seems likely to be the same for all the major stores. Who wants to shop between 8 pm and 11 pm or even midnight? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that they are not going to open, but that they will have longer hours for deliveries. He is arguing against his own case.
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has not followed the line of my argument, which was that Sainsbury has written to me, as it has written to him, to say that it is not proposing to extend its existing hours of opening. That should be taken with a pinch of salt because it is not the wishes of the customers that will determine Sainsbury's opening hours, although I am not implying that it is an anti-social outfit. What will determine its weekday opening hours will be what Tesco, Asda, Gateway and other such shops do. It only needs one of those to extend its opening hours for all the others to extend theirs. So I am being consistent in saying that deregulation will lead to a widespread extension of opening hours for all the big shops.
    I repeat my figures about supermarket chains in the United States–34 per cent. are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days in the year. That is likely to begin to apply here under deregulation and it is all the more reason for having a precinct of sanctity, quiet and peace on Sundays, with big shops closed.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Sainsbury says that it will not open in the evening, it is assuming that it will be open on Sundays? Is it not more likely to open in the evenings if it cannot open on Sundays?
    Mr. Alison: I cannot be dogmatic about how it will behave in the evenings. I am simply saying that, in essence, my amendment is a limited fail-safe provision that, after deregulation, big shops should not open on Sundays because they are likely to be opening much more extensively on weekdays. That fail-safe provision will at least regulate and contain the impact of big shops in so far as they affect the one day that has traditionally been a precinct day for family life, relative peace and quiet, absence of bustle, confusion, noise and the necessity to deploy all the extra services.
    7.30 pm
    Sir Peter Tapsell: There have been a number of critical interventions during my right hon. Friend's speech. In a constituency such as mine, with 170 villages and about six market towns, it will be the death knell of the small shopkeeper if the amendment is not carried.
    Mr. Alison: I am grateful for the unquestionably weighty support of my hon. Friend, whose intellectual scope and power is widely recognised in the House. My hon. Friend's intervention is such an enormous advantage to the deployment of my argument that I can almost sit down.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: If we interpret the Sainsbury letter at its face value, do we not see that it is not Sainsbury's intention to extend its current opening? Sainsbury has altered its position on Sunday trading because of actual and anticipated competition. In the same way, its current intention, however honest, is likely to move with the movement of trade.
    Mr. Alison: That is inescapable and it is why we need a statutory safe haven, a ring-fenced day in the week when small shops can open if they wish but larger shops are barred from opening by the will of the House.
    Mr. Thomas Graham: The right hon. Gentleman said that in America some shops are open for 24 hours. I recently watched some programmes on Sky television and I noticed that shopworkers in America had to ride shotgun because of the lateness of their hours in 24-hour opening shops. I worked for Rolls-Royce on the night shift and nothing was more dismal and soul destroying than to be forced to do a night shift turn and have to spend it away from the family. At least Rolls-Royce paid us a premium wage for Sundays. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that we were not forced to work on Sundays in Rolls-Royce, but were expected to do so if the company was under pressure. But we got at least double pay. Britain's shopworkers seem to be treated as second-class citizens who can get their Sundays only if they can bargain and put in a good bid. I hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech now. That was a very long intervention.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and I seek to recruit his support for my amendment by saying that the aspersions that he cast on big employers such as Rolls-Royce, which he would no doubt like to direct at large shopkeepers, retail stores and big multiples, are best avoided by preventing them from opening on Sundays. By that means the difficulties of double pay are entirely avoided.
    I apologise to the House for taking so long, but I thought that it was right to give way to some interventions. It is reasonable to assume that when hon. Members decided to support the Shopping Hours Reform Council option on 8 December, they had weighed the arguments and had considered the desire of some employees to work on Sundays, although I think that the number of such employees is quite small. They also considered the convenience of customers in having access to shops on Sundays and that applied especially to married women in employment, although in a recent poll well under 10 per cent. of such women wanted Sunday shopping. They will also have considered the needs of small shops to have one day without competition from larger shops, the need for shopworkers to have a day with their families and partners, and the need for urban residents for a day of peace and quiet.
    Deregulation of weekday hours tilts the balance of the argument much more in the direction of keeping Sunday special. That is what makes me believe that there is an urgent need to reconsider our earlier decision to allow all shops to open for six hours every Sunday. That is why I urge all hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 1 to 6.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I was delighted to add my name to the amendments moved by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I almost called him my right hon. Friend, because he certainly is on this issue. I congratulate him on the way in which he spoke to his amendment. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman believes in "back to basics," which we construe as applying to a Government who are honest about their intentions and who seek, as far as they are able by legislation, to encourage family values and do not put up obstacles to the proper functioning of the family.
    It is certain that one of the effects of the Bill would be to add to pressures on the family, which the right hon. Gentleman and I—and, I am confident, a substantial number of hon. Members in all parts of the House—believe to be the cornerstone of our society.
    I have two reasons for supporting the amendment. First, unlike the six-hour option, the amendment represents a true and fair compromise between the interests of consumers and retailers and their staff. Secondly, I support it because of the many absurdities that are likely to be generated by the six-hour option. Those two points are closely linked. It is precisely because the six-hour option would be so difficult and expensive for local authorities to enforce and to police that it would speedily degenerate into a total deregulation.
    I have argued, and shall not repeat, that in no wise is the six-hour option a compromise: it is what those who want total deregulation feel they can get at this time. There is no logical stopping point, because people will say, "If six hours, why not seven or eight?" As some hon. Members have forcefully said, even the six-hour option would need to have hours on either side for deliveries and so on. In effect, it would take up the whole of Sunday. The Shopping Hours Reform Council option was designed to be, and is, a Trojan horse designed to smuggle total deregulation into our society.
    Mr. Pike: In recognition of the stores that support the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the six-hour option, and the way in which they have been prepared to break the law for a number of years, surely one can have no confidence that, if the Bill is carried in its present form, they will not try to break the law to move to eight or 10 hours, as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Anderson: I should have thought that it was also "back to basics" not to encourage law breakers, as the Government are seeking to do in the Bill, and to protect those such as Marks and Spencer who, against their financial interests, seek to obey the law.
    People in Britain do not want total deregulation and it was overwhelmingly rejected by the House on 8 December. If one were to believe the bona fide credentials of those behind the Shopping Hours Reform Council, one would also assume that they want overall liberalisation. As one can see from their unsuccessful attempts to prevent American warehouse chains entering the country, however, it is not liberalisation that they want; it is market share and their own narrow trade gain and, alas, various sections of the House appear to have fallen for that.
    As a result of the SHRC option, every local authority will be forced to spend resources drawing up a detailed register of the names, addresses and opening and closing times of every large store in the area and of every large shop wishing to trade on Sundays. That in itself is a major requirement to impose on hard-pressed local authorities

    337
    which, as a result of other pressures, are shedding staff. Assuming that they had done that, local authorities would then have to police the opening and closing times which would have been registered by the stores in question. Because there are no set opening or closing times—the six hours have to be within a band—the local authority would have to ensure, so far as practicable, that the stores adhered to the opening and closing times that they had set out. That is an untidy system and would impose an additional unnecessary and unwelcome burden on our local authorities.
    Each local authority will be required to have a large number of inspectors, to be on patrol every Sunday—presumably premium payments will be payable to them —to ensure that the new law, as laid down by the House, is respected and enforced. I fully accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). What confidence can we have, in the light of the law-breaking record of those stores, that they will rigorously adhere to the opening and closing times which they will have registered with the local authority? It may well be that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has greater faith in those stores.
    Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he tell me how many officers the average local district council has had on duty on Sundays seeking to enforce the Shops Act 1950 in the past 40 years? I suggest that most of them have had none.
    Mr. Anderson: The reason why there have been none is that those local authorities knew that they did not have the backing of central Government, particularly during the past few years. Therefore, it would have been wasted effort to employ officers who had many other duties to enforce the law when there was a clear signal from the Government —by the Government's inaction—that they were not at all interested in the law being enforced and obeyed. Had there been a clear signal from the Government that in these matters, as in others, they were interested in law and order, local authorities would have responded accordingly and would have had their officers enforcing the law.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past two or three years local authorities, particularly environmental officers who normally would enforce the trading standards laws, have been under-resourced? Does he further agree that many local authorities did not know where the Government stood on the issue? Had they pursued the court cases and had the European Court ruled differently, councillors could have been surcharged for those actions.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Anderson: I fully agree with my hon. Friend, save in one respect: local authorities knew only too well where the Government stood. They knew that the Government were not interested in enforcing the law.
    As every lawyer knows, although the referral to the European Court of Justice was done by the High Court on the basis that there was at least a minimally arguable case, there was no serious prospect of its being agreed by the European Court of Justice because every country in Europe has its own laws on Sunday trading.
    338
    It was a delaying device. The Government prevented local authorities from enforcing the existing law during the time—and it was known that it would be a long time—that procedures would be gone through in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It was a deliberate collusion between the Government and the law breakers. The Minister shakes his head. I can tell him that when the matter was referred to the European Court of Justice, it was asserted that it would take more than a year. With another hat on, I do some work in the European Court of Justice and it is well known how slow its procedures are.
    Immediately upon that referral to the Court, it was clear that there would be a period of uncertainty. That period of uncertainty was increased by the Government when they refused to assist local authorities who knew that at a time of financial stringency they were risking their own poll tax or council tax payers' money. I understand from one local authority that more than £250,000 would have been at risk had the case been lost. Few local authorities would have been bold enough to risk that sort of money while the Government were doing nothing to enforce the law.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Should it have been right for the Attorney-General to intervene—I do not believe it was, and that was certainly not the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend—the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that taxpayers' money should have been put at risk in the same way as charge payers' money was. That would not be a good use of the money when the law was obscure, because the High Court had referred the matter to the European Court.
    Mr. Anderson: The law was clear in respect of the Shops Act and the existing law, as traditionally interpreted, would have prevailed while the referral to the European Court of Justice was taking place. The Minister makes an absurd point in suggesting that there is some equivalence between a local authority risking the money of its own ratepayers because of a technicality and central Government ensuring that law and order in this case, as in others, was enforced. The Government chose to do nothing.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that the law was in doubt and that that was why the local authorities could not perform their duty or that the law was quite clear. If it was, why did local authorities not pursue their duty and obtain damages at no expense to local ratepayers?
    Mr. Anderson: Clearly, the Shops Act had been interpreted in a certain way. As a result of the referral, there was only an arguable case. There cannot have been any serious expectation on the part of those who brought the case in the first place that they would ultimately win in the European Court of Justice. There could have been no such expectation because there is such a range of practices within EC countries. If that lobby had no serious expectation of winning, what was its motive but to buy time?
    Mr. John Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the High Court sent that case to the European Court of Justice to buy time for retailers—that the judges of this country indulged in a legalistic facade? If so, no one believes him.
    Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman makes an absurd point. I said that the motive of those who commenced the proceedings was to buy time. The nature of our laws dictated that the issue be taken to Luxembourg. It was known from past practice that that would take a long time —during which the Government could choose to enforce or not to enforce the law. That lobby knew that the Government were sympathetic, and it was allowed to get away with it.
    As the absurdities of the SHRC option are made manifest, local authorities will again be unready to enforce the law. Matters will become more and more chaotic and, as sure as night follows day, we shall slide into total deregulation.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who supported complete deregulation said that they would vote for the SHRC proposals as the way forward? That supports the hon. Gentleman's argument that, the door having been opened, it will open much wider.
    Mr. Anderson: Of course. The Shopping Hours Reform Council knew that its option was riddled with anomalies, would cause chaos and would eventually slide in the direction that the council wanted.
    Total deregulation is not wanted here or by the people of Britain, who recognise the strong case for a common day of rest and relaxation each week. They acknowledge that Sunday is the principal day of the week on which time is spent with family and friends. They know that as a result of the Bill—in which the Government are colluding—that invaluable common day off will be permanently obliterated from national life, in the same way as Good Friday. It is a one-way ratchet and there will be no going back. The effect of the SHRC option will be that Sunday will become like any other shopping, working weekday.
    Total deregulation is also not wanted by small shop owners—few of whom would survive eight-hour competition from larger stores. I ask the right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to consider village stores, which play a tremendous community role, and the way specialised shops in high streets throughout the country are increasingly closing down. How many family butchers are left in our high streets as a result of competition from supermarkets?
    Mrs. Gorman: In my experience, many small shops have gone to the wall because of the heavy rates and, sometimes, high rents that they have to pay—rather than lack of trade.
    Mr. Anderson: I concede that rates are a factor. I know that the hon. Lady cares about this issue, and I ask her to consider also the case of markets. There is a market in my city, and I know many of the stallholders personally. The powers given to local authorities in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will create competition that may be too much for them to bear. That process of eliminating small traders such as butchers and bakers through competition from supermarkets will certainly accelerate.
    Mr. Graham: We are always being told about the wonderful Scottish experience of Sunday trading, but I assure my hon. Friend that it creates many difficulties. In my area, police have to attend areas that were once quiet on Sunday to deal with traffic congestion. There is also pressure on local government services to ensure that shopping areas are kept clean and tidy. Much cost is
    340
    associated with Sunday opening. I confess that my wife shops on Sunday, although not every Sunday. My final point—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Enough.
    Mr. Anderson: After that little warm-up, I look forward with eager anticipation to my hon. Friend's speech. He spoke of his experience of Sunday trading in Scotland, and I wholly agree that the character of Sunday will be fundamentally altered.
    As to the point about rates mentioned by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I imagine that they account for a small proportion of the total costs that bear on small businesses.
    Deregulation is not wanted by small traders, or by urban residents—whose peace and quiet is likely to be fundamentally changed. Neither is it wanted by the majority of 2.2 million retail workers—contrary to the assertions of those who claim to speak on behalf of those workers.
    Total deregulation is not wanted by policemen and traffic wardens. It is not wanted or needed by consumers, whose requirements will be catered for more than adequately by the combination of deregulated mid-week opening hours provided for in clause 17 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
    When we first discussed the options, there was a case for ensuring greater consumer choice. That was one of the more cogent points made by those who argued against my position, but that contention has been fundamentaly altered by the deregulation Bill. Any consumer will have ample time to shop on weekday evenings; yet the Government are still determined to destroy our traditional British Sunday —which is precious to us and has many positive social effects.
    I congratulate the right hon. Member for Selby on his amendments, which meet the profound wishes and good sense of the majority of the public, who do not want Sunday to be just like any other day. They fear the commercial pressures to which we yield again and again, and that much that we value in terms of small shops, the peace and quiet of a Sunday and the ability to be with one's family at least one common day a week will be destroyed —and will not be capable of being recreated.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I -recall clearly the arguments that we all listened to on 8 December. Many hon. Members in the House this evening will remember that I favoured the total deregulation option. It was not the will of the House that we should have total deregulation, but I do not accept the contention of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposal is a Trojan horse or, indeed, that it is a short cut to getting total deregulation.
    I did not think that that proposal was the right one for the House to adopt and I made that abundantly clear at the time. I believe strongly that we should allow people to make for themselves the choices that they want to make. That was not the choice of the House. Having voted on 8 December for the six-hours option, I determined that I would pursue that course, for some of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman articulated. If we are to have a day that is different, the SHRC option of six hours for the larger stores gives just that difference to the day. For example, the hon.

    341
    Gentleman argued that small shops would also not suffer if we had the option that my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has just proposed.
    8 pm
    Mr. Alfred Morris: For the record, will the right hon. Lady define the difference between what is in the Bill and total deregulation? Will she give her definition?
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I was just coming to that. The Bill will allow smaller shops the freedom to open at any time that they wish on a Sunday—the protection that so many people wanted to offer to small shops against what they saw as the predatory nature of the larger stores. The larger stores, however—those of more than 3,000 sq ft —will have to choose the six hours in which they wish to open during a Sunday. That is in itself protection for those small shops.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: It is very marginal.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman might say that, but it is a protection, because it shows that there must be a choice.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the total deregulation option, there would have been no question whatever of the substantial degree of worker protection that has been written into the Bill as it presently stands?
    Dame Angela Rumbold: That is one reason why I wanted total deregulation; it seemed to make eminent sense.
    The other point that the hon. Member for Swansea, East made was that, under the six-hour option, there will be considerable extra work for the local authorities to police the law, as it will be if that is what the House wishes. I must put it to him that the option that Keep Sunday Special made included an enormous amount of regulation and policing, to such an extent that a majority of local authorities were in agreement that that was the very last thing that they wanted introduced, because it would mean so much extra work and extra costs for them and for the people whom they would have to employ.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Of course I concede that, under the Keep Sunday Special option, there would be burdens on local authorities. I do not resile from that. All that I am saying is that the so-called liberalisation of the SHRC would also entail a substantial burden on local authorities. By so doing and moving inexorably—in my judgment—to total deregulation, we will do away with our traditional Sunday, which most people value.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, as, indeed, I am to mine. I do not believe that the six-hour option will impose on local authorities anything like the burdens that the Keep Sunday Special—
    Mr. Lord: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I shall do so, although I should like to make a little progress.
    Mr. Lord: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because I am one of those who believe that this is simply deregulation by the back door. I accept the points that were made at the time. This was looked at as a compromise, but only because there were three matters before the House and this was the one in the middle. If we had started from scratch, with a clean sheet, and asked whether we wanted shops to open on a Sunday and somebody came forward with a "compromise" that allowed shops to open for six hours in an eight-hour day, that would not have been regarded as sensible. Bearing in mind a bit of opening at the beginning of the day and a bit of opening at the end of the day over the edges, to most normal people it must look like a normal working day.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I am quite surprised at my hon. Friend. I thought that the House specialised in compromise. It was incapable many times of making a clear decision one way or another, which is why I deplore the fact that we were not able to choose the total deregulation option that was before the House at the time.
    I want now to come to the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. He believes that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will enable stores to open for six days a week at any time. Therefore, following his reasoning, that will obviate the need for shops—particularly the larger stores—to open on a Sunday.
    I believe that the shopping habits of the great British public are not quite as manic as some hon. Members would like to think. I do not see millions of people rushing to the shops at every minute or hour of the day that they are open. The habits of the shopping public are normally more rational and they are more inclined to go shopping at their convenience than at that of the shops. The shops can do no more than open and offer the opportunity to their customers. It will be entirely up to customers to choose when they go shopping.
    I am fairly confident that the vast majority of women who take on the responsibility of doing the weekly shop will find intensely unattractive the opportunity to go shopping at the hours of 9 pm to midnight. I say that because substantial numbers of those women work extremely hard. When they have worked, they normally go home and prepare a meal, and often do chores. The very last thing they will want to do then is get into the car or on their bicycles, or on their feet, and go down to the local supermarket to do a shop.
    I must tell hon. Members who are not accustomed to shopping that it is not a leisurely or enjoyable task. It is a task which must be done, but is quite hard work, requires a certain amount of physical capacity and can be very tiring. To assume that this suggestion will be welcomed by people who want to go and do their shopping in a more rational frame of mind seems quite absurd.
    Mr. Alton: There are good reasons therefore for sparing people the necessity of going through precisely those exercises on a Sunday as well.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I deeply disagree. I make no bones about this. I do not want to dictate when any shop or retailer should open, but if it is possible for families to go together and do the shopping, it is infinitely better for the person on whom the burden normally falls—that is, the woman—that she should have the opportunity of having her husband, and perhaps her children, accompany her. We

    343
    are not talking about the weekly shop, although I was quite incensed at some of the ways in which that shop was described. I thought it demonstrated beyond anything that I have ever heard in the House a total ignorance of the burdens that women must carry. It was also suggested that few women—indeed, people—worked on Sunday and did not work on other days.
    On the whole, women work extremely hard, whether they work for their living, look after their children or simply stay at home and look after the home. If they also have to take work during the week to supplement and subsidise the family income, for whatever reason, it seems quite outrageous that we should say to them that they can work Monday to Saturday up until midnight but not on a Sunday, and that one can only do that for extra money. Many of those women choose to work on Sunday because that is the day when it is most convenient for them, to ensure that the families stay together, because their partner is then able to undertake caring for their children. Families —the element about which we argue so often in the House —are more likely to stay together in those circumstances than if the woman has to work until midnight, which is a ridiculous idea.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Lady has spoken with some feeling about the problems of shoppers. She is a former Minister of State in the Home Office and I recall that she often spoke with feeling in support of what was said by the Police Federation. Now, the federation's general secretary says:
    "To allow Sunday to become a day which requires high levels of manpower and police resources would have a serious effect on shift systems, and there is no doubt that police officers do require Sundays off to spend with family and friends".
    How does the right hon. Lady respond to that?
    Dame Angela Rumbold: When I was at the Home Office, I had no responsibility for the police, although I had other responsibilities.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I said earlier, the Association of Chief Police Officers has made clear its view that any extra work that would fall to it would be manageable and negligible.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
    Let me continue with what I was saying about the importance of understanding precisely what we are being asked to consider. We are being asked to consider an alternative to what we approved in our vote on 8 December —and that alternative is posited on the fact that because larger stores may have an opportunity to open six days a week throughout the night as well as all day, we should feel able to change our minds and deny families and others the chance to shop in such stores on Sundays, even for limited periods.
    I believe that it would be best to uphold our vote of 8 December and to allow customers—including families —to make up their own minds about when they wish to shop. I feel extremely confident that many will continue to do what millions do already, irrespective of the notion that everyone wishes to spend Sunday at home—often, dare I say, bored out of their minds.
    Many people like to go out as a family on Sundays. They do not necessarily want to do the weekly shop; many wish to visit garden centres, take the children to buy a new pair of shoes, look at furniture or buy materials for home
    344
    improvement. Who are we to deprive them of that opportunity? Who are we to say that, with total deregulation, they can engage in those activities from Monday to Saturday, between certain hours? In fact, most families do not manage to get together in their homes until between 7 and 8 pm; they will almost certainly be condemned to shop late at night. What rational family will take the children out so late, or expect a woman to go out in the dark at a time when women, and elderly people in particular, are fearful about going out?
    Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend makes an eloquent case for deregulation. May I ask who will pay the additional costs involved? Who will pay for the extra policing, the extra parking and traffic control and the extra garbage collection costs, for example? Will it be the shops that benefit from Sunday opening, or the general public—taxpayers, business taxpayers, business rate payers and council tax payers, including those who, for reasons of conscience or otherwise, prefer not to open their shops on Sundays?
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Many, of course, will not open their shops on Sundays. Precisely those points, however, have been considered very carefully, both in Committee and just now by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who answered adequately and eloquently on behalf of the Police Federation. He said that ACPO and other federations had said that the extra charges that may or may not accrue—I am not at all convinced that they will —would be negligible in comparison with the importance of giving people the opportunity to behave as they choose on Sundays, rather than as we dictate.
    8.15 pm
    Let me make the point about safety once more, because I think that it is important. We often assume that, because shops are open late at night in summer, that is a perfectly acceptable time for families to go out. In this country, however, it is usually dark when people go out in the evening, because we cannot grasp the nettle and bring our time arrangements into line with those of our continental counterparts. That, however, is a separate point, on which I shall not elaborate.
    I feel that we are in grave danger of assuming that, because a deregulation Bill is before the House, it may somehow enable people to open their shops at different times and thereby attract more customers. For reasons of safety, I do not believe that any elderly people or many women will go out late at night; certainly, no families will allow their children to go out at such times, for good and sensible reasons. Therefore, I believe that very few shops will avail themselves of the opportunity to stay open enormously late: customers simply will not want to visit them.
    This evening, hon. Members are trying to put a case based on a false premise—the premise that we know when people are going to go shopping. We do not know that; what we do know is that the experience of the past few years suggests that many people enjoy shopping on Sundays, during the day. Are we to deny those people the opportunity, simply because we think that they might go shopping late at night instead? I do not think that likely, and I urge hon. Members to think very carefully before voting for the amendment. I believe that such a vote would be based on a completely false premise.
    Mr. Alton: We are considering three sets of amendments. There are what might be described as the "mornings only" amendments; there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and me, which seeks to exempt at least Christmas day, when it falls on a Sunday, and Easter Sunday; and there are the amendments to which the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) spoke so well, which seek to limit the size and scale of shops that may open, excluding the larger shops measuring more than 3,000 sq ft. All are attempts to return us to where we were in December, when the Keep Sunday Special option was narrowly defeated.
    As we now know from our debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, the changes made since then —both in the Bill itself, and following the introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—and the subsequent failure to include worker protection in this Bill make it clear that the votes cast earlier by many right hon. and hon. Members were conditional on future alterations. That is why these amendments are so crucial. I hope that many hon. Members, when they come to vote, will see them as a chance to put the Bill back on the right path.
    The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) spoke in the debate on the original Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). It seems a long time ago that we first went through the arguments, as a kind of rehearsal for the debate to come.
    The right hon. Lady and I have always disagreed on this matter; there is no point in disguising that. I disagree with her for a number of reasons. She has argued for complete deregulation and I respect the way in which she has put her view, but I do not agree with it.
    Enough features of our life in this country have been "deregulated". There is a need to protect and safeguard our family life, our community life, church life, town centres and small shops, and to meet the needs of the elderly and the disadvantaged. We have already conceded far too much to materialism and consumerism. There is, therefore, a moral question to be considered about the deeper values of our society. The issue that we are debating goes to the heart of those.
    We need time together as families and communities. Nothing can be more important than children and their parents having time with one another, or there being time in which to visit elderly people. If all the pressures are to be placed on us on a Sunday that are placed on us every other day of the week, what chance will we have to fulfil those duties? We speak so much about our rights and our choice, but what about our responsibilities, our duties and our obligations to one another? Sunday gives us the ideal opportunity for a pause in our lives.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman was answering the arguments of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). Does he accept that, just as she was making assumptions from our point of view to try to refute the arguments of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the right hon. Lady was making some strange assumptions herself—obviously not fully aware of changing patterns of night life in our cities —when she postulated that no one would want to go shopping at night? In other words, there will be an opportunity for people to shop at night and, to confirm
    346
    what the hon. Gentleman was saying, we are minimizing the proper opportunities for family leisure together on the one day that is available.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that argument so well. What I found strange about the right hon. Lady's case was that she argued an entirely different case on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and that she and some of her hon. Friends would say that we need to have those opportunities Monday to Saturday to shop 24 hours a day, because people need to have the chance to go out at night and so on. I do not dispute that, but let us consider the present moment.
    We seem to have got by perfectly well for most of this century with the shopping arrangements which we have had and, in so doing, we have protected Sunday as a special day. It was the Government's own Auld committee, appointed in 1983, that concluded:
    "the economic effects of deregulation are likely to be small; the social effects may not be."
    The social effects may not be. I believe that that is true. The social effects are likely to be considerable.
    If I can offer even better advice than that of the Auld committee to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, it would be the advice that Winston Churchill once gave. He said that we needed Sunday and he described it as
    "the necessary pause in the national life and activity".
    He said:
    "it is essentially the day of emancipation from the compulsion and strain of daily work".
    He said:
    "it is the birthright of every British subject, a day of personal, social and spiritual opportunity, and, above all, our great heritage, and one it is our responsibility, privilege and duty to hand on, to posterity unsullied by the commercialisation which is making its mark today."
    If that was true 40-odd years ago, how much more true is it today, with the pressures of commercialisation and materialism that abound?
    I passionately believe, therefore, that we must do more to restrict, rather than to make available, Sunday as yet another day for shopping.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who speaks for the Labour party on home affairs, is here for this part of the debate, because it reminds me of what he said, quite rightly, in the book "Reclaiming the Ground":
    "There is right and wrong. There is good and bad",
    and that we had to understand the difference. In that book, he and other people quoted from R. H. Tawney, when they said that expediency alone should not justify the way in which we vote on issues. I hope that he will be present with us in the Lobby later, to put some real flesh on those remarks, because he has his chance tonight to protect a very important part of our national life.
    Other hon. Members will speak about the amendments that deal with "mornings only". The amendments that I want to speak to specifically are those about Christmas and Easter. If we do nothing else today, surely we should exclude from the Bill Christmas day and Easter day. Easter day especially is a day when the pressures will he on for shops to be open. We heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) earlier about Good Friday and the way in which that has already disappeared as a special day. The same is true of Easter day.
    I hope that amendment No. 14 will be relatively non-controversial, although I doubt it, somehow. I suspect

    347
    that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who I know would have been sympathetic if the amendment had merely mentioned Christmas day, will not support it if it includes Easter day. I hope to be proven wrong by him later, and perhaps I have stirred him into making a few remarks about that amendment.
    I strongly support the right hon. Member for Selby's amendments, which are supported by Members in all parts of the Chamber. First, I believe that they would be a boost for small business. Small stores have been especially hard hit by the recession and by the sheer corporate muscle of the big superstores. Of course there is room in the marketplace for small food shops and for large supermarkets, but they can co-exist only if small businesses are given a chance to thrive on Sunday trade.
    Large stores make only 5 per cent. of their turnover on Sundays, whereas up to 25 per cent. of small shops' trade takes place on Sundays. Under the Shopping Hours Reform Council option, Sunday trading, which is crucial to small shops' survival, could be cut by half. That is one reason why people should support the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.
    Secondly, there is the idea of Sunday as a different day. If those amendments are accepted, Sunday will remain different from the other days of the week. Customers who need to shop for essential foods and household goods will be able to do so, yet the free-for-all of deregulation, with the noise and the environmental cost—issues which I mentioned earlier—and the pressures on small shops to open when the employees would prefer to be with their families, will be avoided.
    Thirdly, there is the issue of damage to small shops. Small convenience stores have fought hard to remain viable in the face of increasing competition from supermarkets and superstores. Late night and Sunday opening have been essential to their survival.
    In the past 20 years, 50 small stores on average have gone out of business every single week. In 1950, there were 650 supermarkets of more than 2,500 sq ft, and 145,000 independent grocers. In 1992, there were 769 superstores of more than 25,000 sq ft and only 35,000 independent local stores, compared with 145,000 in 1950. That situation will be made much worse unless we provide the protection that the right hon. Member for Selby is trying to provide.
    All that is borne out by the "Retail Intelligence Report" for 1993, which reported:
    "for major multiples, business that was formerly going to neighbourhood stores is being picked up as additional business."
    For small stores, the SHRC option is not a six-hour option but an eight-hour option, as different superstores choose to trade at different times. As we heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East, not only will workers have to work an hour in advance of opening and an hour at the end of opening, but they will have the travelling time involved, which will require them to work up to nine hours on a Sunday.
    Fourthly, there is the issue of job losses. The London Economics survey for 1993 stated that the SHRC option would lead to about 5,000 job losses. They would come mainly from the small shops sector. That is another reason why the amendment should be supported.
    Fifthly, I want to tackle the myth of freedom of choice, which the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden advanced. The SHRC and the right hon. Lady seek to
    348
    justify their deregulatory proposals in the name of freedom of choice. That argument is superficially plausible, but in practice it is bogus.
    When small stores close as a result of a superstore trading on Sundays, the freedom of choice of millions of people, including some of the most disadvantaged groups, will be much reduced. The public understand this, even if the SHRC and the right hon. Lady do not. Eighty per cent. of respondents to a National Opinion Polls poll conducted in September 1990 said that they would oppose wider Sunday opening if it would cause smaller shops to close.
    There is also the issue of community life. Small shops' decline undermines the social fabric of community life. The Rural Development Commission has emphasised the importance of small shops in rural communities. When they go out of business, it is the elderly, the disabled, women at home with children, and those without transport who suffer. Community shops are highly valued by the public. In September 1992, a Countryweek survey asked villages which of their institutions was the most important. The shop came first with 50 per cent., the church second with 40 per cent., the village hall third and the pub fourth.
    Deregulation would not, as so many people have argued, lead to increased profits. Even those who advocate deregulation acknowledge that Sunday trading would not increase profits. John Dowd, the managing director of Morrisons, which was reluctantly forced to open on Sundays to maintain market share, said:
    "There is no more trade to be had. There is only one cake; to slice into seven pieces rather than the six does not make the cake bigger".
    Even David Quarmby, the managing director of Sainsbury, admitted:
    "It is not particularly commercial. I mean, it is almost profit-neutral for us."
    Although there may be a little extra trade for the superstores which currently open under deregulation, the advantage would be wiped out as all the competitors opened on Sunday.
    8.30 pm
    A study by the Small Business Research Centre in Cambridge found that only 10 per cent. of firms thought that Sunday trading would boost their sales and profitability. Half of firms thought that their profitability would decline.
    In summary, the small shops sector has already had a foretaste of the effects of the Shopping Hours Reform Council option, since superstores, started opening on Sundays. It has had a detrimental effect on the turnover of local shops. Superstores do not need such trade—as we heard from Sainsbury, it is profit-neutral—but for small stores and shops, Sunday trade is crucial for survival.
    If the SHRC proposal became law, the effect would be felt not immediately but within three to five years, when market share would be concentrated in the hands of superstores, and local shops and high streets could have virtually disappeared.
    For those reasons, I hope not only that the House will accept my amendment dealing with Easter and Christmas and the amendments that seek to limit Sunday opening to mornings only, but that the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Selby, which deals with the size of shops—the big and the small and the less-than-3,000 sq ft option—will commend itself to every hon. Member, irrespective of party.
    Sir John Hannam: I shall follow on from the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in his excellent speech. He referred to other amendments in the main group and I speak in support of amendment No. 38 and the consequential amendments which stand in my name and that of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley).
    The amendments are straightforward and easily understood. Their purpose is to restrict the opening hours of the larger stores to Sunday mornings with 1 pm as the closing time. If the House were to accept them, we should achieve the best compromise, and we have talked much about compromise in this debate.
    The half-day opening of shops has always been a successful method of giving staff a good family break and instead of having a complicated system of registration and notices of the particular six hours during which shops intend to open on Sundays, as will happen under the present six-hour shopping day proposals, no notices are required under our proposals. In addition, registration with local authorities, would not be necessary, although one of our consequential amendments would provide for a local registration system to assist local authorities, but that could easily be dropped by the Government if they felt that it was not necessary.
    In the debate on 8 December, much was made of the suggestion that a six-hour option was the "compromise" option, but, in a situation where many hon. Members might not have ideally chosen any of the three options, the six-hour option may have been selected—by a very small majority of 16 on the second vote—as merely the best of what was on offer. If Sunday trading for large shops is to be controlled by the number of hours they are permitted to open, it is legitimate for the House to consider the exact number of hours. I should like to explore first how many hours constitute a real compromise and when they might best be accommodated.
    The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which has been published since the crucial vote on the Sunday options, will permit shops to open without restriction between Monday and Saturday. The extension of opening hours should influence our thinking on what represents a compromise for Sunday opening. We should also identify the competing interests that have to be reconciled in arriving at the right compromise. In this case, we must consider the interest of consumers and small shops, the environment, employees, families and the general quality of life in the community.
    To allow shops to open for a half day, as we used to see mid-week or Saturday afternoons, would provide a total of one-and-a-half days within the two-day weekend. I believe that that is a much better compromise than allowing shops to trade for any six hours within an eight-hour window —that is, in effect, for the larger part of a normal working day. If one adds on the time before opening and the clearing-up time, one arrives at a normal working day. Incidentally, the amendments are in line with the pre-Christmas period of extended opening of up to seven hours on the four Sundays. Of course, under the amendments all small shops would continue to be able to trade without restriction throughout the year.
    For the benefit of those who are anxious to avoid a return to the 1950 Sunday shopping law, I stress that the amendment would clear up various anomalies and simplify
    350
    even more than the six-hour option. The question is how half-day opening would sit with retailers and their customers.
    We must remember that retail interests have driven the campaign for Sunday shopping in the name of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and they are dominated by DIY and major food retailers such as Sainsbury's, Tesco, Safeway, Asda, B and Q, Texas and Homebase, all of whom have been willing to flout the existing restrictions and laws. However, we must accept that if Sunday trading is permitted for six hours, the forces of competition will drag other retailers in their slipstream, however reluctant they may be initially to trade.
    The major food companies are now big retailers of non-food goods. Sainsbury's alone sells perhaps £2 billion worth of non-food goods a year. Marks and Spencer and the John Lewis Partnership, although they believe that Sunday trading will bring no long-term benefit, have said that they will not be able to stand out indefinitely if the household names are driven by competitive forces to open. Who else will resist? What will happen to the smaller shops?
    If the better compromise is half-day opening, when should it occur? As I said, morning opening and afternoon closing have precedents. The early-closing day was of great benefit to many people and is still applied through employment laws in many European countries, in Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, for example. Some may argue that it is better to open in the afternoon on a Sunday rather than in the morning, but that is not better for the consumer; nor is it better socially.
    Consumers requiring DIY items or garden equipment on Sunday would be able to buy them sooner rather than later in the day. Equally, those wanting food would be more likely to shop in the morning before the mid-day meal. The same is true for garden centres. Consumer interest clearly backs the Sunday morning opening rather than afternoon opening.
    From a social point of view, limiting opening to mornings only would be far more beneficial.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I came to hear my hon. Friend because he is a neighbour, but I am a little puzzled. Some people will want to shop for food and other household goods on Sunday mornings but it would be more normal to visit a garden centre or a DIY shop, and particularly a garden centre, on Sunday afternoon. What has he to say about that?
    Sir John Hannam: I do not understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. One would not want to buy plants at 4 pm or 5 pm on a Sunday and have to work all through Sunday night to plant them. I have discovered that many garden centres have shop buildings consisting of less than 3,000 sq ft, so that would allow them to stay open throughout the day. Most garden centres will be able to continue trading throughout the day, anyway.
    As I was saying, from the social point of view I believe that Sunday morning opening is more beneficial. In the average active hours of the typical citizen on Sunday, from 8.30 in the morning until 10.30 at night, morning shopping could occupy the first four or four and a half hours of a 14-hour day. In the remaining hours, there would be benefits for all the other interests.
    Smaller shops would have a better chance of competing with larger shops, thus preserving a vital service for

    351
    villages and other local communities. Residents of high streets and areas near shopping centres would have peace and quiet for a decent proportion of the day. Shop workers would be home for Sunday lunch, and would be able to spend the rest of the day with their families. From the environmental point of view, half-day opening would limit the estimated increase of 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year that would result from widespread full Sunday trading.
    The most important argument about the proposal is that the retail and, more especially, the consumer interests that have driven the campaign for Sunday opening—DIY interests, the garden centres and the food stores—should be sufficiently served by half-day opening, without dragging along in their slipstream, however unwillingly, the rest of the retail industry. That, in turn, would bring real benefits for retail employees.
    Those of us with real doubts about the effectiveness of a statutory right not to work on Sunday would welcome a situation in which there would probably be sufficient genuine volunteers for Sunday work on the scale projected for Sunday morning. There would also be less of a reduction in full-time weekday employment in favour of part-time weekend employment. That reduction is a forecast trend that clearly works against the interests of breadwinners' incomes and it is expected to reduce the overall number of jobs in retailing. We have already seen evidence of it in the increase in the number of pail-time workers.
    I must take account of the argument that morning opening conflicts with church services. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said earlier, the six-hour option poses the same question. However, I suspect that church leaders would regard the morning-only option as preferable to six-hour opening. Many church-going colleagues have argued that those who wish to attend morning services will continue to do so, and they are right. Services last about an hour, so there will still be plenty of time for both worship and Sunday shopping for those who wish to do both.
    A dictionary definition of "compromise" is:
    "finding an intermediate way between the conflicting causes by the modification of each".
    If we are to have a compromise on Sunday trading, permitting larger shops to open until 1 pm, and until 4 pm on the four Sundays before Christmas, would provide a fairer balance between retail interests and the interests, indeed the survival, of small shops, the environment, employees, families and the community as a whole.
    If the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is rejected, I hope that the House will look favourably on amendment No. 38, which would achieve all that we need to achieve in clearing up the anomalies of existing shop legislation and allow all shops to open for a decent four and a half hours on Sunday morning, giving us all at least a peaceful half day with our families.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: It is a curious irony that while the House of Lords is debating the International Year of the Family, we are debating legislation that, whichever decision we make, will have real implications for the family.
    I shall speak in support of amendment No. 38 and the consequential amendments so persuasively advocated by
    352
    the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). I agree with his arguments and there are one or two other points that I should like to raise, too.
    On Second Reading, I supported the case put forward jointly by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform, for two principal reasons. First, it represented the only option before the House on Second Reading that I believed was genuinely concerned with, and committed to, employee protection.
    Several hon. Members have advanced the case that Sunday shopping is necessary because women feel unable to shop, or unsafe shopping, outside their normal working hours during the week. I shall read the House a short extract from a letter that I received from one of my constituents, Miss Phyllis Abba, a lady now retired:
    "I worked at Boots when we had to do most of our shopping during our dinner time and I cut out a tea-break to make it a little longer for this purpose, because when we left at 6 pm, and 1 pm on half-day closing, most of the other shops were closed too. So when people talk of needing Sunday for shopping, in these days of much greater leisure, I am not very impressed."
    As someone who worked in the shop trade, she found ways to shop for her needs, despite the fact that, because of her employment, she was at work during precisely the hours when shops were open.
    The second reason why I supported the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR compromise on Second Reading was my belief that the key issue is whether we want retailing to go the way of small local businesses or the way of national chains. I saw the argument as one between the town centre and out-of-town shopping, between the high street and the hypermarket. I believed that it was important to protect the interests of smaller businesses, which provide a range and diversity not, by their very nature, offered by a small number of large national stores whose shops sell exactly the same products whether they are in York or in Abingdon.
    My heart tells me that I ought to support the zero hours option put forward by Keep Sunday Special—and indeed I shall vote for it. But my head tells me that that proposal may not carry the day. If it is carried, the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Exeter and myself will fall. If and only if Keep Sunday Special is not carried will the House have an opportunity to vote for our proposal.
    We propose a genuine compromise which provides a genuine half day to allow people who want or need to shop on Sunday to do so. But it would also allow shop workers and others whom Sunday shopping would require to work on Sunday the opportunity to spend at least some of Sunday—the afternoon and evening—with their families, making it different from the days of the normal working week.
    Mr. Douglas French: I support the hon. Gentleman's half-day proposals; indeed, I suggested something similar on Second Reading. But will he say what arguments he has considered on the possibility of having half-day closing on Sunday morning and half-day opening on Sunday afternoon?
    Mr. Bayley: In Committee, I spoke to and supported a similar proposition, but, on reflection, I have come to the opinion that a morning rather than an afternoon Sunday opening provides a better balance between the social need for time off and the commercial needs of retailers to open shops when people would choose to use them.
    I understand the conflict between morning opening and church services, but, as the right hon. Member for Selby

    353
    and the hon. Member for Exeter have explained, people who want to shop as well as go to church would be able to do so under this compromise proposal which allows four and a half or five hours opening on Sunday morning.
    The six-hour option put forward by the Shopping Hours Reform Council differs only by degree from the normal eight-hour shopping day. A half day, by contrast, is a step-change difference.
    Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a normal eight-hour shopping day. Most of the large stores now open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening. Thus, a normal shopping day is 11 or 12 hours.
    Mr. Bayley: I speak of my constituency. With the exception of Thursday and Friday, the normal hours for almost all shops are 9 am to 5 pm or 5.30 pm. It is a shopping day of about eight hours. If the hon. Member is arguing that the nature of retailing is changing in such a way that more and more shops open 12 hours, he will have to accept that the argument for Sunday opening is weakened and is getting weaker day by day. When that is coupled with the implications of the Government's deregulation legislation, which will enable and encourage shopkeepers to open more hours of the day, the argument that some people cannot shop during the week will become less and less valid.
    I should like to say a word or two about employee protection. I welcome the Government's concessions in this regard, but, as we all know, real protection will be impossible to enforce by statute. In the real world of nods and winks, shop workers realise that they will progress only if they conform to the wishes of their employers. When an employer wants seven-day opening, employees will, at the very least, compromise their career prospects, and perhaps even risk their jobs, if they do not go along.
    Anyone who wants a future in the retail trade will have to agree to work on Sundays, and most will agree. Work will have to come first, and families second, seven days a week rather than just six. Shop workers know that protection can be obtained only by their going to an industrial tribunal and they realise that such redress is slow, that the penalties are inadequate and that, even if the judgment goes their way, their chances of reinstatement in employment are virtually nil.
    Shop workers will have seen the press reports appearing even at a time when one might have thought that the retail companies would be keeping a low profile. I refer to the period of the passage of this legislation. There have been newspaper reports of the firing of shop workers who refused to work on Sundays and of the letter to Sainsbury managers telling them that if they wanted to keep their jobs they would have to go in on Sundays.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They retracted it.
    Mr. Bayley: Of course. They would, wouldn't they?
    We all know that anyone who wants a career in a major chain that opens seven days a week will have to be prepared to work on Sunday.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the best form of protection would be the old Puritan idea of double time on Sunday? There is some irony in the compromise that resulted in the proposal of the hon.
    354
    Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—I refer to amendment No. 14—with a view to protecting Christmas, which the Puritans were against. The Bill is riding roughshod over all employment traditions and practices in this nation.
    Mr. Bayley: I agree that double time would be a very good thing, but—sadly—we know that that will not happen. As such protection is not available, some other protection is needed.
    The House has voted for a measure of Sunday trading. This will result in people who are employed in the retail trade having to work on Sunday. The legal protection embodied in the Bill simply will not amount to real protection for most employees. Protection can be provided only by a decision of Parliament that shops are not allowed to open at certain times and that any shopkeeper opening will be breaking the law. This amendment is a compromise. It provides that all shops will be able to open on the first part of Sunday, but that only small shops will be allowed to open for the rest of the day. Under all the proposals, the latter has been agreed to.
    I should like, finally, to deal with a couple of technical points. The amendment proposes what was contained in the original Retailers for Shops Act Reform and Keep Sunday Special compromise proposal at the time of the Second Reading. The compromise was that shopping should be allowed throughout the day on the four Sundays before Christmas. That is a realistic and practical proposition, and it is provided for in the compromise that I propose.
    At the time of the Second Reading, the SHRC presented an eight-hour opening period as a compromise. As we discovered in Committee, the period of disruption caused by shopping will be not eight hours but, taking into account the shopping-up period, eight and a half hours.
    Mr. Fabricant: Six hours.
    Mr. Bayley: It is eight and a half hours. Shops will be allowed to open from 10 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening, and people will be able to continue shopping until 6.30. That was presented as a compromise, but it was never a genuine compromise.
    This issue has divided the House deeply for far longer than the period of my membership. If hon. Members want a compromise that will allow a measure of shopping on Sunday for those to whom that is important but also provide a measure of real protection for shop workers and their families, amendment No. 38 is a way forward, and I recommend it to the House.
    Mr. John Marshall: Listening to some of the speeches tonight, I sensed that I was listening to individuals who rarely, if ever, go shopping. We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), in which he suggested that his amendment was a compromise and that supermarkets would open at 8.30 in the morning and people would rush out to shop at that time. If he went round supermarkets on Sundays, he would know that relatively few people go in before 11 o'clock in the morning.
    Even if amendment No. 38, tabled by the hon. Member for York and my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) were accepted, supermarkets would not open before 10 am. So the amendment provides a three-hour option. It does not seem to me that a shopping day of three hours for supermarkets can be described as a compromise.

    355
    Let hon. Members who are thinking of voting for amendment No. 38 remember that they would deprive the checkout girls at Tesco of £24 every Sunday. Instead of having a six-hour working Sunday, they would have a three-hour working Sunday. I do not believe that it is up to Members of Parliament to salve their consciences at the expense of checkout girls at Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda. Amendment No. 38 is not a compromise. It is anything but a compromise. It would cut the working day to three hours rather than six or six and a half hours.
    Amendment No. 14 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I believe that he is wrong to say that on Easter Sunday people do not want to go and shop. If people want to buy plants from a garden centre, they will frequently want to do so on Easter Sunday. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) made that point in Committee when we were talking about Easter Sunday. I had to remind the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that Easter day was always a Sunday. He did not seem to know that.
    9 pm
    Mr. Alton: If the hon. Gentleman will calm down for just a moment, will he be good enough to confirm that he does not believe that there should be any exemption for either Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday or Easter day?
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not true. I specifically offered to sign an amendment if he would limit it to Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. I said to him that it was not right to impose his restrictions on individuals who wanted to go shopping for plants, go to DIY centres or to motor around the country on Easter Sunday. That is why I was willing to agree with him on Christmas day. I acted in the spirit of compromise, but he wanted all or nothing and was not willing to give way.
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will accept, because of his deep knowledge of the calendar, that Christmas day rarely falls on a Sunday. The festival of Easter begins on the Friday before Easter. Good Friday is a good example. It was once a special day in this country. It no longer is. Will not Easter day and Christmas day go precisely the same way as Good Friday if the hon. Gentleman does not support an amendment such as mine tonight?
    Mr. Marshall: There is no reason why. It is a defensive position for spokesmen of the Church to come to the House and say, "Unless you give us the protection of telling people that they cannot shop on Easter day and Christmas day, those days will go the way of Good Friday." It is up to the churches in this country to have a message to give to the people of this country.
    I was surprised today to receive a letter from the Bishop of London. I looked for a letter from the Bishop of London before we voted last Monday. Did I get one? No. Have I ever had a letter from him on overseas aid? No. Did I receive a letter from the Bishop of London when the House dealt with the abortion measure introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill? No. The only issue that seems to concern the Bishop of London is Sunday trading.
    Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Marshall: The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, so I will not give way to Northern Irish Members. If the churches of this country had a message for the people—
    Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you confirm that in discussing any motion before the House we are all equal within the House and that for a Member to refuse to give way to a person who comes from another part of the Kingdom is a shame on British democracy although it may reflect the attitude of the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): All hon. Members are indeed equal, whatever part of the United Kingdom they represent, but when an hon. Member has the Floor it is entirely up to him or her whether to give way.
    Rev. William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you help me? As I seemingly have no right to intervene, will I have the right to vote at the end of the debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to guide him on that.
    Mr. Marshall: What I was really saying was that the Bill affects certain parts of the United Kingdom and not others. Those who heard my speech last time the House discussed the Bill will know that I gave way seven times during my speech. I am happy to give way, but I ought to give priority to those whose constituents will be affected by the Bill rather than to others whose constituents will not.
    Mr. Alton rose—
    Mr. Marshall: To show that I am a man of tolerance, I will give way to the Jack-in-the-box on the Liberal Benches.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but will he correct the record? He complained a few moments ago about the Bishop of London. The Bishop of London was not the Bishop of London when the measure that I promoted was before the House. The then Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, was a considerable supporter of that Bill and spoke in favour of it in the other place.
    Mr. Marshall: I did not think that that Bill actually reached the other place, but the then Bishop of London did not see fit to write to the then hon. Member for Hendon, South about it in any event. This is the only piece of legislation coming through the House about which I have ever had a letter from the Bishop of London. It says something about the priorities of the Church that this is the only matter on which it sees fit to write to me. I would prefer it to write to me about overseas aid or some of the other great moral issues facing us.
    There are good reasons why supermarkets should be allowed to open on Sunday. First, it is what the customer wants. It is no use the hon. Member for Mossley Hill referring to opinion polls. The fact is that more housewives go shopping on a Sunday than on a Monday, a Tuesday or a Wednesday. When I went round various supermarkets last autumn I asked people why they were shopping on that particular day. They told me that it was because it was convenient. The ladies were able to persuade their husbands to go with them, and some of the husbands may have paid the bill at the end. The children were out with

    357
    them. On one occasion, I saw a son of about 40 taking his 70-year-old mother shopping. He had shopped for himself on the Saturday and was shopping in a different part of London with his mother on the Sunday. The consumer wants it. The housewife wants it.
    Secondly, employees want it. A large number of them work only on a Sunday. They ask us to let them keep their Sunday money because they need it. It is not right for hon. Members to salve their consciences by preventing shopworkers from earning £48.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) would sit properly in the Chamber.
    Mr. Marshall: The third reason why supermarkets should be allowed to open on Sunday is that they offer—
    Mr. Bayley: Before the hon. Member makes his third point, he has said that it is wrong of those such as myself who support the compromise half-day amendment to seek to deprive Sunday shopworkers of part of their earnings. Did he not hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) say that the Home Office, on its own research that it commissioned from London Economics, had found that if the Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposal went through it would cut the number of whole-time equivalent retail jobs by some 5,000? So what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for—more opening on Sunday—will redistribute jobs, not create more, and will reduce the number of jobs and therefore the number of opportunities for people who need the money to earn it by working in retailing.
    Mr. Marshall: I do not necessarily accept that if shops open for a longer time, one will end up with fewer jobs. It does not seem very logical. As one who was for many years a professional economist, I have always known that economic forecasts were never as precise as the hon. Gentleman seeks to make them. It was always said that if one had five economists in a room one would have five different opinions, unless Lord Keynes was one of them, in which case there would be six. So I do not accept that a particular survey makes that point.
    The third reason why I believe that supermarkets should be allowed to open, not for the half-day option, but for somewhat longer than the three hours proposed by the hon. Member for York, is that prices in supermarkets are substantially lower than elsewhere. I have told the House before of a visit that I made to two shops in my constituency. One was 7-Eleven, the sort of shop that the hon. Member for York would keep open all day, and the other was Food Giant, a large supermarket. The basket of goods bought from Food Giant cost £13·74; precisely the same goods from the 7-Eleven store cost £18·35—
    Mr. Lord: Which one makes the most profit?
    Mr. Marshall: The 7-Eleven store has never been a particularly successful retailer, while Food Giant, which is part of the Gateway chain, has been relatively successful. Neither of the two stores is brilliantly profitable, but Food Giant is slightly more profitable than 7-Eleven. However, I do not think that that is relevant to the issue, which is whether the customer should have the opportunity to do whatever he or she wants to do. The question we should
    358
    address is whether the pensioners of Hendon should have the chance to buy pints of milk at 25p from Food Giant or at 38p from 7-Eleven. I believe that many customers would prefer to shop at low prices rather than to be cajoled or forced into shops with goods at high prices.
    Today, one or two hon. Members have talked about the cost of Sunday opening and have mentioned refuse. Everyone connected with local authorities knows that every retailer has to have a trade refuse agreement with the local authority—that is certainly true of larger retailers. The store will have to pay for any refuse around it to be collected. I know that a certain amount of refuse is created on Sunday, but it is normally created by take-away food restaurants which are not subject to opening restrictions under the Bill. It is perfectly possible for Burger King to open at almost any time on a Sunday, create refuse and not pay for it to be taken away.
    Parking is a subject which frequently upsets my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). She should recognise that the one group in society that frequently supply car parking spaces for their customers to use are supermarkets. People visiting supermarkets in my constituency park in the supermarket car park. Difficulties would arise in my constituency if supermarkets were told that they could not open and people had to shop in Golders Green road, where double parking frequently occurs. Parking problems there are a thousand times worse than outside any supermarket.
    People have shown that they like Sunday shopping. Individuals like to work on Sunday, and are queuing up to do so. We should listen to the voice of the British people. We have heard the name of Churchill mentioned this evening; I should like to quote the words of Lord Randolph Churchill, who said, "Trust the people". I believe that if we trust the people we shall obtain a perfectly satisfactory compromise.
    Mr. Fabricant: I do not intend to reiterate a number of the points that have already been made today and in Committee. The same issues were raised when I had the privilege to serve on the Committee that discussed the private Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the Shops (Amendment) Bill.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) raised a number of interesting issues. He said that small village shops would suffer if supermarkets were allowed to open on Sundays. In Lichfield, rightly or wrongly, the supermarkets open on Sundays—Tesco and Safeway both do so—and the village shops around Lichfield are thriving. There is a market for the supermarket and there is also a market for the small corner shop—the two are not mutually exclusive.
    A number of hon. Members have said that there is no demand for Sunday trading—that is incredible, and I wonder whether they have ever been shopping on a Sunday. When I listen to some hon. Members, I wonder whether they shop at all. They may have husbands, wives or even, heaven forbid, servants who shop for them. As a single man, I have to shop on a Sunday and I can tell the House that the supermarkets are full—that is not only my personal experience; research shows that 25 million people now shop regularly on Sunday. A total of 11 million people shop every Sunday, so to say that there is no demand for shopping on Sundays is ridiculous.
    The option to shop only on Sunday mornings is equally ridiculous. For those of us who work hard, which includes

    359
    all 651 Members of the House, Sunday is the only opportunity for a lie-in. That means getting up, perhaps listening to the omnibus edition of the Archers, gradually getting dressed at 11.15 and strolling to the shops at midday. If shops closed after midday, there would be no opportunity to shop.
    Some people in Lichfield would condemn me for listening to the omnibus edition of the Archers and others would say that I should be at the cathedral, which is only 50 yards from where I live. On some Sunday mornings, I do worship at the cathedral. How could I do that if I were expected to shop at the same time on Sunday mornings? It would not be practical.
    9.15 pm
    Another amendment says that, as a result of deregulation, ladies and gentlemen can shop from 9 o'clock in the evening until midnight on weekdays. That is a fallacy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) asked, what lady in her right mind living in an inner city would go out at 11 o'clock at night and push her trolley round a shop? How can that be an alternative to shopping on a Sunday?
    If the amendment were passed and if Third Reading did not go through, 180,000 people who now work in supermarkets and stores on Sundays would find themselves out of a job. Is that what hon. Members on either side want? For those worried about premium pay, may I simply point out that people who work on Sundays receive on average 1·9 times the pay that they would get on a weekday.
    This group of amendments does not make sense and I urge the House to reject them.
    Mr. Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on the way in which he introduced his amendments. He made an eloquent and elegant opening speech to introduce what are, none the less, wrecking amendments. Both he and the House know that. He said that shutting large shops on Sundays would ease matters for small shops. In saying that, without that pressure, small shops would not have to open on Sundays, he revealed his true position, for he would much prefer it if no shops opened on Sundays.
    My right hon. Friend's views would find some sympathy from the group OPEN which has encouraged and exhorted hon. Members, as it did in its letter to me dated 21 February in which it suggested that we should support my right hon. Friend's amendments because they would take the pressure off small shops and allow them to open on Sundays, keeping all large shops shut. It quoted evidence from a London Economics survey, which forecast that if the Bill is enacted, 5,000 jobs will be lost in the small shops sector. If that figure is correct—I do not for a moment believe that it is—it compares with the 180,000 people who now work mostly in the large shops sector, who would lose their jobs if the amendments were passed.
    Those who lose their jobs will lose an income that is important to their households and would not qualify for redundancy pay. Many people who work on Sundays are students who value an opportunity to add to their grants or loans.
    We have heard a lot about employee rights from opponents of Sunday shopping. I received a letter, dated 16 February, from the deputy general secretary of USDAW, Bill Connor. He states:
    360
    "We welcome the incorporation of an employee rights package into the Sunday Trading Bill, which was agreed on Wednesday, 9th February 1994, ensuring that Sunday working will be on a voluntary basis in the retail sector for existing and future employees. Given the level of turnover and the number of part-time workers in the industry, we particularly welcome the right of access to a tribunal without any qualifying terms."
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The rights of future workers, on which we lost the amendment, are not covered.
    Mr. Couchman: I am more inclined to take the word of the deputy general secretary of USDAW. He makes it clear that those rights will exist for present and future employees and that they will have access to a tribunal without any qualifying service or number of hours worked.
    Interestingly, Mr. Connor also states:
    "If one looks specifically at premium payments, as an example, it is in the major companies with whom we have agreements that our members receive either double-time payments or some significant premium for working on a Sunday. In the smaller stores premium payments have virtually disappeared".
    If the amendments are passed, they would restrict the number of people who work on a Sunday who would receive premium pay.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: We do not have any of those idiotic regulations in Scotland. How is anyone to shop on Monday if someone does not man the heating, lights and transport on Sunday? Is it not all a lot of bogus hypocrisy?
    Mr. Couchman: I am interested in that intervention by my hon. and learned Friend. It is not the first intervention from a Scottish Member. I think that it was the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) who, in a long intervention, said that his wife enjoyed shopping on Sundays. How many Scottish Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, will feel inclined to deprive English housewives of the right to shop in the shop of their choice on a Sunday while allowing their wives to continue to shop in whatever shop chooses to open in Scotland on Sunday?
    In his letter, Mr. Connor also talks of an agreement that he and his union have reached with the major employers who make up the principal supporters of the Shopping Hours Reform Council. That agreement with Sainsbury, Tesco, Kingfisher, Boots, Dixons, Asda, Argyll, and W H Smith includes all sorts of undertakings and in it the employers
    "reaffirm their statement … that they will continue to pay current premium rates of pay to Sunday employees … that they would only require employees to give one month's notice of their intention to opt out of Sunday work … that they would incorporate the right to opt out of Sunday work into employees' terms and conditions of employment … that they would endeavour to make the opting-out procedure as simple as possible … that where an existing shop worker opts out of Sunday work the employer will use his/her best endeavour to reschedule the employee's lost working hours elsewhere subject to the needs of the business."
    Interestingly, the agreement also states that if the
    "standard working week for shop floor employees shall not exceed 39 hours … hours worked in excess of this will be paid at currently agreed rates."
    Because of that agreement, Mr. Connor exhorts the House to give a speedy passage to the Bill and asks us all to vote for the Third Reading.
    That is an interesting letter from an erstwhile opponent of Sunday trading and the change has come about because USDAW has sensibly responded to the needs, desires and

    361
    wants of its members. Many of them work in large shops which, if the amendment were passed, would be forced to close.
    We must lay to rest the question of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I shall quote in full a paragraph in the letter from Mr. Nigel Matthews, the group secretary of Sainsbury, which I am sure hon. Members have received. It states:
    "I understand that during the debate on the Sunday Trading Bill this Wednesday there may be some who will seek to link the provisions of the Deregulation Bill to Sunday trading. I would like to make Sainsbury's position clear on this issue. While we generally welcome deregulation, we would not expect to make any significant changes in our trading hours. Our trading hours reflect the needs of our customers, and we have no evidence from our current trading patterns that there is a widespread wish for people to shop extended hours on weekdays."
    In her excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) advanced the case for rejecting the amendments and said that few housewives will wish to shop between 8 o'clock in the evening and midnight.
    Mr. Alton: By saying that he hopes that we will negative the amendments, the hon. Gentleman implies that he opposes them all. Will he confirm that he is in favour of shops opening on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday and on Easter day, as that is one of the amendments on which we shall vote?
    Mr. Couchman: I think that very few shops will open on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday and that, in general, very few, apart from convenience shops which presently open, will do so on Easter day.
    These wrecking amendments of whatever strand should be opposed. I include the intriguing amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). That amendment would interest only a limited number of large shops. I suspect that it would suit the John Lewis group, which would wish to open its Waitrose supermarkets but not its major stores. That may be where the idea came from.
    I was intrigued that we were offered a mornings-only option this time when on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) offered an afternoon-only option for the opening of large shops.
    If these substantial amendments are approved, they will stop many do-it-yourself stores, garden centres and supermarkets opening. That would be a tragedy for do-it-yourself stores and garden centres because it would deprive many people of the opportunity to buy the goods that they want for their leisure time on Sundays.
    Sir Roger Moate: I apologise for not being here for part of the debate. I was here when my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) moved his amendment and I place on record my strongest possible support for it. If by some mischance it should fall, I shall support the mornings-only option. I urge the House to take this opportunity once again to try to maintain, as far as we can in this day and age, the special qualities of our Sunday.
    My hon. Friend and good neighbour the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said that these are wrecking amendments. That is nonsense and fails to understand the nature of the legislative procedures of the
    362
    House. Some people in the House and outside suggest that when the House has taken one vote its will has been expressed for good and all and thereafter anybody who seeks to change or amend that decision is flouting the will of Parliament. That is nonsense and I hope that every hon. Member understands that.
    The will of the House or of Parliament is tested only when legislation has passed through all its stages in both Houses and has been tested in Committee and by the resolve of the House being tested in every possible way. Our measures are law only when they receive Royal Assent. It is quite right and proper that at every stage in this House, including Third Reading, and in another place, hon. Members should seek to change the legislation in any way they can. That is exactly what we are trying to do, and rightly so, and we shall continue to do so.
    I place on record again my sadness and disappointment that we did not vote to keep Sunday special. I hope that subsequent events will have persuaded enough hon. Members to take this further opportunity to prevent us from going down that sad road.
    9.30 pm
    Listening to some of the arguments that we have heard before—it is not right to rehearse them again today—one would feel that we are simply arguing about the checkout in Tesco in 1994. It is much more than that; we are arguing about the nature of the society that we have inherited and what we pass on to future generations. The decision that we make today on the vote and the legislation is about much more than the retail war of the 1980s and 1990s—the DIY war and the superstore war. We are making a decision that will outlast all those factors and will influence our society for 100 years to come.
    When we open up Sunday trading without any regulation, although none of us can forecast what will happen tomorrow or the day after, it is a reasonable assumption that in years to come Sunday will be exactly the same as every other day of the week. That is the decision that we are taking and we should not take it lightly or throw away the opportunity to say that we wish to keep Sunday a quieter day and a special day, and to seize every opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I do not follow his assumption that Sunday will become like any other day. That is not the case in Scotland, where Sunday trading is allowed. There are those who say that Scotland is different from England and Wales, but we heard earlier in the debate that there is no restriction on Sunday trading in many states of the United States. In many of the states of New England, where there are small shops, Sunday is still a very different day, although there is derestriction.
    Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend has made that point on many occasions. It is a matter of judgment. I am talking not about Scotland, but about England and Wales; I am talking not about the United States, but about our society. We are trying to make a judgment about the shape of our society in years to come. I really cannot believe that, given the trend of events, if we open the doors to deregulated shopping, we shall not see the end of Sunday as we know it. Let us make a longer-term judgment for the future.
    It is self-evident that if we have total derestriction Sunday will cease to be a special day. Whether it is next year, in 10 years' time or in the lifetime of our children or

    363
    our children's children, that is the decision we are taking for our society and we should be very careful about what we are doing.
    Mr. Alton: I strongly support the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and draw his attention to the evidence that the Church of Scotland Church and Nation Committee gave to the Home Secretary, which made it clear that it believes
    "that the experiment in Scotland was not a success and was no model to be followed elsewhere."
    Sir Roger Moate: The House is now becoming familiar with those arguments.
    I wish to make one further point about small shops. The amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) appeals particularly because it allows the opening of small shops and prevents the opening of very large stores, but not necessarily garden centres.
    When my hon. Friends—I do not doubt their sincerity —say that they believe in maintaining small shops and defending rural post offices and then argue for total deregulation and for the high streets and the major supermarkets to be open all day Sunday, I begin to doubt their judgment. Frankly, the one major threat to the small shops are the major out-of-town centres and the large supermarkets. If we legislate, as we shall, to allow major stores to open six days a week, 24 hours a day, surely that will provide ample opportunity for shoppers to purchase goods at cheaper prices in supermarkets, if they wish.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that many small shops are on the brink, and that the Bill could push them beyond the brink?
    Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend is right. This is a turning point for many small shopkeepers. Unrestricted Sunday opening will deliver a tremendous extra power into the hands of major retailers and large supermarkets. I cannot believe that Parliament wants that to happen. Many small shops, such as rural sub-post offices, will face a further and greater challenge. We should be trying to help those businesses, which have suffered most damage in recent years, yet no one seems anxious to help them—save those who support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
    I hope that the House will take this late opportunity, seize the chance to back my right hon. Friend's amendment and send a message to the country that we will protect smaller shops, keep Sunday special and protect full-time jobs the rest of the week—albeit at the loss of some part-time jobs on Sunday.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Harry Cohen(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I missed the vote through no fault of my own. I came over from Millbank as soon as it was called, and arrived in good time; but there was a great logjam, and it was impossible to get through, although I pushed and shoved. May I urge you, Madam Speaker, to call off the Division and call another so that I can exercise my rights? This is very important, because many of my constituents have raised the matter with me and want me to vote on it.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just pointed out that he arrived on the premises, and in the precinct, in
    364
    time to vote. The fact that a lot of hon. Members are milling around is not the responsibility of the Chair. Hon. Members know that there are Divisions tonight, and they should know which Lobbies they are going to go into. I have watched the clock very carefully, and I am not prepared to have a recount. I caution hon. Members that Divisions are taking place; they must know which Lobby they are going to enter, and they must be prepared to do so. That is the end of it.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I arrived on time, and it was impossible to get through the Lobby, although I was here a good two minutes before the doors were locked. My constituents, too, want me to vote consistently, as I have voted before.
    Madam Speaker: The system has been functioning in the House for many years. Very seldom do Members of Parliament find it impossible to get into the Division Lobby of their choice, and I am not prepared to accept that as an excuse tonight, simply because Members of Parliament are standing around. Let me repeat that hon. Members know the way in which they will vote on these issues. The Chair has kept the Division Lobbies open for the appropriate time and hon. Members are responsible for themselves.
    Mr. Alton(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you ask the Serjeant at Arms to conduct an inquiry into the way in which— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sit down.
    Mr. Alton(seated and covered): Once the vote has been concluded, Madam Speaker, will you ask the Serjeant at Arms to give you a report about the scenes outside the Lobby? You were not able to observe those scenes, Madam Speaker, but some of us did, and they were more reminiscent of the Portobello road than of the House of Commons. They clearly prevented some hon. Members from exercising their right to vote. We hope that you will ensure that there is no repetition of those scenes when the next vote is taken, on the exclusion of Christmas day and Easter Sunday from the provisions of the Bill, and on whether people should be able to shop on those days.
    Madam Speaker: Of course, if it is necessary. Are there any more points of order?
    Mr. Tim Renton(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman looks far smarter like that, if I may say so.
    Mr. Renton(seated and covered): With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker, I have voted in the House on many occasions, over quite a few years. When I arrived in the Lobby just outside to vote just now, there was a considerable scrimmage, and it was very hard to get through to the No Lobby. People were explaining which way to go. I must say that I think that the Division should be recalled on account of the amount of pressurising and lobbying that was going on outside. I found it impossible to get through to the No Lobby.
    Madam Speaker: I am very surprised indeed to hear that hon. Members did not know which way to vote and were being persuaded. I am waiting for the Tellers to deliver the figures.
    Mr. Quentin Davies(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have succeeded in voting this evening, but I was just in the Dining Room when the Division began. There has been a new factor during the past few months. It is perfectly true that, for years and years, Members have managed to get into the Division Lobbies on time. There is a new factor. From 7 Millbank, where I have my office, it takes at least six minutes, even without any—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am well aware of that factor. I have in fact paced it myself.
    The House having divided: Ayes 239, Noes 300.

    Division No.141]

    [9.36 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dafis, Cynog

    Ainger, Nick

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davidson, Ian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Alton, David

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

    Amess, David

    Day, Stephen

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dixon, Don

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dobson, Frank

    Ashton, Joe

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Barnes, Harry

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Battle, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bayley, Hugh

    Eastham, Ken

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Enright, Derek

    Beggs, Roy

    Etherington, Bill

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bell, Stuart

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Evennett, David

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Benton, Joe

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Forman, Nigel

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blunkett, David

    Foulkes, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Body, Sir Richard

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Galloway, George

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gapes, Mike

    Burt, Alistair

    Garrett, John

    Butterfill, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Byers, Stephen

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caborn, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Graham, Thomas

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Grocott, Bruce

    Churchill, Mr

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Clapham, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hall, Mike

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clelland, David

    Hanson, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Hardy, Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Corbett, Robin

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hoey, Kate

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Home Robertson, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cox, Tom

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    366

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Illsley, Eric

    Pawsey, James

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jessel, Toby

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Reid, Dr John

    Keen, Alan

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Rogers, Allan

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rooney, Terry

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lewis, Terry

    Sheerman, Barry

    Litherland, Robert

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Livingstone, Ken

    Simpson, Alan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Loyden, Eddie

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    McAllion, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    McCrea, Rev William

    Spearing, Nigel

    Macdonald, Calum

    Speller, John

    McFall, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Maclennan, Robert

    Spink, Dr Robert

    McMaster, Gordon

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Madden, Max

    Straw, Jack

    Maginnis, Ken

    Sumberg, David

    Mahon, Alice

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mates, Michael

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Meacher, Michael

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Michael, Alun

    Vaz, Keith

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Mills, Iain

    Wallace, James

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Walley, Joan

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Wareing, Robert N

    Morley, Elliot

    Waterson, Nigel

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Mudie, George

    Winnick, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Wise, Audrey

    Murphy, Paul

    Wolfson, Mark

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Wray, Jimmy

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. Bill Olner and

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Mr. Michael Lord.

    Patchett, Terry

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Austin-Walker, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Barron, Kevin

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bates, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bellingham, Henry

    Atkins, Robert

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Betts, Clive

    367

    Blair, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gorst, John

    Bowis, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boyes, Roland

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bradley, Keith

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gunnell, John

    Bright, Graham

    Hague, William

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Harris, David

    Burden, Richard

    Harvey, Nick

    Burns, Simon

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butcher, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Butler, Peter

    Hawksley, Warren

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Henderson, Doug

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hendry, Charles

    Carttiss, Michael

    Heppell, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Clappison, James

    Hicks, Robert

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Horam, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

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

    Congdon, David

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Conway, Derek

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Couchman, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Cran, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hutton, John

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

    Ingram, Adam

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jack, Michael

    Darling, Alistair

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Janner, Greville

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Denham, John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jowell, Tessa

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dover, Den

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dowd, Jim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Duncan, Alan

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dunn, Bob

    Knox, Sir David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Eggar, Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Legg, Barry

    Faber, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Leighton, Ron

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Fisher, Mark

    Lidington, David

    Flynn, Paul

    Lightbown, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Maclean, David

    French, Douglas

    McLeish, Henry

    Fry, Sir Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fyfe, Maria

    McWilliam, John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Madel, Sir David

    Garnier, Edward

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gerrard, Neil

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Malone, Gerald

    368

    Mandelson, Peter

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Marland, Paul

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Sims, Roger

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

    Maxton, John

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

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Soames, Nicholas

    Meale, Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Merchant, Piers

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Milburn, Alan

    Spring, Richard

    Miller, Andrew

    Sproat, Iain

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Steen, Anthony

    Moss, Malcolm

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Stephen, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stern, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    Norris, Steve

    Stott, Roger

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Streeter, Gary

    O'Hara, Edward

    Sweeney, Walter

    O'Neill, Martin

    Sykes, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thomason, Roy

    Page, Richard

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Paice, James

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Parry, Robert

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

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

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Tracey, Richard

    Pickles, Eric

    Trend, Michael

    Pope, Greg

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Tyler, Paul

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Viggers, Peter

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Rathbone, Tim

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Waller, Gary

    Rendel, David

    Ward, John

    Richards, Rod

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Riddick, Graham

    Watts, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whitney, Ray

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Willetts, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wilshire, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wilson, Brian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wood, Timothy

    Ruddock, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Sackville, Tom

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. John Marshall and

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Mr. Michael Fabricant.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 28, in page 3, line 37, after 'of' insert 'retail'.
    No. 56, in page 3, line 39, leave out from 'below' to end of line 43 and insert
    'or
    (b) any shop in respect of which a notice under paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act (shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish Sabbath) has effect'—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Schedule 1

    RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY OPENING OF LARGE SHOPS
    Amendment proposed, No. 38, in page 3, line 45, leave out from 'shop' to end of line 46 and insert—
    '(a) in respect of any Sunday other than a Sunday specified in sub-paragraph (b) below, before 1 pm, and

    369
    (b) in respect of any Sunday falling within the period in any year commencing with 27th November and ending with 24th December, before 4 pm.'.—[Sir John Hannam.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should be glad if the Serjeant would ensure that the Lobby doors are clear so that hon. Members are able to vote. I should like a report as soon as the Division is over.
    The House having divided: Ayes 258, Noes 308.

    Division No. 142]

    [7.50 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

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

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Day, Stephen

    Ainger, Nick

    Denham, John

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dixon, Don

    Allen, Graham

    Dobson, Frank

    Alton, David

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Amess, David

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Ashton, Joe

    Eastham, Ken

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Enright, Derek

    Barnes, Harry

    Etherington, Bill

    Battle, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beggs, Roy

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Evennett, David

    Bell, Stuart

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bendall, Vivian

    Faulds, Andrew

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Forman, Nigel

    Benton, Joe

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Foulkes, George

    Blunkett, David

    Fraser, John

    Boateng, Paul

    French, Douglas

    Body, Sir Richard

    Galbraith, Sam

    Boswell, Tim

    Gale, Roger

    Bowden, Andrew

    Galloway, George

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gapes, Mike

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Garrett, John

    Brazier, Julian

    George, Bruce

    Butterfill, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Byers, Stephen

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caborn, Richard

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Graham, Thomas

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Cann, Jamie

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Cash, William

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Grocott, Bruce

    Churchill, Mr

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Clapham, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hall, Mike

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hanson, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Hardy, Peter

    Connarty, Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Harris, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heppell, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hoey, Kate

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Home Robertson, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cox, Tom

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cryer, Bob

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davidson, Ian

    Illsley, Eric

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    370

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Jamieson, David

    Parry, Robert

    Jessel, Toby

    Patchett, Terry

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Pawsey, James

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Alan

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Randall, Stuart

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Reid, Dr John

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rogers, Allan

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

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Litherland, Robert

    Simpson, Alan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lord, Michael

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Luff, Peter

    Snape, Peter

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Spearing, Nigel

    McAllion, John

    Spellar, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McCrea, Rev William

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McFall, John

    Straw, Jack

    Maclennan, Robert

    Sumberg, David

    McMaster, Gordon

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McWilliam, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Madden, Max

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mahon, Alice

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Marek, Dr John

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Turner, Dennis

    Martlew, Eric

    Vaz, Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Walden, George

    Meacher, Michael

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Michael, Alun

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walley, Joan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Waterson, Nigel

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Watson, Mike

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Morley, Elliot

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Wilkinson, John

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Mudie, George

    Winnick, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Wise, Audrey

    Murphy, Paul

    Wolfson, Mark

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Wray, Jimmy

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Olner, William

    Sir John Hannam and

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. Hugh Bayley.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkins, Robert

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Ancram, Michael

    Austin-Walker, John

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Baldry, Tony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Ashby, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Barron, Kevin

    371

    Bates, Michael

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gallie, Phil

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Betts, Clive

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Garnier, Edward

    Blair, Tony

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Booth, Hartley

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyes, Roland

    Gorst, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bright, Graham

    Gunnell, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hague, William

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

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

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Burden, Richard

    Harvey, Nick

    Burns, Simon

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butcher, John

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Butler, Peter

    Hawksley, Warren

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Canavan, Dennis

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hicks, Robert

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clappison, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Horam, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Congdon, David

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Couchman, James

    Hutton, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Ingram, Adam

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

    Jack, Michael

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Janner, Greville

    Darling, Alistair

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Dewar, Donald

    Jowell, Tessa

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dowd, Jim

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan, Alan

    Knox, Sir David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dunn, Bob

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Eggar, Tim

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Leighton, Ron

    Faber, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lewis, Terry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lidington, David

    Fisher, Mark

    Lightbown, David

    Flynn, Paul

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forth, Eric

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maclean, David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    McLeish, Henry

    372

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Madel, Sir David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Malone, Gerald

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mandelson, Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Marland, Paul

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Marlow, Tony

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

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maxton, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Soley, Clive

    Meale, Alan

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Merchant, Piers

    Spring, Richard

    Milburn, Alan

    Sproat, Iain

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mills, Iain

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stephen, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stem, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stevenson, George

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Stewart, Allan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stott, Roger

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Streeter, Gary

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    Norris, Steve

    Sykes, John

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thomason, Roy

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Page, Richard

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Paice, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

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

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Tracey, Richard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pope, Greg

    Tyler, Paul

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wallace, James

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Waller, Gary

    Rendel, David

    Ward, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Richards, Rod

    Watts, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wells, Bowen

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whitney, Ray

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Willetts, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wilshire, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wilson, Brian

    Rooney, Terry

    Wood, Timothy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Worthington, Tony

    Ruddock, Joan

    Yeo, Tim

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Sackville, Tom

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Mr. John Marshall, and

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mr. Michael Fabricant.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
    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. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 3, line 46, at end insert—

    373
    "but this sub-paragraph has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4) below.
    (4) The exemption conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above does not apply where the Sunday is Easter Day or Christmas Day'.—[Mr. Alton.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 247.

    Division No. 143]

    [10.06 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Darling, Alistair

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davidson, Ian

    Ainger, Nick

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

    Allen, Graham

    Day, Stephen

    Alton, David

    Denham, John

    Amess, David

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Devlin, Tim

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dixon, Don

    Ashton, Joe

    Dobson, Frank

    Austin-Walker, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dover, Den

    Barnes, Harry

    Duncan, Alan

    Battle, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bayley, Hugh

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Beggs, Roy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bell, Stuart

    Eastham, Ken

    Bendall, Vivian

    Eggar, Tim

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Enright, Derek

    Benton, Joe

    Etherington, Bill

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Evennett, David

    Blunkett, David

    Fatchett, Derek

    Boateng, Paul

    Faulds, Andrew

    Body, Sir Richard

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Flynn, Paul

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Forman, Nigel

    Bowden, Andrew

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bradley, Keith

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fraser, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Burns, Simon

    French, Douglas

    Burt, Alistair

    Galbraith, Sam

    Butterfill, John

    Gale, Roger

    Byers, Stephen

    Gallie, Phil

    Caborn, Richard

    Galloway, George

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Garrett, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    George, Bruce

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Canavan, Dennis

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cann, Jamie

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Cash, William

    Gordon, Mildred

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Graham, Thomas

    Chapman, Sydney

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Churchill, Mr

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clelland, David

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hain, Peter

    Cohen, Harry

    Hall, Mike

    Connarty, Michael

    Hannam, Sir John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hanson, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hardy, Peter

    Corbett, Robin

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Harris, David

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Harvey, Nick

    Cousins, Jim

    Heppell, John

    Cox, Tom

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Cryer, Bob

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hoey, Kate

    Dafis, Cynog

    Home Robertson, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hood, Jimmy

    374

    Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hunter, Andrew

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Illsley, Eric

    Olner, William

    Ingram, Adam

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Parry, Robert

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Patchett, Terry

    Jessel, Toby

    Pawsey, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jowell, Tessa

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Randall, Stuart

    Keen, Alan

    Rathbone, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Reid, Dr John

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rogers, Allan

    Knapman, Roger

    Rooney, Terry

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

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Lewis, Terry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lidington, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Litherland, Robert

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Livingstone, Ken

    Simpson, Alan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lord, Michael

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

    Loyden, Eddie

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Luff, Peter

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McAllion, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Snape, Peter

    McCrea, Rev William

    Spearing, Nigel

    Macdonald, Calum

    Spellar, John

    McFall, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McKelvey, William

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McLeish, Henry

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclennan, Robert

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McMaster, Gordon

    Stephen, Michael

    McWilliam, John

    Stott, Roger

    Madden, Max

    Straw, Jack

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Sumberg, David

    Maginnis, Ken

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mahon, Alice

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Marek, Dr John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Martlew, Eric

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mates, Michael

    Turner, Dennis

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Tyler, Paul

    Meacher, Michael

    Vaz, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    Walden, George

    Michael, Alun

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wallace, James

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Walley, Joan

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Waterson, Nigel

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Watson, Mike

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Morley, Elliot

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (WY'nshawe)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wilkinson, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Mudie, George

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Mullin, Chris

    Winnick, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Wise, Audrey

    375

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wray, Jimmy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Ms Liz Lynne and

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mrs. Ray Michie.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Fisher, Mark

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Alexander, Richard

    Forth, Eric

    Ancram, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Ashby, David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Garnier, Edward

    Atkins, Robert

    Gerrard, Neil

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Baldry, Tony

    Gorst, John

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Hague, William

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Betts, Clive

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Blair, Tony

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Hawksley, Warren

    Bowis, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Boyes, Roland

    Heald, Oliver

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Bright, Graham

    Hendry, Charles

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hicks, Robert

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

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Burden, Richard

    Horam, John

    Butcher, John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Butler, Peter

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clappison, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hutton, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Jack, Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jamieson, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Janner, Greville

    Coffey, Ann

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Colvin, Michael

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Congdon, David

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Conway, Derek

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Key, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Cran, James

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Knox, Sir David

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

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Dewar, Donald

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Legg, Barry

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Leigh, Edward

    Dowd, Jim

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lightbown, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Faber, David

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Maclean, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Madel, Sir David

    376

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sims, Roger

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Malone, Gerald

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

    Mandelson, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mariand, Paul

    Soames, Nicholas

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Soley, Clive

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maxton, John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sproat, Iain

    Merchant, Piers

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Miller, Andrew

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Stern, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stevenson, George

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stewart, Allan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Streeter, Gary

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sykes, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Norris, Steve

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    O'Hara, Edward

    Thomason, Roy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thumham, Peter

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Paice, James

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

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tracey, Richard

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pope, Greg

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Viggers, Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Waller, Gary

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Ward, John

    Rendel, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Richards, Rod

    Watts, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wells, Bowen

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Willetts, David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wilshire, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wood, Timothy

    Rooker, Jeff

    Worthington, Tony

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Yeo, Tim

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sackville, Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mr. John Marshall and

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. Michael Fabricant.

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 29, in page 4, line 7, leave out from 'is' to 'medical' in line 8 and insert
    'not open for the sale of any goods other than'.
    No. 30, in page 4, line 14, leave out from 'is' to 'food' and insert
    'not open for the retail sale of any goods other than'.
    No. 31, in page 4, line 38, after 'Sunday' insert
    'for the serving of retail customers'.
    No. 32, in page 5, line 16, after 'of' insert 'retail'.
    No. 33, in page 5, line 30, at end insert 'retail'.
    No. 34, in page 5, line 32, at end insert 'retail'.—[Mr. Peter Lioyd.]

  Schedule 2

    PROVISION SUPPLEMENTARY TO SCHEDULE 1
    Amendments made: No, 55 in page 5, line 40, leave out '"Local authority" abd "shop" have' and insert '"shop" has'.
    No. 57, in page 7, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 9 and insert—
    '9.—(l) A person of the Jewish religion who is the occupier of a large shop may give to the local authority for the area in which the shop is situated a notice signed by him stating—

    (a) that he is a person of the Jewish religion, and

    (b) that he intends to keep the shop closed for the serving of customers on the Jewish Sabbath.

    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a shop occupied by a partnership or company shall be taken to be occupied by a person of the Jewish religion if, and only if, the majority of the partners or of the directors, as the case may be, are persons of that religion.
    (3) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by an authorised person that the person giving the notice is a person of the Jewish religion.
    (4) Where the occupier of the shop is a partnership or company—

    (a) any notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be given by the majority of the partners or directors and, if not given by all of them, shall specify the names of the other partners or directors, and

    (b) a certificate under sub-paragraph (3) above is required in relation to each of the persons by whom such a notice is given.

    (5) Every local authority shall keep a register containing particulars of the name (if any) and address of every shop in respect of which a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above has effect.
    (6) Any register kept under this paragraph—

    (a) shall be open to inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times, and

    (b) may be kept by means of a computer.

    (7) If there is any change—

    (a) in the occupation of a shop in respect of which a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above has effect, or

    (b) in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which such a shop is occupied, the notice shall be taken to be cancelled at the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the change occurred, unless during that period, or within such further time as may be allowed by the local authority, a fresh notice is given under sub-paragraph (1) above in respect of the shop.

    (8) Where a fresh notice is given under sub-paragraph (1) above by reason of a change of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above, the local authority may dispense with the certificate required by sub-paragraph (3) above in the case of any person in respect of whom such a certificate has been provided in connection with a former notice in respect of that shop or any other shop in the area of the local authority.
    (9) A notice given under sub-paragraph (1) above in respect of any shop shall be cancelled on application in that behalf being made to the local authority by the occupier of the shop.
    (10) A person who, in a notice or certificate given for the purposes of this paragraph, makes a statement which is false in a material respect and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
    (11) Where a person is convicted of an offence under sub-paragraph (10) above, the local authority may cancel any notice under sub-paragraph (1) above to which the offence relates.
    (12) In this paragraph—
    "authorised person", in relation to a notice under sub-paragraph (1) above, means—

    (a) the Minister of the synagogue of which the person giving the notice is a member,

    (b) the secretary of that synagogue, or

    (c) any other person nominated for the purposes of this paragraph by the President of the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews (otherwise known as the Board of Deputies of British Jews),

    "large shop" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to this Act, and
    "secretary of a synagogue" has the same meaning as in Part IV of the Marriage Act 1949.'.
    No. 58, in page 9, line 11, leave out from 'concerned'
    to end of line 33.
    No. 59, in page 9, line 37, leave out from second 'be' to 'includes' in line 41 and insert
    'a shop in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 above by the person who was then registered as the occupier of the shop; and the provisions of that paragraph in relation to the cancellation of such a notice shall have effect accordingly.
    (2) In paragraph 9(8) above, the reference to a certificate provided in connection with a former notice'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Schedule 3

    RIGHTS OF SHOPWORKERS AS RESPECTS SUNDAY TRADING
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 12, line 19, after 'Sunday' insert
    '(whether or not as a result of previously giving an opting-in notice)'.
    Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 22.
    No. 15, in page 13, line 18, leave out from 'means' to end of line 19 and insert—
    'for shopworkers working in shops in respect of which a notice under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 has taken effect and has not ceased to have effect the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given and for all other shopworkers the period of three months beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice was given'.
    No. 18, in line 19, at end insert—
    'Limitation on Working Hours on Sunday
    6A. No shopworker shall be employed on Sunday for more than eight hours and any provision in any shopworker'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.'.
    No. 19, in page 14, line 16, at end insert—
    'Right to enhanced pay for Sunday work
    9A. A shopworker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns in the case of shop work undertaken by him for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday or in the case of a shopworker required to work only on a Sunday, at a rate of pay which exceeds that earned by a shopworker carrying out similar shop work for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday.'.
    No. 61, in line 16, at end insert—
    '9A.(1) A shopworker working in a large shop on a Sunday shall be remunerated at twice the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.
    (2) A shopworker working in any shop other than a large shop on a Sunday shall be remunerated at one and a half times the hourly rate applicable on a weekday to that job.
    (3) A complaint by a shopworker that he has not been remunerated as required by sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
    (4) An industrial tribunal shall not entertain a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which there occurred the action complained of, or where that action is part of a series of similar actions, the last of those actions, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the period of three months.
    (5) Where on a complaint under sub-paragraph (3) above an industrial tribunal finds that the employer has failed to pay a shopworker the whole or part of the amount thereby required to be paid, the tribunal shall order the employer to pay the employee the amount which it finds due to him.
    (6) Compensation payable under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not exceed the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the 1978 Act.
    (7) In this paragraph, "large shop" has the same meaning in relation to a shop in this Schedule as it has in relation to a shop in Schedule 1.'.
    Government amendment No. 23, and amendment No. 21, in page 16, line 33, at end insert—
    '14A The extent of any failure by an employer to remunerate a shopworker as required under paragraph 9A above shall be regarded as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of that shopworker and the relevant provisions of Part I of the Wages Act 1986 shall accordingly apply in respect of that failure.'.
    Mr. Lloyd: The amendment fulfils another commitment that I made in Committee. It makes explicit on the face of the Bill that the right to opt out of Sunday working subject to three months' notice is a continuing one. It removes any room for doubt that workers who opt into Sunday working retain the right to opt out subsequently if they wish to do so. The only limitation to that right will be the requirement to give employers three months' notice. Workers may opt in and out again on future occasions if they are so minded. I hope that the House will support the amendments.
    I also undertook to introduce amendments that specify how shopworkers will be informed of their statutory rights under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 do that by requiring employers to provide all new shopworkers and existing shopworkers opting in with a form describing their right to opt out at three months notice and advising them how they can appeal to a tribunal if they are dismissed for doing so or are treated detrimentally for that reason. The employer must provide each worker involved with the explanatory statement within two months. If he or she does not, the period of notice that the employee may give: if he or she wishes to opt out drops to one month. I hope that those amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
    Earlier in the debate, reference was made to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and the power contained in it to repeal protection in a schedule—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Pike rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. A Minister at the Dispatch Box is trying to explain the amendments and the House should come to order.
    Mr. Pike: That is exactly my point of order, Madam Speaker. Although the Minister has a loud voice. it is extremely difficult to hear what is being said.
    Madam Speaker: Absolutely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well hon. Members saying "Hear, hear"—I wish that they would obey my blandishments.
    Mr. Lloyd: I was talking about the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I promised the House earlier that I would return to that subject and it is now germane to the amendments under discussion. That Bill has only just begun its progress through the House. Primary power to alter by order primary legislation is available in that Bill only to get rid of burdens on business. It cannot be used to get rid of necessary protections. We have included in schedule 3 provisions to protect shopworkers precisely because we consider such protections to be necessary.
    The Government and I do not believe that a future Government or Parliament would take a different view —such an idea is far fetched. It is not possible for one Government or Parliament to speak for future ones. If a future Government or Parliament sought to use the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, once enacted, to
    380
    dismantle the protections in schedule 3, that could be a matter for the courts. The legitimacy of any order is finally a matter for the courts, not Ministers, to decide. As I am not a court, all that I can tell the House with authority is that the Government regard the protections in schedule 3 as necessary protections which should not be changed by order.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), if any order that is introduced under the deregulation Bill is debated, it must be debated in the Chamber under the affirmative procedure. I think that that is an academic point. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Ms Ruddock: First, may I respond to the amendments which the Minister moved? As he noted, they respond in part to concerns that we raised in Committee and we are more than willing to support them because they give force to our concerns.
    I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19 and 21. During the last day of our Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) proposed an amendment that sought to reduce the notice period for all shopworkers who opt out of Sunday working from three months to one month. He made the valid point that three months could be too long a period to keep an unhappy worker doing Sunday duties when he or she had chosen to opt out.
    In responding, the Minister made much of the fact that, although large stores with significant numbers of employees could be expected to cope with only one month's notice of opting out, small shops, particularly specialist shops, could not. We have taken that point to heart and tabled amendment No. 15 to accommodate it. It seeks to provide that those who work for large shops covered by the Bill's registration provisions should be required to give only one month's notice of opting out and that those who work for small shops and other shops covered by the Bill should give three months' notice, as proposed by the Government.
    Since our last debate, further ammunition to support our cause has been provided by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has struck a voluntary agreement with the Argyll group, Asda, Boots, Dixons, Kingfisher, Sainsbury, Tesco and W. H. Smith to the effect that only one month's notice of opting out will be required by those big companies. That agreement significantly undermines the Government's case and removes most of the objections to which the Minister alluded in his previous contributions. I hope that he will now be minded to reconsider and support our new amendment.
    At the heart of the debate about Sunday trading has been the acceptance by virtually all hon. Members that Sunday is different from other days of the week. Most hon. Members have expressed some support for trying to preserve something of the special nature of that day. The Government have had to concede the special nature of Sunday by making express provisions in the Bill to limit large shops' trading to six hours and providing for an opting-measure by which employees can refuse to work on Sundays if they object to doing so.
    If a significant number of people are to work on Sundays, albeit voluntarily, in the retail trade, it therefore follows that the House should consider their pay and conditions. The six-hour trading period for large shops

    381
    may have created the impression that shopworkers are likely to be at work for only six hours and that the number of hours that they will work will automatically be limited. As we discovered in Committee, that is not so. Large shops covered by the registration scheme will require their workers to be in post for at least six and a half hours and possibly even more because they must set up the tills, fill the shelves and carry out shutting-up procedures at the end of the six-hour trading period.
    While that is the case for large shops, the Bill enables small shops to open for unrestricted hours on Sundays. It therefore follows that workers in small shops may be required to work for an unrestricted number of hours. That is inappropriate and at odds with the special nature of Sundays, so we have tabled an amendment to limit the hours of all shopworkers on Sundays to eight hours.
    That cannot be an inconvenience or be against the financial interests of any shops that trade on Sundays. Eight hours is sufficient for any worker and if small shops open for longer hours they must make appropriate arrangements. If working on Sundays is to be voluntary, people cannot be coerced into working for more than eight hours, whether it is in a small or a large shop.
    Shopworkers who work on Sundays must be remunerated in a way that takes into account the special nature of Sunday and the fact that workers have given up potential leisure time to be at work.
    From our discussions with employers, we have realised that the pool of shopworkers who are willing to work voluntarily on Sundays is drawn from people who find the present premium payments attractive. In Committee, the Government opposed our amendment to provide for double-time payments for Sunday workers—[Interruption.] All those Conservative Members who have spoken today in support of the special nature of Sunday, and who are commenting from a sedentary position on what I am saying, should be willing to vote for the amendment, which will provide for enhanced payments for those who work on Sundays.
    Mr. Lord: The hon. Lady knows full well that that argument will not wash with those Conservative Members who want to keep Sunday special. The only way adequately to protect the workers whom she wants to protect is to keep shops shut.
    Ms Ruddock: I could accept the integrity of the hon. Gentleman's argument if he had proposed that all shops should shut on Sundays and I could have supported that proposal. He and other hon. Members have proposed that some shops should open and others close. The very shops that the hon. Member would allow to open on Sundays are the small shops, which pay the lowest wages of all. His amendment and others tabled today, which propose a distinction between small and large shops, would not protect workers but would lose them their jobs in the large stores—the very stores that pay premium wages.
    As I was saying before I was interrupted, by rejecting our amendment proposing double-time payments the Government have failed to understand the link between premium pay and the voluntary principle.
    Before I came to this debate, I was lobbied by workers from my local Tesco—other Members may also have been. I asked them why they had come and why they had been
    382
    working on Sundays. They came to urge me to vote in favour of the Third Reading and they all said that they worked on Sundays for the money [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Conservative Members are agreeing with me, but they should bear in mind the fact that that money is based on a double-time payment on a Sunday. The payment of double-time wages has provided a group of workers who are voluntarily available to work on Sundays.
    The payment of premium wages in the larger stores has produced the demand and the basis for enhanced pay for workers in smaller shops. We remain convinced of the justice of making double-time payments to those who work voluntarily on Sundays.
    As I said in Committee, double-time payments are a long-established practice, which recognises the contribution of those who work anti-social hours. Despite Government measures, millions of workers who are legally working anti-social hours are receiving double-time payments. They include local authority and hospital workers and, indeed, civil servants.
    Notwithstanding our case for double-time payments, we have tabled amendment No. 19 in a spirit of co-operation and in an attempt to meet some of the Minister's earlier criticisms and the reservations of some supporters of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. The amendment calls for enhanced pay for Sunday working, but we would not have been able to table it in the absence of developments outside the House. Those developments are the direct result of our previous debates and the Government's rejection of our earlier amendments.
    Two days after the debate on employment protection in a Committee of the whole House, USDAW and the major companies participating in the Shopping Hours Reform Council campaign entered into a voluntary agreement on premium pay. That agreement would not have been reached but for the pressure for double-time payments that was exerted in the House. Before speaking about the agreement, I should like to tell the House about a survey of about 3,000 stores belonging to the SHRC member companies.
    Some 51 per cent. of the workers in the survey currently receive double-time pay; 18 per cent. receive on average 1·9 times the basic pay; and 27 per cent. receive rates varying between time and a half and 1·9 per cent. It is thus possible to say that 96 per cent. of those surveyed received between time and a half and 2·3 times basic pay. They all receive additional payments for working on Sundays and there can be little doubt that they are willing to work for that reason.
    If the arrangements in the Bill to enable voluntary workers to say no to working on Sunday are to have real force, the employers will have to continue to pay premium wages. That is the way to get people to volunteer to work. We are not fooled by commercial interests: we know full well the motivation of the companies involved. They are interested in their market share and in profit margins. Equally, no one can deny that when enhanced pay is on offer workers are willing and anxious to work on Sundays.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that when the system, if it is approved by the House, is up and running, many workers will be obliged to take Monday off in lieu of Sunday?
    Ms Ruddock: The hon. Lady's point is not pertinent to the case that I am making.
    Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that she understands the difficulties faced by workers in well-organised, large capitalist organisations. She spoke about the agreements reached by USDAW and the other unions with the large multiples for Sunday premium payments. Does she agree that those payments depend on trading conditions and that if those conditions worsen the payments will go out cf the window?
    Ms Ruddock: When I said that I was in no way fooled by the commercial interests and the motivation of companies, I said it advisedly. It is quite clear from all my contacts with companies and those who work voluntarily on Sundays that the workers consider that by working on Sundays they have a stake in those large companies. That is why we shall support the position taken by USDAW.
    The common practices that have been embodied in the voluntary agreements are important and the House should note them.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I am concerned that the voluntary agreernents should stick and, for that reason, I read them into the record tonight. The Argyll group pays double time; ASDA pays double time for full-timers and time and a half for part-timers; Boots pays between time and a half and double time; Dixons pays between 1.7 and 2.3 time, depending on
    384
    age and grade; Kingfisher pays between time and a half and double time, depending on grade; Sainsbury pays an average of 1.9 time; Tesco pays double time and W. H. Smith pays an average of time and a half.
    I believe that those companies, having made voluntary agreements with workers who work on Sunday, must stick to those agreements. If the Bill becomes law, we shall be watching carefully, as will their representatives in the trade unions, to see that they honour their promises.
    Having said that, I come to the Dispatch Box, as I did on previous occasions, to say that voluntary agreements are no substitute for the statutory agreements that we have sought. We are quite clear that, although we appreciate those agreements having been made and believe that they were made as a result of Opposition pressure for better worker conditions on Sundays, we would once again ask the House, and all those Conservative Members who have said that they are concerned about workers' rights, to support the amendments to ensure that the amount of time that people work on Sundays is limited to eight hours, that there is enhanced payment for those workers and that those payments, which are the rationale for their working, are the means by which we can ensure that people who work on Sunday do so voluntarily. I commend the amendments to the House and urge the Minister to reconsider.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: This debate follows closely those that we had two weeks ago in Committee. I shall therefore try to be brief, though there are some differences worth remarking.
    I am flattered that the hon. Lady was so obviously listening to what I said previously. Amendment No. 15, on the period of notice, seeks to encapsulate in statutory form what she took my meaning to be. She was right up to a point. I certainly did argue that no doubt some larger shops with larger staff could accommodate a shorter period of notice than many smaller shops with fewer staff. I am glad that Opposition Members recognise that there is such a distinction. I feel rather churlish that I cannot accept the revised proposal, much more realistic though it is.
    Some large shops would find that one month would cause genuine and unreasonable difficulty, especially those that require skilled and knowledgeable staff, such as garden centres and electrical shops. Many reputable traders, such as John Lewis, Burton, Unwins and Coolings nurseries, have explained that three months—not one month—could present their businesses with substantial problems.
    They obviously share some of the expectations that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—who, sadly, is not in his place—expressed in Committee when he said from his very different perspective:
    "There are many valid and important reasons"
    for an employee to want to opt out, including joining
    "a sports team or a social club, which has its main event on a Sunday."—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 329.]
    People may well want to drop Sunday working for such reasons, but they are considerably less likely to change their job altogether. There are many reasons, as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill explained, why people might want to opt out of Sunday working and we can sympathise with them, but we should also consider the interests of the employer.
    The employee is getting a new, long-lasting, special right to opt out. The employer also needs consideration. He has his business to run and he needs sufficient notice from employees opting out to do so properly. The law ought to provide the minimum manageable for reasonably efficient employers, in all their difference sizes, varieties and circumstances. Better placed employers—the hon. Lady mentioned some—will be able to improve on three months. I am glad that many leading members of the SHRC guaranteed less than three months—one month, in many cases. Other employers are not so well placed. I am sure that they will seek to do better, when they can, for valued employees who give good service or in emergencies. In the latter case, I hope that all employers will improve on the one month's notice that the Opposition would write into the Bill. In a real emergency, one month can be far too long. For statutes, I remain convinced that the right length of notice should remain three months. I hope that the House will agree.
    10.45 pm
    We also gave the content of amendment No. 18 a thorough airing in Committee and I shall not weary the House by rehearsing that debate. I see no virtue in putting a limit on the hours of Sunday shop work when, rightly, it does not apply to weekdays or in other areas of business and commerce. I can imagine some employees working in
    386
    large shops regretting that opening and earning hours will be as short as they will. Equally, I accept that some employees in small shops would find the eight-hour limit that the hon. Lady proposes longer than they would ideally like.
    Whether or not to work on Sunday in a particular job, for a particular length of time, should be the choice of the worker. I see no justification for suddenly obliging a small shop such as a newsagent, which has for years legitimately opened from 8 am until 5 pm on Sunday, to shut at 4 pm to the annoyance of his customers, or to employ another worker for the extra hour. The Opposition have not begun to make their case for amendment No. 18, and I hope that the House will reject it.
    When we discussed pay a fortnight ago, the issue was double pay—pure and simple, and a real and full-blooded one. Amendment No. 19 takes the form of an anaemic shadow called enhanced pay. It is not a weighty amendment, because its terms could be met if the employer paid a premium of no more than 1p an hour for Sunday work.
    Amendment No. 61 is half full-blooded, with double time to be paid by large shops, and time and a half by small shops. I am grateful to the Opposition for half listening to me. Of course it would be easier for profitable large shops to pay higher wages than for many small shops, but that is not an inviolable rule to be written into the statute. Some large shops are not highly profitable. Garden centres, for example, often operate on small margins, while some small shops are extremely profitable.
    It is hard on a shop of 3,050 sq ft to have to shut after six hours on Sunday when its rival of only 2,900 sq ft can remain open, and it would be most unfair to add an obligation on the larger shop to pay double time when its competitor can satisfy the law with time and a half. Employers and employees must, in their joint long-term interests, be free to make their own arrangements on wages —taking into account the circumstances of the particular business, requirements for flexibility and different incentives for different parts of the day, different days of the week and different parts of the country.
    I am glad that many large profitable shops are committed to paying premium rates, but I cannot advise the House other than to vote against the amendments, which would have the effect of driving some shops out of business or preventing them from opening on Sunday if they wanted to do so. Either way, there would be fewer jobs. Wage-fixing would prove the enemy of employment while reducing the range and quality of retail services available to the public.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Rarely can I say that I share the Minister's opinions, particularly in respect of amendment No. 19. There might have been a printing error, because my name is among those associated with that amendment. I would not have supported it, and I share the Minister's view that it gives nothing by way of an enhanced payment to persons working on Sunday.
    I am speaking to amendment No. 61 on the basis that it is one of the most important amendments to be considered by the House today. It would introduce a statutory right —I emphasise statutory—for double-time payments for shopworkers employed on Sundays in shops of more than 3,000 sq ft, and a half payment for shopworkers employed in smaller shops. Having laid out the main arguments in

    387
    support of the amendment, I shall explain why I have drawn the distinction between the rate that is being set for shopworkers in large and small shops.
    Although in principle I and my hon. Friends would argue that all shopworkers should be remunerated alike on Sundays, we must take into account the enormous financial pressures that are imposed on small shops. Evidence supplied to us by Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs —OPEN—and by an independent research company reveals that many small businesses already face the threat of closure as a result of the growing trend towards out-of-town shopping centres. The introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which will remove all restrictions on weekday trading hours, poses another major threat to small shops. Fears have been expressed by small shops that the introduction of double-time premiums on Sundays will be the last straw for traders and will force them out of business.
    In response to the representations that we have received, I have introduced in the amendment a concession to small business in the form of time and a half payment as opposed to double-time. The amendment therefore represents a fair compromise for the retail sector.
    I now wish to present the main reasons why I am urging hon. Members today to vote in support of the amendment. Throughout the Bill's progress—indeed, before it was even published—hon. Members on both sides of the House asserted that enforceable and effective protection for shopworkers' rights must involve a central element in any reform of trading law. Hon. Members looking al. the Sunday Trading Bill may on first reading be impressed by the eight pages of employment protection provisions that are included in it. However, I warn hon. Members that, although those provisions appear principled, in reality they will offer extremely limited protection for shopworkers. The only way that the House can guarantee that all work done in shops on Sunday is voluntary is by supporting the amendment and introducing statutory premiums for Sunday work. I stress the importance of specifying a particular rate for shopworkers.
    Hon. Members will be aware of an amendment that was tabled by some of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, with my name attached, that seeks to introduce the right of shopworkers to be paid more on Sundays than they are throughout the week. With respect, that amendment is not worth the paper that it is written on. If passed, it would mean that shopworkers would be entitled to a penny, or even half a penny, extra for working on Sundays. Industrial tribunals would not have the jurisdiction to set a fair wage for shopworkers on Sunday. The livelihood of shopworkers would rather be solely dependent on their employers' generosity. If the House wishes to honour the rights of shopworkers and protect them from exploitation on Sundays, it is critical that hon. Members support the amendment.
    Hon. Members will no doubt be aware of the recent agreement made between USDAW—my union—and the SHRC companies which supposedly included premium rate pay for shopworkers on Sunday. I am astounded that a union with the experience of USDAW could be conned into believing that the agreement will be lasting and will offer anything to their members for the future. The agreement states that the stores would deviate only if there
    388
    were a significant change in the circumstances in which retail work was rewarded. The House and USDAW must open their eyes today to the reality that no shopowner or retail business will pay premiums once Sunday becomes deregulated.
    I urge hon. Members to support the amendment, to ensure that both retail workers and those employed in other parts of the labour market are in future guaranteed a decent standard of living that will provide for the needs of their families, including children.
    I know that hon. Members wish to proceed to a vote so that we can debate Third Reading and people can go home to their beds—if, that is, they are not stopped from doing so by candle-holding demonstrators outside. However, I want to refer to the whole issue of worker protection, including voluntary working and double-time payments on Sundays.
    We could reasonably have a longer debate on employment protection, but we had a lengthy debate on that subject when we discussed new clause 4, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase)—you were in the Chair then, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so there is no need to reiterate much of what was said then.
    I received a letter from William Connor, deputy general secretary of my union, USDAW, dated 10 September 1993. The union had supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign since 1986. Five months ago, it decided to send all hon. Members—but, in particular, sponsored Members— a letter about Sunday trading, providing an update on recent developments. It gave support, financial and otherwise, to my private Member's Bill—a two-year effort— to ensure that the Keep Sunday Special proposals were upheld in the House.
    The letter describes my Bill as "the Powell Bill". It says:
    "The Union fully supported the Powell Bill … that … contained the critical elements of worker protection, namely, voluntary working and double-time payments for all Sunday working. This position was endorsed by the 1993 Annual Delegate Meeting"
    which took place in May. To my knowledge, no other annual meeting of members has taken place, and no reversal of that opinion has ever been expressed. Only the executive committee of USDAW adopted a different policy. I mention the letter because the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has referred to USDAW on numerous occasions. If that decision had been reversed, we might not now be discussing what is virtually a Government Bill—supported by a number of Opposition Members, if by no one else. That needs to be investigated. Had it not been for the decision, more support would undoubtedly have been given to the Keep Sunday Special proposals, and we would have been debating them tonight.
    The deputy general secretary goes on:
    "On the 19th May 1993, at the meeting of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, I moved the following Emergency Motion, which was carried unanimously: Shop Hours Legislation and Workers' Protection.
    This NEC welcomes the further progress of Ray Powell's Shops (Amendment) Bill in the House of Commons on Friday, 14th May, when two of the Government's proposed options on total and partial deregulation were voted upon and decisively rejected by a large majority.
    It congratulates Ray Powell and those Labour MPs who have maintained a principled and consistent stand on sensible reform of shop hours legislation, including the critical elements of worker protection.

    389
    Given the level of exploitation amongst part-time workers, as graphically portrayed in last Monday's BBC Panorama programme, it believes that the worker protection measures of voluntary working and double-time payment for Sunday working embodied in the Powell Bill, which maintained cross Party support through all the Committee Stages, are the minimum safeguards required to protect shopworkers."
    That document was sent to me by the deputy general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers in September of last year, and was the policy of the Labour party until recent weeks, as I see it.
    When we saw extracts in the Sunday Shopper of a pact that has been made, in an article which was headed:
    "Handshake seals new Sunday pact"
    which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) mentioned earlier, the article did not tell us the small print that is recorded. I have sent a copy to all hon. Members so that they can read the small print. The small print is not about double time and not about protection for workers. Let me read what the small print says. It says that they—the employers—
    "reaffirm their statement of September 17th 1993 that they will continue to pay current premium rates of pay to Sunday employees. They will only deviate from this if there is a significant change in the circumstances in which retail work is rewarded and only after appropriate consultation. The employers recognise that a premium will be required to attract sufficient high quality employees for Sunday work."
    I take it, therefore, that anyone who was a party to that agreement will clearly understand that if they find that trading and profitability are not what they expect, the employers will do the same as they threatened to do with USDAW: they will rip up those papers and do away with 55,000 of the union membership. It is a blatant falsehood to try to present to the House the claim that they have made a pact and agreement that has protected 55,000 shopworkers.
    Let us bear in mind also that we are not only speaking about 55,000 shopworkers in Tesco, which is protected by USDAW; we are speaking about 2¼ million shopworkers, most of whom are not protected by any union.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that by his principled and consistent stand he has gained the respect of both sides of the House? His consistency stands in marked contrast to the behaviour of those people who have stood on their heads on that issue.
    Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and I will ensure that he is paired next week.
    I am convinced that I have given the House sufficient to think about—including the Minister. If Opposition Front Bench Members and the Labour party are not prepared to accept the Bill that the Government have presented to the House, without the qualified protection that we demanded in Committee, on Second Reading and in the special pleading on employment protection, I ask the House to support amendment 61.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I am pleased to support amendment No. 61, to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred. No one has worked harder than he to protect those who will suffer if the Bill is not amended again. I pay tribute to all that he has done before and during our consideration of the Bill. I shall say something in a moment about those who should have taken a little more notice of what he was saying.
    390
    Amendment No. 61 is far preferable to what I call the "ha'penny" amendment tabled by members of the Labour Front Bench, which would achieve premium pay at the minimal level of a ha'penny an hour. It is designed to secure double time in large shops and time and a half in smaller shops, and to do so on a basis that can survive, as opposed to the basis of the pact or agreement, which does not have that capacity.
    Let us be clear that we are not seeking protection only for shopworkers, many of whom do not belong to a trade union; the amendment would also be a disincentive to trade on Sundays. The intention is that those who are wondering whether to embark on Sunday trading should consider the fact that there is not sufficient trade to make it a profitable exercise overall and should therefore be deterred.
    If they embark on Sunday trading, they will almost certainly damage small shops in their area, and might even damage themselves. They might as well face the facts from the beginning and be presented with a financial disincentive at the outset. That is one of the purposes of the amendment.
    When the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said that she was not fooled by commercial interests, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. She and some of her colleagues did not support the Conservative Members who worked with some of us to try to ensure that shops did not open. By refusing to be around at the given moment, she created a situation in which she could not win on the vital employment protection amendments, but was bound to lose.
    Ms Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman help me and the House by telling us whether he voted in favour of the double time amendment that I moved on behalf of the Labour Front Bench in Committee of the whole House?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, I did, as far as I can recall.
    Ms Ruddock: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman's name does not appear in the record.
    Mr. Beith: In that case, I was not present—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House is getting restless, and I am having great difficulty in hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. If the House settles down, we can get on with the business.
    Mr. Beith: I clearly was not present.
    The essential point is that if all those who are concerned about people working on Sundays had been on the same Lobby on the crucial issue of whether shops open at all on Sundays, there would have been no doubt about the result, and the problem that we face now would not have been so acute. Amendment No. 61 may gain some support from Conservative Members—I hope it does—but it is not a gamble that the hon. Lady and her colleagues should have been prepared to take.
    As the hon. Member for Deptford mentioned individual votes, she may care to explain to me later why the leader of her party voted against keeping shops closed on Christmas day and Easter day, which I found extraordinary.
    We are debating Government amendment No. 35, but grouped with it are two other amendments: one, which stands in the name of the hon. Lady and her colleagues,

    391
    affords no significant protection; the other, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore, affords significant protection. If the hon. Gentleman is able to press that amendment to a Division, I urge hon. Members of all parties who are concerned about those who will be affected by the legislation to support it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 22, page 13, line 18, after 'means' insert
    'subject to paragraph 10A(2) below'.— [Mr. Peter Lloyd.].
    Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 14, line 16, at end insert—
    'Right to enhanced pay for Sunday work
    9A. A shop worker shall be entitled to remuneration from his employer in respect of shop work undertaken on a Sunday at a rate of pay which exceeds that which he earns in the case of shop work undertaken by him for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday or in the case of a shop worker required to work only on a Sunday, at a rate of pay which exceeds that earned by a shop worker carrying out similar shop work for that employer during his normal working hours on a weekday.'. —[Ms Ruddock.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 317.

    Division No 144]

    [11 09 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Coffey, Ann

    Ainger, Nick

    Cohen, Harry

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Connarty, Michael

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Alton, David

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corbett, Robin

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Ashton, Joe

    Cousins, Jim

    Austin-Walker, John

    Cox, Tom

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cryer, Bob

    Barnes, Harry

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Battle, John

    Dafis, Cynog

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dalyell, Tam

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Darling, Alistair

    Beggs, Roy

    Davidson, Ian

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bennett, Andrew F.

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

    Benton, Joe

    Denham, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dewar, Donald

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Dixon, Don

    Betts, Clive

    Dobson, Frank

    Blair, Tony

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Blunkett, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Boateng, Paul

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Boyes, Roland

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bradley, Keith

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Eastham, Ken

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Enright, Derek

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

    Etherington, Bill

    Burden, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Byers, Stephen

    Fatchett, Derek

    Caborn, Richard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Callaghan, Jim

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Cann, Jamie

    Foulkes, George

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Fraser, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clapham, Michael

    Galbraith, Sam

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Galloway, George

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clelland, David

    Garrett, John

    392

    George, Bruce

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Martlew, Eric

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Maxton, John

    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)

    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

    Hoyle, Doug

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hutton, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Illsley, Eric

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ingram, Adam

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jamieson, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Janner, Greville

    Prescott, John

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Rendel, David

    Jowell, Tessa

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Keen, Alan

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Rogers, Allan

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rooney, Terry

    Leighton, Ron

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Lewis, Terry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Litherland, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Liwyd, Elfyn

    Sheerman, Barry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Short, Clare

    McAllion, John

    Simpson, Alan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCrea, Rev William

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Macdonald, Calum

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

    McFall, John

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

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    McLeish, Henry

    Snape, Peter

    Maclennan, Robert

    Soley, Clive

    McMaster, Gordon

    Spearing, Nigel

    McWilliam, John

    Speller, John

    Madden, Max

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Maginnis, Ken

    Stevenson, George

    Mahon, Alice

    Stott, Roger

    Mendelson, Peter

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Marek, Dr John

    Straw, Jack

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    393

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Trimble, David

    Wilson, Brian

    Tyler, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Vaz, Keith

    Wise, Audrey

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Worthington, Tony

    Walley, Joan

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Wareing, Robert N

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Watson, Mike

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mr. Denis Turner and

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Mr. Jack Thompson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Couchman, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Cran, James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

    Amess, David

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Ancram, Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Day, Stephen

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Ashby, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Robert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dover, Den

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Duncan, Alan

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Baldry, Tony

    Dunn, Bob

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bates, Michael

    Eggar, Tim

    Batiste, Spencer

    Elletson, Harold

    Bellingham, Henry

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evennett, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Faber, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bowden, Andrew

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bowis, John

    Fishbum, Dudley

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Forman, Nigel

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Brazier, Julian

    Forth, Eric

    Bright, Graham

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    French, Douglas

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Burns, Simon

    Gale, Roger

    Burt, Alistair

    Gallie, Phil

    Butcher, John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Butler, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Butterfill, John

    Gamier, Edward

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gill, Christopher

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Carrington, Matthew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Cash, William

    Gorst, John

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Churchill, Mr

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Clappison, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    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 Forst)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Harris, David

    394

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hawkins, Nick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hawksley, Warren

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heald, Oliver

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hicks, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Norris, Steve

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Horam, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Page, Richard

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

    Paice, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jack, Michael

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jessel, Toby

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Key, Robert

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knapman, Roger

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Ryder, Rt Hon

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Richard Sackville, Tom

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

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Knox, Sir David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    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

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lidington, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lightbown, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lord, Michael

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Luff, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Sproat, lain

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stem, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Stewart, Allan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Streeter, Gary

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    Malone, Gerald

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mans, Keith

    Sykes, John

    Marland, Paul

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Merchant, Piers

    Thumham, Peter

    Mills, lain

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Tracey, Richard

    395

    Tredinnick, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Trend, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Wilkinson, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Willetts, David

    Walden, George

    Wilshire, David

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waller, Gary

    Wood, Timothy

    Ward, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watts, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wells, Bowen

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Whitney, Ray

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 23, in page 15, line 3, at end insert—
    'Employer's duty to give explanatory statement
    10A.—(1) Where a person becomes a shop worker to whom paragraph 4 above applies, his employer shall, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which that person becomes such a shop worker, give him a written statement in the prescribed form.
    (2) If—

    (a) an employer fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to any shop worker, and

    (b) the shop worker, on giving the employer an opting-out notice, becomes an opted-out shop worker,

    paragraph 6 above shall have effect, in relation to the shop worker, with the substitution for "three months" of "one month".
    (3) An employer shall not be regarded as failing to comply with sub-paragraph (1) above in any case where, before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph, the shop worker has given him an opting-out notice.
    (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the prescribed form is as follows—

    STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RELATION TO SUNDAY SHOP WORK
    You have become employed as a shop worker and are or can be required under your contract of employment to do the Sunday work your contract provides for.
    However, if you wish, you can give a notice, as described in the next paragraph, to your employer and you will then have the right not to work in or about a shop on any Sunday on which the shop is open once three months have passed from the date on which you gave the notice.

    Your notice must—

    be in writing;

    be signed and dated by you;

    say that you object to Sunday working.

    For three months after you give the notice, your employer can still require you to do all the Sunday work your contract provides for. After the three month period has ended, you have the right to complain to an industrial tribunal if, because of your refusal to work on Sundays on which the shop is open, your employer—

    dismisses you, or

    does something else detrimental to you, for example failing to promote you.

    Once you have the rights described, you can surrender them only by giving your employer a further notice, signed and dated by you, saying that you wish to work on Sunday or that you do not object to Sunday working and then agreeing with your employer to work on Sundays or on a particular Sunday."
    (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the prescribed form set out in sub-paragraph (4) above.
    (6) An order under sub-paragraph (5) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
    No. 36, in page 16, line 32, after 'period' insert—
    '(in this paragraph referred to as "the contractual Sunday
    hours").
    No. 37, in page 16, line 33, at end insert—
    '(2) Where, under the contract of employment, the hours of work actually done on weekdays in any period would be taken
    396
    into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours, they shall be taken into account in determining the contractual Sunday hours for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.'
    No. 60, in page 17, line 3, leave out from 'for' to end of line 5 and insert
    "'by virtue of any provision of Part IV of this Act, other than section sixty-two, is" there shall be substituted "is lawfully". '—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I call for a Division on my amendment No. 61?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment was not selected by Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Powell: Could I have an explanation why?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker does not give explanations.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    11.25 pm
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    For many years the Shops Act 1950 has been acknowledged as needing thoroughgoing reform. I know of no other law that generations of hon. Members have tried so hard to repeal, revise or amend with so little success. It has taken this unique Bill to give the House the chance to break the pattern. It is by providing Parliament with the opportunity—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the House settle down? It is very difficult to hear the Minister speaking.
    Mr. Lloyd: It is by providing Parliament with the opportunity to choose between the major options for change that we have been able to take advantage of the belief on all sides of the House that, one way or another, Sunday must be sorted out and to begin to find our way through this complex and controversial issue.
    Although the Bill is a Government Bill, we have been neutral between the options and have helped evenhandedly the various campaigning groups in the preparation of their section of the Bill. Although Sunday trading is an issue which has aroused passionate feeling, our debates have been marked largely by good humour and much good sense, and I think that all of us who have taken part in it have valued—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be keen to listen to the Minister, but it appears that many of them are not. I should be obliged if they would listen.
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that we have valued the discussion, which has been so comprehensively and completely cross-party and has not followed the normal party political divide.
    Although our personal views on how far the law should regulate shop opening on Sundays have varied, there has been common ground. We have all recognised that the Shops Act 1950 has outlived its time and that we need a new law which is clear, respected, enforceable and enforced. We also all agree that, whatever our view of Sunday shopping, Sunday is a special day and that if shops are to open more freely on Sunday shopworkers who make Sunday opening possible should have a continuing choice as to whether to work on Sunday.

    397
    The party difference has been marked by the imposition of normal party Whips on matters related to employment terms and conditions, but party differences should not be allowed to obscure the comprehensive and radical arrangement that the Bill makes for present and future shopworkers to withdraw from Sunday working if that is their wish. In this respect, all shopworkers will have gained a continuing right, not a once-and-for-all choice, to decide whether they are available for work on Sundays.
    No matter how clear the law, it serves no purpose if it is ignored. The Standing Committee decided—in my view, rightly—to support an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) to increase the maximum fine for breaches of the law to £50,000. The House is indebted to him for that initiative. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) drew our attention to the position of leaseholders who might have been required to open on a Sunday even if they did not wish to do so because their lease required them to trade during normal business hours. I am grateful to her and for the opportunity to bring forward an amendment which I believe goes to the heart of her own and others' genuine concern on the issue.
    Likewise, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who raised the fears which we all understand of people living near large shops whose Sunday mornings could be disturbed by pre-breakfast deliveries. We have been able earlier this evening to give local authorities the muscle to ban all such deliveries from taking place before 9 am.
    I am grateful to all those who have worked constructively in Committtee and on the Floor of the House to improve the Bill, and I am grateful to the campaign groups, successful and unsuccessful, who worked long hours with my officials to refine and clarify their options. I wish particularly to mention the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), with whom I generally disagree, but whose tenacity and ingenuity in his cause I recognise and respect. I also mention with deepest respect my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), with whom I am more regularly in agreement on other issues. He has taken a close, continuous and highly principled part in our deliberations on the Bill wherever possible.
    All those efforts have produced a Bill that is not exactly what any of us would ideally want. All our experience shows that, on the subject of Sunday trading, differences within and between parties and in the country at large are too great for that to be possible. But we now have a Bill that is clear and enforceable and will commend itself to the majority of people in the country.
    Dr. Wright: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not give way.
    People want the muddle of Sunday trading to be sorted out after years of failed attempts, and I do not believe that they will readily forgive us if we miss the hard-won opportunity to do so. I hope that the House will give the Bill a resounding Third Reading.
    11.32 pm
    Ms Ruddock: Like the Minister, I intend to be brief and not to detain the House for long.
    The Bill has been difficult and controversial, not least because of the strong feelings held on both sides of the House, particularly in the Labour party. The Labour Front Bench team have been rigorously neutral on the options that have come before the House. We said from the outset that Labour Members would be free to choose and best represent their constituents as they saw fit. Our task was to unite our party around the issue of employment protection and, as the Minister acknowledged, it is on that issue that the House has been divided.
    Now that a decision has been taken on the options, with a limitation on large shops opening and liberalisation for small shops, if the Bill is given a Third Reading we shall expect those provisions to be rigorously enforced. [Interruption.] We can assure all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who interrupts from a sedentary position, that we shall be resolute in trying to ensure that the workers and our constituents are protected, and that the law is properly enforced.
    We sought throughout to improve on the employment protection conditions. We never said that it was necessary to have double-time payments, but we believed that it was vital to strive for those payments because they were the conditions under which workers were most likely to volunteer for Sunday working. We said that essential to any liberalisation in the Sunday trading laws was the right of existing workers to opt out of Sunday working and the right of future workers to say that they would not work on a Sunday. That provision is contained in the Bill.
    We wanted further to clarify that workers thus provided for could opt in and out more than once, and the Government accepted that request. We believed that it was necessary for workers to be absolutely clear about the rights that they would acquire under the Bill. Again, the Government tabled an amendment to meet our request. As the Minister acknowledged, we sought to deal both with the difficult issue of disturbance from deliveries and to protect leaseholders from being forced to open on a Sunday. Once again, our requests were met.
    I thank the Minister for the way in which he has worked to meet our requests and for the courteous way in which he personally has dealt with my requests at meetings with him. We have striven for more, however, and we shall remain at odds with the Minister over that.
    I join the Minister in thanking members of the Committee for the way in which they have worked and the speedy progress that we were able to make. I join him also in thanking the campaign groups, all of whom I dealt with and liaised with over a considerable period and with whom there were courteous exchanges.
    It remains only for me to assure the House that, while we have pursued the question of employment protection on party political lines, at this point on Third Reading Opposition Members are free to vote as they choose.
    11.34 pm
    Mr. Alton: I join the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) in thanking the Minister of State who, throughout the Committee proceedings and again tonight, has been a model of how any Minister should deal with Opposition spokesmen during proceedings on a Bill.

    399
    He has been courteous and, despite the fact that we have disagreed on many parts of the Bill and shall continue to do so, I thank him warmly for the way in which he has dealt with points that Members have made.
    My reservations about the Bill, which I expressed when the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) introduced his excellent private Member's Bill last year, have remained. As we have now reached Third Reading, I remain more concerned than ever about the nature of this legislation.
    For nearly 1,000 years, this country has had laws to regulate trading on Sundays. For the first time, we are to be without a regulatory framework. Before giving the Bill a Third Reading, the House should seriously consider the implications for family and community life. At a time when one in three families is collapsing and up to a million elderly people do not see a friend, relative or neighbour during the course of an average week, it should be clear to us that what is missing in today's society is time for people to spend with one another. In the absence of a traditional Sunday, people will not have time to spend with their families and visit elderly people or their children.
    We are putting an additional commercial and materialistic pressure on life. Our country is already sufficiently devoid of spiritual value and we should think carefully before giving the Bill a Third Reading as it will further suppress the spiritual nature of life in favour of materialism and consumerism.
    My other reason for urging hon. Members not to give the Bill a Third Reading revolves around the issue of employment protection. Labour Members can pride themselves that, throughout this century, they have Fought for the rights of ordinary working people. They must share my concern that, without proper protection for workers, double-time payments or any of the protections that we might properly expect for ordinary people, many hon. Members have nevertheless voted for legislation which, even before the minor amendment made earlier, may even require people to work on Christmas day and Easter day.
    What will happen to the 2.2 million retail workers, most of whom have no trade union protection—only some 300,000 or 400,000 of them belong to trade unions—as a result of the Bill? They will be exploited and will not have time to spend with their families, all in the name of so-called "choice." We should learn that choice should not become God.
    Whatever the vote this evening, the fight will not be over but will be resumed in the House of Lords. I hope that the Bishops' Bench will give the country a lead and that, when the Lords' amendments come here, the House will reject the Bill if it fails to do so on Third Reading today.
    11.38 pm
    Mr. Cryer: First, a number of hon. Members will oppose the Bill because they have a religious point of view. That is important, but it is not why I oppose it. I oppose the Bill because Sunday has been gained, for whatever reason, as a day of respite both for workers and for those who do not work. It is clear from the amendments proposed today, which sought to protect those who live near big supermarkets, that the pollution of noise and work will affect not only people who work on Sundays. If we want a reasonably though not entirely quiet Sunday, the Bill must be defeated on Third Reading.
    Secondly, it is clear that the protection that the labour Front Bench sought for workers has not been achieved. The
    400
    requirement for doube-time payments has gone. Workers will be given the alternative of a fairly complicated formula and will have to resort to industrial tribunals.
    In today's society, where work is short, workers will be frightened to stand up to management and there will be hundreds and thousands of dismissal cases if the Bill is enacted. There is no provision either in employment protection legislation or in the Bill for reinstatement and the compensation for unfair dismissal is paltry.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has shown principled determination, as have many Opposition Members, although not, I regret to say, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and women.
    On those two grounds, the Labour party should oppose this legislation. It does not support the workers or decent. quiet Sundays and I hope that enough hon. Members from both sides of the House will vote against the Bill to defeat it.
    11.40 pm
    Mr. Ray Powell: I shall be brief as I know that hon. Members want to vote. I must thank those people who helped me with my private Member's Bill. I was fortunate —if one can call it that—to be drawn third in the ballot immediately after the last general election.
    I must warn hon. Members not to get too excited if they are among the first 10 names to be drawn. They might think that they will be able to introduce a Bill that will be enacted, but they could spend the next 12 months working on it and find only frustration. If one is among the first 10, the Fees Office will send a cheque for £200 to help with legal fees and advice. If a private Member's Bill does not have the blessing or support of the Government, the hon. Member will have to pay for all the research and even, on occasions, for spare pens and envelopes and will receive little support.
    When I introduced my Bill the Government decided to set up a shops unit, made up of civil servants who were very helpful. The Clerks of the House and their assistants were also very helpful, as were you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other occupants of the Chair —
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very enjoyable, but the hon. Gentleman should refer to the Third Reading.
    Mr. Powell: Members on both sides of the House who supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign and its option on Second Reading also gave me great support. The Committee was very cordial—we did not take long over debates or make the sort of lengthy speeches that we have heard tonight from some hon. Members. The staff of the Keep Sunday Special campaign should receive special recognition for their consideration and their work.
    I must remind the House that hon. Members who devoted their time to trying get a Bill on the statute book and to alter the Shops Act 1950 did so primarily because we believe that we must keep Sunday as a special day. There was no ulterior motive, no cash incentive, just a belief that we should leave to our grandchildren and their grandchildren what we have enjoyed in our lifetime. If the Bill's provisions reach the statute book, this country will be deprived of that which is enjoyed by 300 million people in Europe. I repeat the advice of some of my hon. Friends —that hon. Members should vote against Third Reading and tell the Government that we do not want the Bill.
    11.44 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Earlier in our proceedings the Minister on the Treasury Bench was the Secretary of State for National Heritage. It is rather interesting that he is here to see the demise of a great English heritage, the quiet Sabbath, the Sunday well spent.
    As a member of a minority party in the House, I am happy to defend the Sabbath and the rights of workers. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) thought that we should not take part in the debate. I am glad that one hopeful measure was passed and that Easter day, the day of Resurrection, may yet herald hope for the nation.
    As some hon. Members have said, those who go to church will continue to do so, and I pray to God that we shall not rely too much, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) suggested, on the leadership of the Bench of Bishops to do much for the nation. We certainly cannot say tonight that the Anglican Church is the Tory party at prayer if that party continues to destroy some of the nation's heritage. I agree with those who say that we should go through the No Lobby rather than give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.
    11.46 pm
    Rev. William McCrea: I am another representative of a minority party in the House and I say without apology that my party will take its stand for the Lord's day. We believe that this country would be blessed if we took such a stand. Moving away from that and giving the Bill a Third Reading would be a retrograde step and could not bring the blessing of Almighty God upon this nation, as was sought in days that are past. Some hon. Members can be rightly proud of holding to that principle, even though they were frowned upon by other hon. Members for so doing. It was even suggested that some hon. Members had no right to speak in the debate, although we all have equal voting rights on this important legislation.
    I say especially to Opposition Front-Bench speakers that some people will live to regret the day they put their hand to such legislation. Many Opposition Front-Bench speakers joined with Ministers in nodding approval during our proceedings. They say that they are interested in workers' rights, but that will prove to be false because they built on a false and rotten premise. Front-Bench speakers will hang their heads in shame when it is proved that workers' rights have not been protected.
    One of the amendments suggested handing to workers a penny piece instead of genuine rights. I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say that I shall vote against Third Reading.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 218.

    Division No. 145]

    [11.48 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkins, Robert

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Allen, Graham

    Austin-Walker, John

    Ancram, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Baldry, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Barron, Kevin

    Ashby, David

    Bates, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Batiste, Spencer

    402

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Betts, Clive

    French, Douglas

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Blair, Tony

    Fyfe, Maria

    Boswell, Tim

    Gale, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gallie, Phil

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bowis, John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Boyes, Roland

    Gamier, Edward

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brazier, Julian

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bright, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gorst, John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burden, Richard

    Gunnell, John

    Bums, Simon

    Hague, William

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Butcher, John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butler, Peter

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harvey, Nick

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cash, William

    Hawksley, Warren

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hicks, Robert

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coffey, Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Colvin, Michael

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Congdon, David

    Horam, John

    Conway, Derek

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Couchman, James

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cran, James

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Darling, Alistair

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Hutton, John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Ingram, Adam

    Devlin, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Dewar, Donald

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Key, Robert

    Duncan-Smith, lain

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Tim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evennett, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Faber, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Legg, Barry

    Fisher, Mark

    Leigh, Edward

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Leighton, Ron

    Forth, Eric

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lidington, David

    403

    Lightbown, David

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sackville, Tom

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Maclean, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Sims, Roger

    Madel, Sir David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Soley, Clive

    Malone, Gerald

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mandelson, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marland, Paul

    Spring, Richard

    Marlow, Tony

    Sproat, lain

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Steen, Anthony

    Maxton, John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Stern, Michael

    Milburn, Alan

    Stewart, Allan

    Miller, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Mills, Iain

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thomason, Roy

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

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

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    Norris, Steve

    Trend, Michael

    O'Hara, Edward

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tyler, Paul

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Walden, George

    Page, Richard

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Paice, James

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Patnick, Irvine

    Waller, Gary

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Ward, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Pickles, Eric

    Waterson, Nigel

    Pope, Greg

    Watts, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirrat S)

    Wells, Bowen

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Whitney, Ray

    Rathbone, Tim

    Whittingdale, John

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rendel, David

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Richards, Rod

    Wilshire, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Wilson, Brian

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wood, Timothy

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Worthington, Tony

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Dame Angela Rumbold and

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mr. John Marshall.

    Ruddock, Joan

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Battle, John

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Bayley, Hugh

    Ainger, Nick

    Beggs, Roy

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bell, Stuart

    Alton, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Amess, David

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Benton, Joe

    Ashton, Joe

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Blunkett, David

    404

    Boateng, Paul

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Hoyle, Doug

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Butterfill, John

    Illsey, Eric

    Byers, Stephen

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Caborn, Richard

    Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Jessel, Toby

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Cann, Jamie

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Churchill, Mr

    Jowell, Tessa

    Clapham, Michael

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Clelland, David

    Keen, Alan

    Connarty, Michael

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Corbett, Robin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cousins, Jim

    Knapman, Roger

    Cox, Tom

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cryer, Bob

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dafis, Cynog

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davidson, Ian

    Lord, Michael

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Luff, Peter

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    McAllion, John

    Day, Stephen

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Denham, John

    McCrea, Rev William

    Dixon, Don

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dobson, Frank

    McFall, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McLeish, Henry

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dykes, Hugh

    McWilliam, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Madden, Max

    Eastham, Ken

    Maginnis, Ken

    Enright, Derek

    Mahon, Alice

    Etherington, Bill

    Marek, Dr John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Martlew, Eric

    Fatchett, Derek

    Meacher, Michael

    Faulds, Andrew

    Michael, Alun

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Flynn, Paul

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Forman, Nigel

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Foulkes, George

    Morley, Elliot

    Fraser, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Galloway, George

    Mudie, George

    Gapes, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Garrett, John

    Murphy, Paul

    George, Bruce

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Olner, William

    Graham, Thomas

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Parry, Robert

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Patchett, Terry

    Grocott, Bruce

    Pendry, Tom

    Hain, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hall, Mike

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hanson, David

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hardy, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Prescott, John

    Henderson, Doug

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Heppell, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Hinchliffe, David

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hoey, Kate

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hood, Jimmy

    Reid, Dr John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    405

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Trimble, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Vaz, Keith

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Walley, Joan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Simpson, Alan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Skeel, Sir Trevor

    Watson, Mike

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wise, Audrey

    Spellar, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wray, Jimmy

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Straw, Jack

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. Dennis Turner and

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mr. Jack Thompson.

    Question according agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Neil Latimer (Imprisonment)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
    12.1 am
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: The case of Neil Latimer, who was convicted with three others of the murder of Adrian Carroll in Armagh on 8 November 1983, is complex and disturbing. In the short time available to me, I hope to show that the continued imprisonment of Mr. Latimer, who has served just over 10 years of a life sentence for that murder, is unsafe and unjust. The importance of the issue is well illustrated by the attendance tonight, and the fact that the Secretary of State is on the Front Bench to reply. I am grateful to all.
    On the day of the murder, Neil Latimer was a member of a 13-man patrol from the Ulster Defence Regiment. Those convicted, now known as the UDR Four, have always maintained their innocence; the other nine members of the patrol have corroborated that. Moreover, the evidence of every witness called by the Crown, except for witness A, detracted from the prosecution case.
    Among those whose evidence was disregarded was the principal of the local further education college, a site engineer and a contractor engaged in road works in the area, a gardener who saw a car leave the scene at speed, a police constable on patrol in the street along which Neil allegedly made his escape, a neighbour of Mr. Carroll's, a workmate who walked a few yards behind Mr. Carroll on his way home, and Elaine Faulkner, who saw the killer.
    Yet the testimony of the alleged eye witness—witness A—was given greatest credence. Three of the UDR Four were freed almost two years ago as a result of an appeal, but Neil Latimer's appeal was dismissed, mainly on the ground that he alone had been identified by witness A.
    It was proved during the appeal that 39 pages of interview notes and alleged confessions had been rewritten by the police. On that basis, Messrs. Allen, Bell and Hegan were released, and a number of police officers are facing charges relating to tampering with evidence. I cannot elaborate on that matter as it is sub judice, but 16 of those 39 pages had related to Neil Latimer.
    When Mr. Carroll was murdered, no one saw the shooting, but Elaine Faulkner—now Elaine Dunn—an office worker out to post letters, gave evidence that, about 50 yards from the scene of the shooting, she encountered a man who brushed past her, then walked ahead of her for a few yards, before taking a gun from his pocket and going into the entry where Mr. Carroll was murdered. A few seconds later, Miss Faulkner heard shots.
    She went almost immediately to the police to report what she had seen and give a detailed description of the person she had seen go into the entry, including what he was wearing. She indicated that he was as small as or smaller than her own 5 ft 4 in. Later, in court, Miss Faulkner gave evidence that the gunman was not Neil Latimer, whom she knew well and who is about 5 ft 10 in tall. As a result of Miss Faulkner's description, the police next day issued an appeal for information, giving details of the gunman and what he was wearing. The case was reported widely, although not always accurately; the RUC continued to investigate.
    Then, two weeks after the incident, a new witness alleged—not to the police, but to two local priests—that she had seen a man, dressed in distinctive clothing similar

    407
    to that worn by the gunman, getting into a UDR. Land Rover a few minutes before the shooting. She identified the man as Mr. Latimer. The new witness was witness A. On 29 November 1983, Neil Latimer was arrested on the basis of the statement that witness A had given to the priests. As a result of questioning by the police, he made a number of statements over the next few days.
    Significantly, however, the actual confession that was ultimately used against Latimer in court was not made until after the police had, for the first time, formally interviewed witness A on 2 December. It is obvious from the content of the various statements that he made that Mr. Latimer was little more than putty in the hands of his interrogators, and concurred with almost everything that was suggested to him.
    Throughout the trial, witness A was found by counsel for the defence to be devious and inaccurate; but, as she was an alleged eye witness, it was important for her testimony not to be discounted. The trial judge, Lord Justice Kelly, stated:
    'The evidence of Mrs. 'A' is of the greatest importance to the Crown case against Latimer".
    That was despite his admission in the summing-up of the evidence that
    "Mrs 'A' did reveal inconsistencies in her evidence, mistakes, some faulty recollections, some contradictions, some inconsistencies between her evidence in court and what she said in her statements to Fr. Murray and to the Police. Many of these were labelled 'lies' by defence counsel. I need not set them out exhaustively. Here are some she undoubtedly hedged about admitting a conviction for larceny of a pound of butter in 1967, she was wrong as to when she came forward for the first time to Fr. Murray and to the Police, not 6 or 7 days and 10 days, but 14 days and 24 days respectively. She did not make her statement to Fr. Murray in the Parochial House, but in her own home. She did try more than once to telephone him. She was quite wrong in denying that she sought directory enquiries as to Fr. Faul's telephone number. The BBC 9.00 pm news contained no mention of the Carroll murder that evening and certainly not a description of the gunman or anyone running … She was confused as to how many soldiers in Lonsdale Street were about, or got into the Landrovers. She only assumed but did not see Latimer and the others getting into the back of the Landrover. She showed contradiction as to whether the Landrovers at the time had headlights on. She said they had back doors, but admitted that she could not see the back. She described the garment worn by Latimer as a dark brown anorak … Mrs. 'A' said the events occurred in Lonsdale Street in daylight, fairly bright, clearly visible, although the lights of the College were on and the headlights of the Landrover in one of her accounts were on …I have noted all the discrepancies, mistakes, inconsistencies referred to as 'lies' by the defence. I must say that these are all peripheral".
    It should be noted that the Land Rovers did not have back doors, and that the coat worn by the killer was a light blue duffel coat, but had been incorrectly reported in a local newspaper as having been a brown anorak. It is little wonder that Lord Justice Kelly pondered the matter when he asked:
    "Why should Mrs. 'A' invent her story? I have asked myself this many times during the course of this trial".
    He responded to his own question in saying:
    "I have interposed it to some defence counsel during their eloquent closing speeches. I have not found any reasonable answer other than that she is not inventing it, and that her story is true."
    There the matter might have rested if my secretary had not, on 31 July 1990, received a telephone call from someone who stated that he was Roman Catholic but knew that the UDR Four were innocent. He said he was
    408
    astonished that witness A, who he alleged was known for her exaggeration and lies, had been accepted as a credible witness.
    I investigated and was able to confirm that that was true. A few months later, I received, from an anonymous source, a copy of that lady's medical notes, which I asked a well-known and well-respected consultant psychotherapist, Dr. John Alderdice, who is also the leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, to evaluate.
    Dr. Alderdice's opinion is contained in the recent publication, "Witness for the Prosecution", which, with other booklets pertaining to the case, is in the Library. He confirmed that witness A had been a patient in St. Luke's mental hospital in 1964, and that she was recorded as imagining men running around her house with guns, trying to kill her. Let us remember that there was no terrorism or common usage of guns in Northern Ireland in 1964, or for long afterwards.
    Dr. Alderdice states:
    "she was described as being hallucinated and persecuted, and was felt by the admitting doctor to be a danger to herself and to her children".
    Later he records that Dr. McCallum, who was a doctor in the hospital,
    "notes that she had had an 'unstable upbringing' and expressed the view that 'this must have an effect on her future stability'."
    Dr. McCullum's assessment was:
    "Witness A was so given to 'fantasy' when telling her side of the story that it was hard to sort out the true story".
    The lady's husband, when interviewed, told how he had, for the first five years of their marriage,
    "defended her in what turned out to be lies".
    He discounts most of the stories that witness A told the doctors as being untrue. In one instance, she had said that her husband and she were both keen to move back from the country into the town, but he responded by saying that he had no intention of moving, that that sort of thing was typical of her, and that, if they did move, she would be unhappy again in a very short time.
    Dr. Alderdice points out:
    "It is worth noting that, in interviews with the husband, he is described as being co-operative, convincing and giving a good description of things."
    Alderdice's opinion, based on Dr. McCallum's assessment, is:
    "the evidence of her early history of 'rejection' by her mother, who died in childbirth, and her father, who abandoned her in a more active way would be very congruent with this type of disturbed personality construction, and Dr. McCallum's use of the terms 'Mixed Psychoneurotic Reaction', and then on the second admission, 'Psychopathic Personality', are again absolutely in line with such a picture.
    The material in these notes would therefore suggest a very unhappy and unstable woman with a disturbance of personality which would make her unreliable and difficult in relationships and the disorder is likely to be lifelong, though it may with certain circumstances be modified as she grows older, and with long-term phychological treatment".
    I would point out that the records show that witness A refused to submit to any long-term treatment.
    Dr. Alderdice concludes:
    "If the question is asked, 'Would such a patient be a reliable witness', I would have to give the opinion that, on the evidence of these notes, one would be advised to be extremely cautious in setting too much store by a witness with such a personality and history. Such a patient could be given to fantasies and stories that are more to do with her own wishes than with objective reality, as is pointed out a number of times in these notes".
    The idea of deliberate deception or conspiracy, which the trial judge had considered, appears to have been wide

    409
    of the mark, but he would have had no reason to consider the possibility of a psychiatric factor. Nor would the judges in the 1988 appeal.
    Like the trial judge, the 1988 Court of Appeal judges could have had no inkling of the contests of witness A's medical notes. The same applied to those people who sunsequently sat in the 1992 Court of Appeal. Here, Lord Chief Justice Hutton also ruled out comparison with other cases where confessions and interview notes had been tampered with when asserted:
    'The case against Latimer is completely different from the case against the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6 and Silcott, Braithwaite and Raghip. In the case against Latimer there is, for instance, the very important evidence of Witness A Which strongly confirmed his confession".
    Lord Chief Justice Hutton continued:
    "Accordingly the position is that either Witness A's evidence and Latimer's confession are incorrect or Mrs. Dunn's evidence is incorrect. Therefore, under section 2 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 the crucial question for this court is the following one: is it safe and satisfactory to uphold the conviction of Latimer on the basis that the Witness A evidence and Latimer's confession made on the night of 2nd/3rd December are correct and Mrs. Dunn's evidence is incorrect?… We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Dunn's evidence that the gunman was not Latimer and that the gunman was much smaller in height than Latimer is incorrect and that, in truth, Latimer was the gunman."
    However, Latimer's confession, like those of Allen, Bell and Hegan, has been wholly devalued because of the extent to which it has been rewritten and altered by the police, so the direct comparison falls between the evidence of Elaine Faulkner, who went to the police within minutes, and that of witness A, who did so 24 days later.
    Witness A, who knew Neil Latimer less well than Elaine Faulkner, had her evidence accepted that Latimer was wearing glasses and a tartan cap, although she had allegedly viewed him from a considerably greater distance than had Elaine Dunn, who had been within inches of the gunman.
    I have run out of time, but I argue that there should be a referral, again, of Neil Latimer's case to the Court of Appeal. I draw attention to the fact that well over 200 right hon. and hon. Members from every party in the House feel strongly enough about this apparent injustice to have signed early-day motion 525. I have personally spent too long as a soldier and a politician opposing terrorism to have devoted the past five years of my life to trying to obtain freedom for Neil Latimer without being convinced that he is the victim of a gross injustice.
    The reality is that, in this case, confessions were extracted in unreasonable circumstances, as was shown when Private Warton was found not guilty and discharged during the original trial. Notes and confessions were tampered with, as was shown when Allen, Bell and Hegan won their appeals. There has never been one iota of forensic evidence produced to link any of the UDR Four with the murder, and there is now serious doubt about the reliability of witness A's evidence.
    The latter, together with what has gone before and the way in which it conflicts with evidence given by others, must make us ask whether, if the death penalty still existed, we would send Neil Latimer to the gallows on the basis of the evidence given by witness A. If the answer is no, surely he should be freed and the necessary referral made to the Court of Appeal without any further delay.
    12.17 am
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has campaigned assiduously on behalf of Mr. Neil Latimer, and I welcome his success in securing this Adjournment debate.
    I shall explain at the outset my powers to refer a case to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland. They are the same as those available to the Home Secretary in England. I emphasise that the judgment about guilt or innocence in a criminal case has to be entirely a matter for the courts, and that Ministers cannot substitute their own assessments of the evidence in a case for that of the courts.
    However, I am always ready to consider representations about any alleged miscarriage of justice to see if there is a justification for using my power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, if necessary for a second time. Such a reference effectively constitutes in law an appeal or, as the case may be, a further appeal, by the convicted person.
    There is a criterion which, consistent with my predecessors, I would normally expect to be fulfilled before I would use this power. It is that there is some new evidence, or other consideration of substance, which has not previously been brought before the court by the defendant and which now appears to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
    I remind the House that Mr. Latimer's case has already been before the courts on three occasions. The first two were the trial of the four UDR soldiers, of which he was one, and the appeal to which they had an automatic right. In 1991, after very careful consideration of representations made to him, and the production of new evidence, my predecessor referred the cases of the UDR Four back to the Court of Appeal.
    The new evidence had been produced as a result of electronic document analysis—known as ESDA—carried out on the police interview notes relating to the four men. The tests showed that some of the police interview notes had been rewritten, and that those parts of the notes had not been made at the time of the interviews, as had been claimed at the trial.
    In a very fully argued written judgment, delivered on 29 July 1992, the Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the convictions of Winston Allen, Noel Bell and James Hegan on the grounds that they were thereby rendered unsafe and unsatisfactory. However, the court was unanimously satisfied on separate evidence, including his admitted confession statements, as to Neil Latimer's guilt, and that his convictions were safe and satisfactory.
    The Court of Appeal drew attention to the fact that, in giving evidence at the trial, Mr. Latimer accepted the accuracy of the police evidence as to his statements of admission. The Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, in the judgment on behalf of the whole court, said:
    "We are satisfied that the ESDA findings in relation to the interview notes of Latimer do not create a doubt as to the correctness of his convictions because of his own evidence at the trial as to what happened in the interviews and as to what he said in the interviews, it is clear that on the night of 2nd–3rd December 1983 he confessed to murdering Mr. Carroll. We are further satisfied that those confessions were true and were the confessions of a guilty man and not of an innocent man who, by improper police conduct, was pressed into confessing to a murder which he had not committed."
    The judgment of the court continued:

    411
    "No one reading the full transcript of the evidence of Latimer at the trial, and reading that transcript in an impartial way and with common sense, can doubt that he was a guilty man who, from a very early stage in the interviews, realised that, by reason of the information which Witness 'A' had given, the pohce had a case against him that he was involved in the murder of Carroll, and who in the second interview on the day of his arrest said that things looked bad for him, and in the third interview told the police that he had shot Carroll, but tried for a period through a number of interviews to protect the other soldiers involved with him. But eventually, after the police had taken a further statement from Witness 'A' on 2nd December, in which she confirmed that she had seen the mock arrest of Latimer in Lonsdale Street and him getting into the landrover, and the police had told him of this statement from Witness 'A', Latimer on 2nd December made a full and truthful confession of what had happened and of his part in it."
    The Court of Appeal was clearly satisfied that Mr. Latimer's written statement made in December 1983 was true in describing his part in the murder plan and how he shot Mr. Carroll, and that it was admissible in evidence against him. That part of the statement that described the parts played by Messrs Allen, Bell and Hegan was not admissible in evidence against them, and as a matter of law the court was not entitled to have any regard to that statement in considering the Crown case against them. The Court of Appeal drew a clear distinction between the total weight of evidence against Mr. Latimer on the one hand and Messrs Allen, Bell and Hegan on the other.
    The involvement in the case of the woman known as witness A has been closely scrutinised, and indeed is the focus of the booklet "Witness for the Prosecution" prepared by the hon. Gentleman, to which he has referred in his speech tonight. While witness A did not see the murder being carried out, the gunman was observed by another witness, Mrs. Dunne, who gave the police a description of his appearance and clothing.
    Witness A told the police that, shortly before the shooting, she had seen a man, whom she knew to be Mr. Latimer, dressed in clothing that resembled the description of that worn by the gunman. She was cross-examined on the basis not that she was mistaken but that she had concocted her story.
    It is true that the witness Mrs. Dunne, who saw the gunman, also knew Mr. Latimer and said that he was not the gunman. It is clear from the detailed written judgments of the court of trial and the Court of Appeal that the conflict between that woman's evidence and that of witness A was considered most thoroughly by the courts. In that context, the Lord Chief Justice said the following:
    "Witness A's evidence, if it is true, establishes that a few minutes before the shooting of Mr. Carroll, Latimer, dressed in civilian clothes, was behaving with members of a UDR patrol in a most unusual manner. Moreover, according to Witness A's evidence, Latimer was wearing a tartan cap and gold-rimmed glasses, and, according to Mrs. Dunne's evidence, the gunman who shot Mr. Carroll a few minutes after Witness A had seen Latimer in Lonsdale street was wearing a check or tartan cap and gold-rimmed glasses. After his arrest Latimer, on the night of 2nd-3rd December made a full confession confirming Witness A's account of what he had done in Lonsdale street and going on to describe how, after he had got into the landrover in Lonsdale Street, dressed in civilian clothes and wearing a cap and glasses, he had gone on to shoot Mr. Carroll. However, Mrs. Dunne stated in her evidence that the gunman who shot Mr. Carroll was definitely not Latimer and that the gunman was only 5 foot 1 inch or 5 foot 2 inches in height and was smaller than her, whereas it is the fact that Latimer is 5 feet 10 inches in height."
    The judgment continues with a passage that the hon. Gentleman has just cited, so I need not repeat it. I pick the quotation up at the point at which he stopped:
    412
    "We are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Dunne's evidence that the gunman was not Latimer, and that the gunman was much smaller in height than Latimer, is incorrect and that, in truth, Latimer was the gunman. We are so satisfied because, for the reasons we have already stated at length, it is clear that Witness A's evidence of seeing Latimer dressed in civilian clothes getting into a landrover in Lonsdale street was true. The arguments that her evidence as to what she saw in Lonsdale street is true and is not a wicked concoction are, in our opinion, unanswerable. In addition, for the reasons we have stated, we are satisfied that Latimer's confession given verbally and in writing on the night of 2nd-3rd December 1983 was not an untrue confession made by a man pressed into making it by improper pressure from the police and by a desire on his part to get away from Castlereagh police office. It is clear that his confession was a truthful confession made by a man who realised the game was up."
    That concludes this passage from the judgment.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State, before leaving that point, admit that four other accused, including Warton, made confessions clearly admitting their part in the killing, and that the trial judge dismissed the case against Warton when he discovered that the accused had been so emotionally pressurised that he was encouraged to write his last will and testament? In the wake of all this, Warton cried with emotion because he thought that he would never get out of prison in his parents' lifetime, and he was persuaded to sign a confession.
    Will the Secretary of State concede that such pressure on people who are used to obeying those in authority—none more so than soldiers—is totally intolerable, and negates any value that a confession might have?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is not a question of conceding. It is not for me to defend or uphold the judgment of the court; it is for me to try to apply the criterion that has been applied by my predecessors.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's factual point about confessions made by the other defendants, what has been said is broadly true, and I certainly do not dispute it tonight. As I have indicated, I have to consider whether there is something new by way of evidence—evidence that has not previously been before the court. I remind the House that this has already been referred to the Court of Appeal, where each of the points already alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was made by counsel on behalf of Mr. Latimer and was rejected by the court.
    My reason for setting the matter out in such detail so far is that I think it important that the House should hear the basis on which the trial judge initially convicted Mr. Latimer, among the others, and the basis upon which the Court of Appeal, while allowing the appeals of the other three, considered it safe and satisfactory to uphold the conviction of Mr. Latimer. It is not for me to substitute my judgment for that of the Court of Appeal, but it is for me to explain at this juncture how it is that the Court of Appeal argued that conclusion.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that I carefully considered further representations made to me last year, about which I wrote to him on 11 January this year. The very proper purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight has been to assert that fresh material is now available which calls for a yet further reference to be made.
    That material comprises what are claimed in his booklet "Witness for the Prosecution" to be medical notes relating to witness A in 1964 and 1965—it has to be said, some 18 years before the events with which the case is concerned

    413
    —and a professional opinion on their significance obtained by a psychotherapist who, as the hon. Gentleman immediately made clear, had not examined witness A.
    I can assure the hon. Gentleman that careful consideration is being given, as it should be, to the totality of the material to which he referred and to the points that he made in his booklet, which he supplemented in his speech tonight. He will understand that the matter has to be examined in the context of the constraints upon my power
    414
    to refer a case to the Court of Appeal, which I have already described this evening. He will know that I cannot yet express a concluded view.
    However, the hon. Gentleman has my assurance, and I am glad to give it, that the matter is being carefully considered and will be considered with the proper care that it requires and deserves, as will be the points that the hon. Gentleman has made tonight. I undertake to communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible as to the result.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  Army (Redundancies)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about planned redundancies in the Army.

  Mr. Hanley
  As indicated in my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on 20 July 1993,Official Report, column 191, the Army invited applications from volunteers for the third phase of its redundancy programme which implements the reduction in the size of the Army under proposals first announced in 1990. These applications have now been considered against the requirement to achieve the required size of the Army for the nineties while retaining the right age and skill structure for the future, taking account of the manpower addback announced by the Secretary of State on 1 December last year. A total of 720 officers and 6,295 soldiers have now been selected for redundancy in 1994–95. Some 85 per cent. of these have volunteered for redundancy, but it will be necessary to select 142 officers and 953 soldiers for compulsory redundancy. All those selected for redundancy will be notified on 24 February 1994.

  Belize
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to gift equipment to the Belize defence force as part of the future plan for British forces in Belize.

  Mr. Hanley
  As part of our continuing programme of assistance in Belize, my Department has identified a substantial package of equipment which we plan to hand over to the Government of Belize, once it is no longer needed by British forces based there. We expect the provision of this equipment will greatly assist in the development of the Belize defence force. In accordance with normal practice, my Department has today laid before the House a departmental minute giving notice of our intention to make this gift.

  Landing Platform Dock Replacements
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will invite tenders for the landing platform dock replacements; and when he expects to place the contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  Project Definition studies for the landing platform dock—replacement—are due to complete this spring when we will make a decision on the issue of an invitation to tender for the design and build of the first of class. A contract has recently been awarded for further project definition work on the command system for the vessel.

  Frigates
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many common new generation frigates he plans to order.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government plan to replace the type 42 destroyer with the common new generation frigate around the turn of the century and intend to replace fully the capability currently provided by the type 42 destroyers.

  Aircraft Carrier Replacements
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to commence the project definition phase for the replacement of the Invincible class aircraft carriers; and when these replacements will come into service.

  Mr. Aitken
  Under current plans, the Royal Navy's Invincible class aircraft carriers will continue in service well into the next century. Although concept studies for a replacement have commenced, project definition work is unlikely to begin before the end of the decade.

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the present locations of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Hanley
  HMS Fearless is currently engaged in amphibious exercises off the Scottish coast. HMS Intrepid is at present held in a state of extended readiness at Portsmouth.

  Fleet Auxiliary Vessels
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the(a) RFA O class, (B) T class and (c) Rover class fleet auxiliaries have been in service with the Royal Navy; and what plans he has to procure new fleet auxiliary vessels.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The RFA 0 class consists of two fleet tankers, one of which came into service in 1965, the other in 1966;

  (b) The RFA T class are no longer in service with the Royal Navy;

  (c) The RFA ROVER class consists of three fleet tankers, one of which came into service in 1970, the other two came into service in 1974.

  In addition to the two new auxiliary oiler replenishment ships, Fort George and Fort Victoria, which are due to enter service in the next few months, we expect to invite tenders shortly for a feasibility study for the replacement of the O class front-line tankers. The study will look at a wide range of procurement options, with the replacement ships currently planned to enter service around the turn of the century. Additionally, a suitable tanker taken up from trade is planned to enter service before the end of the decade.

  HMS Ark Royal
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Ark Royal will commence refit.

  Mr. Aitken
  HMS Ark Royal is not scheduled for her next refit for some years.

  Operational Vessels
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the vessels in the Royal Navy that are currently operational, including fleet auxiliaries; and what was the date of construction of each vessel.

  Mr. Hanley
  As construction dates are not readily available, the attached list of vessels currently operational gives either the date vessels were accepted from builders by the Royal Navy or the royal fleet auxiliary—new build vessels—or the date ships were commissioned—vessels taken up from trade.

  Ship

  Date of acceptance

  Invincible Class Carrier (CVS)

  Invincible

  March 1980

  Illustrious

  June 1982

  Ark Royal

  June 1985

  Assault Ship (LPD)

  Fearless

  November 1965

  Intrepid

  March 1967

  Type 42 Destroyer

  Birmingham

  November 1976

  Newcastle

  February 1978

  Glasgow

  March 1979

  Cardiff

  September 1979

  Exeter

  August 1980

  Southampton

  August 1981

  Nottingham

  December 1982

  Liverpool

  May 1982

  Manchester

  November 1982

  Gloucester

  May 1985

  Edinburgh

  July 1985

  York

  March 1985

  Leander Class Frigate

  Andromeda

  December 1968

  Type 21 Frigate

  Active

  June 1977

  Avenger

  April 1978

  Type 22 Frigate

  Broadsword

  February 1979

  Battleaxe

  December 1979

  Brilliant

  April 1981

  Brazen

  June 1982

  Boxer

  September 1983

  Beaver

  July 1984

  Brave

  February 1986

  London

  February 1987

  Sheffield

  March 1988

  Coventry

  July 1988

  Cornwall

  February 1988

  Cumberland

  November 1988

  Campbeltown

  February 1989

  Chatham

  November 1989

  Type 23 Frigate

  Norfolk

  November 1989

  Argyll

  April 1991

  Lancaster

  November 1991

  Marlborough

  March 1991

  Iron Duke

  July 1992

  Monmouth

  April 1993

  Montrose

  September 1993

  Westminster

  November 1993

  Resolution Class SSBN

  Resolution

  October 1967

  Repulse

  October 1968

  Renown

  February 1969

  Vanguard Class SSBN

  222

  Ship

  Date of acceptance

  Vanguard

  September 1993

  Valiant Class SSN

  Valiant

  July 1966

  Swiftsure Class SSN

  Sovereign

  July 1974

  Superb

  November 1976

  Sceptre

  March 1978

  Spartan

  October 1979

  Splendid

  May 1981

  Trafalgar Class SSN

  Trafalgar

  July 1983

  Turbulent

  August 1984

  Tireless

  October 1985

  Torbay

  March 1987

  Trenchant

  February 1989

  Talent

  May 1990

  Triumph

  November 1991

  Upholder Class SSK

  Upholder

  December 1990

  Unseen

  July 1991

  Ursula

  June 1992

  Unicorn

  July 1993

  Hunt Class MCMV

  Brecon

  December 1979

  Ledbury

  March 1981

  Cattistock

  March 1982

  Cottesmore

  May 1983

  Brocklesby

  October 1982

  Middleton

  July 1984

  Dulverton

  October 1983

  Bicester

  February 1986

  Chiddingfold

  July 1984

  Atherstone

  November 1986

  Hurworth

  June 1985

  Berkeley

  November 1987

  Quorn

  January 1989

  Sandown Class MCMV

  Sandown

  March 1989

  Inverness

  February 1991

  Cromer

  November 1991

  Walney

  August 1992

  Bridport

  June 1993

  Island Class OPV

  Orkney

  January 1977

  Shetland

  May 1977

  Guernsey

  September 1977

  Lindisfarne

  January 1978

  Anglesey

  April 1979

  Alderney

  August 1979

  Castle Class OPV

  Leeds Castle

  August 1981

  Dumbarton Castle

  March 1982

  Bird Class Patrol Craft

  Red pole

  August 1967

  Kingfisher

  October 1975

  Cygnet

  July 1976

  Peacock Class Patrol Craft

  Peacock

  October 1983

  Plover

  April 1984

  Starling

  June 1984

  River Class Patrol Craft

  Blackwater

  June 1985

  Itchen

  June 1985

  Orwell

  November 1985

  Spey

  April 1986

  Arun

  May 1986

  223

  Ship

  Date of acceptance

  Ton Class Patrol Craft

  Wilton

  June 1973

  Archer Class Patrol Craft

  Archer

  August 1985

  Example

  September 1985

  Explorer

  January 1986

  Biter

  February 1986

  Smiter

  February 1986

  Pursuer

  February 1988

  Blazer

  March 1988

  Dasher

  June 1988

  Express

  February 1988

  Puncher

  July 1988

  Charger

  July 1988

  Exploit

  July 1988

  Ranger

  August 1988

  Trumpeter

  February 1988

  Survey Flotilla

  Hecla

  September 1965

  Herald

  October 1974

  Bulldog

  March 1968

  Beagle

  March 1968

  Roebuck

  August 1986

  Gleaner

  December 1983

  Britannia

  January 1954

  Endurance

  2November 1991

  RFA

  Landing Ships Logistic

  Sir Bedivere

  May 1967

  Sir Geraint

  June 1967

  Sir Tristram

  September 1967

  Sir Percivale

  March 1968

  Sir Galahad

  November 1987

  Aviation Training Ship

  Argus

  2March 1988

  Fleet Replenishment Ships

  Resource

  June 1967

  Fort Grange

  April 1978

  Fort Austin

  June 1979

  Fort Victoria

  March 1993

  Fort George

  March 1993

  Large Fleet Tankers

  Olwen

  October 1965

  Olna

  April 1966

  Small Fleet Tankers

  Grey Power

  April 1970

  Gold Rover

  March 1974

  Black Rover

  August 1974

  Support Tankers

  Brambleleaf

  2April 1980

  Bayleaf

  1March 1982

  Orangeleaf

  1May 1984

  Oakleaf

  1August 1986

  Forward Repair Ship

  Diligence

  2March 1984

  1 Vessel on long-term charter—date given is commissioning date.

  2 Vessel taken up from trade—date given is commissioning date.

  Contracts
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts were placed by his Department in the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93; and how many were subject to increases in cost caused by delays.

  Mr. Aitken
  The number of headquarters contracts placed by my Department is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  1991–92

  73,326

  1992–93

  79,593

  Information as to the numbers of contracts subject to increases in cost caused by delays is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Arctic Warfare Exercise
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the annual Royal Marine arctic warfare exercise is not to be held in Norway this year; where it will be held: at what saving to public funds; whether he plans to resume Royal Marine exercising in Norway in 1995; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The annual Royal Marine arctic warfare training exercise is currently taking place in north Norway: 42 Commando Group is participating, with Sea King helicopters from 846 Naval Air Squadron, and the royal fleet auxiliary ships, Sir Tristram, Sir Galahad and Sir Bedivere. The training will culminate in 42 Commando Group participating in the Norwegian Brigade North exercise Arctic Express. On current plans, the annual training will continue in 1994.

  Adriatic Operations
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 112, what further delay has arisen to the deployment of HMS Birmingham to the Adriatic as a result of the failure of her Sea Dart system; what are the operational implications for the carrier group of the continued detachment of HMS Coventry to embargo operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  HMS Birmingham's departure for the Adriatic was delayed by a further six days because of problems relating to her Sea Dart missile system. HMS Coventry will continue to fulfil her Stanavforlant duties until HMS Birmingham's imminent arrival in theatre. HMS Coventry's continuing detachment has no operational implications for the carrier group as she would be released for national tasks if required.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 112, what has been the outcome of the discussions between the United Nations, Croatian customs authorities and the master of RFA Sir Geraint over the error in the ship's manifest relating to munitions; whether any costs fall to be paid by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.
  225
  Mr. Hanley
  This matter was resolved following discussions between United Nation's officials and the Croatian Government; no blame has ben attributed to the Master of RFA Sir Geraint. The incident did not result in any costs being incurred by Her Majesty's Government.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to send additional British troops to Vitez; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no. current plans to send additional British Troops to Vitez.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to discuss the deployment of additional military forces in Bosnia with his NATO and UN counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will continue to discuss the possible deployment of additional forces in Bosnia with his NATO and UN counterparts. It remains our view that contributions to the United Nations force in Bosnia should be drawn from a wide range of countries.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 519, what requests he has received from the United Nations for the provision of mortar-locating radar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom, together with a number of other nations, has received a request from the UN to provide military personnel and equipment to help support the demilitarisation of Sarajevo. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 17 February 1994, the British Government has agreed, a part of its assistance package, to provide a 60-strong Cymbeline mortar-locating troop. The troop deployed from the United Kingdom, through Vitez to arrive in Sarajevo on 22 February 1994.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 519, what detailed information he has relating to the deployment of Dutch, Malaysian and Pakistani forces in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We understand that the Dutch, Malaysian and Pakistani troop deployments in support of UNPROPOR in the former Yugoslavia are as follows:

  (a) Dutch
  1 x Signals Battalion at HQ Bosnia-Herzegovina Command, Kiseljak, Bosnia.
  Role: Communications and HQ Support.
  1 x joint Dutch/Belgian transport battalion at Santici near Vitez, Bosnia.
  Role: Secondary Distribution of humanitarian aid.
  50 x UN Military Observers.
  TOTAL=632.

  Plus1:
  2 x Companies and Battalion HQ at Srebrenica, Bosnia.
  1 x Company at Zepa, Bosnia.
  1 x Logistic Support Company at Lukavac, Bosnia.
  Role: Monitoring safe areas and supporting the provision of humanitarian aid.
  ADDITIONAL TOTAL= 1,020.
  1 The deployment of these troops is due to commence on 24 February and should be complete by 15 March. An advance party is already in place.
  226
  (b) Malaysian
  1 x Company at Sarajevo, Bosnia.
  1 x Company at Konjic, Bosnia.
  1 x Company and Battalion HQ at Medugorje, Bosnia.
  Role: Support for provision of humanitarian aid.
  20 x UN Military Observers.
  TOTAL = 858.

  (c) Pakistani
  30 x UN Military Observers1.
  1 Pakistan is planning to send a battalion group in support of UNPROFOR in April/May. Details of numbers and locations are still to be confirmed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 519, if he will give details of all of the contacts he has had with his NATO counterparts relating to the situation in Bosnia in the last 14 days; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had a number of contacts with his counterparts during the last 14 days to discuss the situation in Bosnia. In particular, on 21 February he met the Defence Ministers of the United States, France, Italy, and the Netherlands in Aviano, Italy, to review the operational readiness of their forces, the rules of engagement, and the plans for co-ordination between NATO air units and UNPROFOR ground units.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and at what time he first learned of the offer by the Russian Government to deploy additional troops to the Sarajevo area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the visits of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Russia, they held discussions with Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Grachev at which the Russian administration indicated its willingness to co-operate with the United Nations and assist UNPROFOR in its task. The possibility of contributing Russian troops to maintain the ceasefire and assist with the demilitarisation of Sarajevo was also discussed, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was informed of these discussions on their return.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any weapons-grade nuclear material is stored or stockpiled at any defence establishment on behalf of an overseas ally.

  Mr. Hanley
  No weapons-grade nuclear material is stored or stockpiled at any defence establishment in the United Kingdom on behalf of an overseas ally.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals have been made concerning unduly lenient sentences on people convicted in race-related cases.

  The Attorney-General
  Sentences imposed for offences involving the incitement of racial hatred contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986 are not subject to my power of review under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates his Department has made of the money saved by the recent changes to eligibility for legal aid.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It was estimated that in the current year expenditure would be £43 million lower than it otherwise would have been as a result of the eligibility changes. Volumes of legal aid certificates issued and green form bills paid are in line with estimates.

  Children
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many children aged nine years or above were represented in proceedings by the Official Solicitor in the latest year for which figures are available; how many of them are known to have requested alternative representation; and what were the results of their requests.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Between 1 January and 31 December 1993 the Official Solicitor represented 537 children aged nine years or above in family proceedings. Although the precise number who sought alternative representation could be established only at disproportionate cost, it is known that 15 children made such requests. Of these, eight were accepted and separate representation approved by the court, four were not proceeded with, two are still pending and one was rejected by the court on the grounds that the child was not competent to instruct his own solicitor.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 21 February; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Agriculture Council, which concluded its business on 21 February.

  The Council had a first discussion of the 1994 farm price proposals. The discussion was televised and relayed direct to representatives of the press. I expressed the United Kingdom's initial reaction to the proposals, noting in particular the need for the Council's decisions to accord with budgetary discipline. The Council will examine the proposals in greater detail at its next session.

  The Council adopted unanimously two decisions permitting France and Italy to pay national aids for wine distillation in the 1993–94 marketing year. I took the opportunity to obtain confirmation from Commissioner Steichen that the Commission had initiated the procedure to confirm that one of the French national aids to the pig sector was incompatible with the treaty, and I pressed him to act quickly on the other.

  Special Conservation Areas
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to ensure that additional resources will be made available to the nature conservation agencies for monitoring the special interest of special areas of conservation under the EC habitats and species directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 21 February, Official Report, column 77.

  Comfrey
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of poisoning from(a) comfrey and (b) comfrey products have occurred for each year since 1983 and until the end of 1992; and if she will list the number of cases of poisoning reported each month during 1993 and the latest available figures for 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been no reports of poisoning attributed to comfrey or comfrey products in England. However, comfrey contains substances known to cause liver damage and there have been reports in international literature of disease associated with its consumption. The national poisons information service has recorded 16 inquiries about the possible effects of exposure to comfrey or its products since 1983.

EMPLOYMENT

  Financial and Business Sector
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the financial and business sector in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region in each year between 1983 and 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information can be obtained from the NOMIS database which is accessible in the Library.

  Employment Protection
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on companies in receivership of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The regulations give effect to the EC acquired rights directive. The directive and the regulations are both capable of applying to transfers of businesses or parts of businesses in receivership as well as to solvent undertakings. Insolvency practitioners have made many representations about the adverse effect of the regulations on the prospects for the sale of all or part of an insolvent business, whereby businesses which might otherwise have been rescued have been liquidated and jobs have been lost. The Government believe that this is a clear example of EC legislation having a detrimental effect on employment and have brought this to the attention of the European Commission.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies his Department has undertaken of the scope and effect of minimum wage legislation in the United States of America.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. In the United States of America individual states are free to set minimum wage rates above those provided under the Fair Labor Standards Acts 1938. This arrangement has resulted in a range of different minimum rates being set. Therefore, there is no single statutory minimum rate in the United States of America.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the 1990 Rothschild report on coal privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The contract with N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. for the provision of financial advice on coal privatisation commenced in May 1991. On grounds of commercial confidentiality, the cost of individual pieces of work in not released. Total expenditure by the Department of Energy in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry in 1991–92 was £3.3 million.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated total cost of preparing the coal industry for privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry in 1991–92 and 1992–93 was £3·3 million, including VAT, and £3·5 million, including VAT, respectively. Provision for 1993–94 is £14·3 million, including VAT. The privatisation budget for 1994–95 has still to be decided.

  British Coal Redundancy Scheme
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost of the British Coal redundancy scheme from October 1992 to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of redundancy arrangements is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the enhanced redundancy payments currently paid by British Coal will continue beyond the end of March 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: I have informed British Coal that the Government are prepared to fund the current redundancy terms for miners until 30 April 1994 and, where redundancies are proposed before 30 April, for so long as the consultations with the unions on any such proposal continue.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for the British steel industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom steel industry is now one of the most efficient in the world. Strict 230
  implementation of the state aids package and monitoring arrangements agreed at the 17 December Industry Council is essential to eradicate illegal subsidies and to ensure the prosperity and growth of efficient EC producers, including the United Kingdom industry.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning price fixing in the steel industry in the European Union as it affects the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave in the House to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 16 February 1994, Official Report, column 945.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the ending of the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme arrangements for redundant steel workers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: I received representations from a range of interested parties including the steel industry and its representative bodies, trades unions, local authorities and hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the then hon. Member for Eastleigh on 27 January 1994, Official Report, column 369.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of overseas investment into the United Kingdom for each year since 1970 at constant prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Reliable price deflators for overseas investment are not available. Figures for gross investment into the United Kingdom are also not available. Information is available only for net investment at current prices.

  This information up to 1991 is contained in the Pink Books 1973, 1983 and 1993, United Kingdom balance of payments, published by the Central Statistical Office; copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The information for 1992 and the first nine months of 1993 is as follows:

  Net overseas investment in the United Kingdom1 current prices

  £ million

  Direct

  Portfolio

  Total

  1992

  10·3

  20·5

  230·9

  31993

  8·5

  29·1

  37·6

  1 Net of disinvestment in the United Kingdom by overseas investors.

  2 Discrepancy between total and its constituent elements due to rounding.

  3 January to September.

  Source: Balance of payments press release, CSO (93) 190, 20 December 1993.

  Electrical Appliances (Plugs)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he has made of(a) excessive costs to consumers, (b) costs to the plug manufacturers and (c) safety problems arising from the imposition in Britain of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation—CENELEC—standards for electrical plugs and wiring.
  231
  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has commissioned an independent analysis of the costs and benefits for the United Kingdom, including consumers and plug manufacturers, of the proposed harmonisation. The final report from the consultants will be published shortly to form a basis for wider consultation. My Department is participating in the CENELEC discussions to ensure that United Kingdom consumer safety is not compromised.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to revise plug and socket safety regulations; what representations he has received from the EC Commission about the proposal to require all electrical appliances to be sold with plugs; what evidence he has of safety hazards if they are not so sold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The announcement last year by the then Minister for Consumer Affairs of the intention to introduce regulations that would require most domestic appliances to be fitted with a plug before they are supplied to a consumer has been welcomed, although the European Commission has sought clarification on the possible impact on intra-Community trade. I am hopeful that these matters will be resolved shortly.

  Each year an average of three people die because of an incorrectly fitted plug and 300 people require hospital treatment for injuries received from fitting plugs to electrical appliances.

  Motor Cars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect the change in the terms of trade for finished manufactures has had on (i) imports and exports of motor cars and (ii) output and unemployment in the United Kingdom car industry since 1973; and what has been the import penetration into the United Kingdom car market in(a) 1973, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no detailed information on the effect that the change in terms of trade for finished manufactures has had on the motor car industry. Information on the terms of trade and overseas trade is regularly published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 16 February 1994,Official Report, columns 829–30.

  Enterprise Initiative (London)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent in the Greater London region on the enterprise initiative since its inception.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Total payments on enterprise initiative consultancy projects in the London region from the launch of the consultancy scheme in 1988 to the end of 1993 amounted to £24·9 million.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of domestic manufacturing industry was owned by foreign companies, in each year since 1979.
  232
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The percentages of United Kingdom manufacturing industry owned by overseas companies are given in the table. It shows the percentages of industry accounted for by overseas registered companies and by United Kingdom subsidiaries of overseas registered companies. Such subsidiaries are defined as companies where the composition of the board of directors is controlled by an overseas registered company or where an overseas company holds more than 50 per cent. of the equity share capital.

  Gross value added at factor cost

  Total sales and work done

  Employment

  1979

  21·4

  22·8

  15·1

  1980

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1981

  18·3

  19·4

  14·9

  1982

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1983

  18·6

  20·4

  14·5

  1984

  20·2

  21·3

  14·8

  1985

  18·7

  20·3

  14·0

  1986

  17·3

  19·4

  13·0

  1987

  18·8

  21·0

  13·4

  1988

  18·2

  20·7

  13·1

  1989

  21·1

  24·1

  14·9

  1990

  21·8

  25·2

  16·1

  1991

  21·7

  25·5

  17·2

  1 Prior to 1984 these data were collected biennially: consequently, information for 1980 and 1982 is not available.

  Sources: Derived from table 18—table 19 in 1979—of the annual summary volumes of the report on the census of production—Central Statistical Office—"Business Monitor" PA 1002.

  Household Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the number of people who have been refused insurance or reinsurance because of claims arising from river flooding.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None. This is a matter for the commercial judgment of insurance companies, with which the Government cannot interfere. However, I understand that the Association of British Insurers, to which the hon. Member has also written, is investigating these concerns.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of the document deposited in the Vote Office of the House entitled "Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—An Explanatory Guide" were printed; where else it was sent or made available; what information this document contained which was not also printed as part of the explanatory and financial memorandum on the face of the Bill; why this guide contained no source of authorisation, date, printer, publisher, or official catalogue number; and by whom and for what reason it was authorised for publication.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since publication of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, the document "Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—An Explanatory Guide" has been available in the Vote Office and from the Department.

  Approximately 4,000 copies of the document were made. Of these, approximately 3,500 have been distributed. Approximately 500 were made available in the Vote Office. The remainder were given, after the Bill was

  233
  published, to the press and to individuals and organisations known to have an interest in the Bill, or have been given, on request, to members of the public, consumer and business organisations.

  It is normal practice to publish such a document for long or complex Bills. The document contained a fuller explanation of the provisions of the Bill than the explanatory and financial memorandum, giving background information which would not have been appropriate for inclusion in the EFM, such as the Government's proposals for parliamentary scrutiny of orders made under chapter 1 of the Bill. The source and date of the document were omitted by an oversight. However, all copies distributed, other than through the Vote Office, were accompanied by material which made clear the source of the document.

  Staff Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the schemes his Department operates to assist staff facing financial hardship following a transfer, showing(a) the particular criteria and rules applying to each one, including the circumstances under which any loans can be written off, (b) the total amount loaned or granted under the schemes in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94 and (c) the number of staff assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has a number of discretionary arrangements, delegated from Her Majesty's Treasury, which it can use in cases where a staff transfer in the public interest would lead to proven financial hardship. These arrangements include interest-bearing and interest-free loans; in highly exceptional cases there is provision for write-off. The arrangements are administered bearing in mind the cost to the taxpayer.

  To provide the details requested would entail disproportionate cost.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many deep mines were in production in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) the United Kingdom in each year since 1964.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of British Coal deep mines in production at 31 March in each year since 1964 were as follows:

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1964

  386

  103

  87

  578

  1965

  365

  92

  77

  534

  1966

  334

  82

  67

  483

  1967

  305

  75

  58

  438

  1968

  263

  66

  47

  378

  1969

  223

  57

  37

  317

  1970

  213

  54

  32

  213

  1971

  207

  53

  32

  292

  1972

  204

  53

  32

  289

  1973

  199

  53

  29

  281

  1974

  185

  50

  24

  259

  1975

  178

  46

  22

  246

  1976

  176

  45

  21

  241

  1977

  174

  44

  20

  238

  1978

  172

  40

  19

  231

  1979

  167

  39

  17

  223

  1980

  165

  38

  16

  219

  234

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1981

  160

  36

  15

  211

  1982

  149

  35

  14

  198

  1983

  143

  35

  13

  191

  1984

  131

  30

  9

  170

  1985

  130

  30

  9

  169

  1986

  105

  19

  9

  133

  1987

  89

  15

  8

  110

  1988

  78

  12

  4

  94

  1989

  74

  10

  2

  86

  1990

  65

  7

  1

  73

  1991

  59

  5

  1

  65

  1992

  45

  4

  1

  50

  1993

  37

  2

  1

  40

  Source: British Coal.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of coal production expressed in million tonnes from deep mines in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) the United Kingdom for each year since 1964.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Coal production (million tonnes)1

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1964

  151·9

  21·8

  16·1

  189·8

  1965

  14·1

  19·3

  15·7

  183·1

  1966

  137·6

  18·6

  14·9

  171·1

  1967

  135·2

  17·9

  14·6

  167·7

  1968

  130·5

  16·1

  13· 1

  159·7

  1969

  120·2

  14·3

  12·0

  146·6

  1970

  109·3

  16·1

  11·3

  136·7

  1971

  111·2

  12·6

  12·7

  136·5

  1972

  89·1

  9·9

  10·0

  109·1

  1973

  99·3

  10·1

  10·6

  120·0

  1974

  83·1

  8·1

  8·8

  100·0

  1975

  98·5

  8·9

  10·1

  117·4

  1976

  92·0

  8·7

  9·6

  110·3

  1977

  90·1

  8·3

  8·7

  107·1

  1978

  90·6

  8·6

  8·3

  107·5

  1979

  90·9

  8·7

  8·2

  107·8

  1980

  95·5

  8·8

  8·2

  112·4

  1981

  94·4

  8·6

  7·5

  110·5

  1982

  91·0

  8·2

  6·9

  106·2

  1983

  87·6

  8·0

  6·2

  101·7

  1984

  32·5

  1·8

  1·0

  35·2

  1985

  65·7

  6·0

  3·6

  75·3

  1986

  78·8

  7·7

  3·9

  90·4

  1987

  76·7

  6·3

  2·9

  86·0

  1988

  76·1

  5·5

  2·1

  83·8

  1989

  72·8

  4·7

  2·1

  79·6

  1990

  66·0

  4·6

  2·3

  72·9

  1991

  68·0

  3·0

  2·4

  73·4

  1992

  61·0

  2·6

  2·2

  65·8

  21993

  46·6

  2·0

  1·9

  50·5

  1 Includes production from licensed deep mines.

  2 Provisional figures.

  United Kingdom Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will produce a table to show what proportion of United Kingdom exports, including services and invisibles, was exported to the rest of the EC single market in each of the last 10 years and a similar table in respect of each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: Information for 1982 to 1992 is given in the table. A

  235
  breakdown of invisible exports to other EC countries is only available annually. Information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Credits on United Kingdom transactions with the EC as a proportion of total credits on the current account of the balance of payments.

  Year

  Per cent.

  1982

  36·1

  1983

  37·3

  1984

  37·2

  1985

  38·1

  1986

  37·8

  1987

  38·5

  1988

  38·5

  1989

  38·6

  1990

  41·1

  1991

  44·1

  1992

  45·5

  Note: Includes trade in goods and services, flow of interest profits and dividends, and financial transfers.

  Source: The Pink Book 1993: United Kingdom balance of payments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there were against invalidity benefit being removed in(a) Lewisham and (b) London in 1993.

  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 M. Bichard to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about appeals against removal of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) in Lewisham and London.
  The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because Benefits Agency District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries. The Benefit Agency's Lewisham District Office is responsible for Lewisham postal addresses but also for some adjacent areas. However, benefits work appropriate to Lewisham DO and a number of other Districts within the London area is dealt with by the Belfast Benefits Centre.
  Statistics maintained by the Benefits Centre are available to show numbers of appeals received appropriate to each District. Within these figures it is possible to identify the numbers of appeals against removal of IVB. As figures cannot be further broken down geographically, the figure for Lewisham District may include appeals received from people living outside the Lewisham postal district.
  In 1993, the number of appeals received against removal of IVB, appropriate to Lewisham District, was 31.
  Although a number of the Agency's Districts within the London area have their benefits work dealt with at Benefit Centres, others process work within the District. Districts generally comprise a District Office and one or more Branch Offices. In some instances Districts have offices both inside and outside the London postal area. In addition, some Districts deal with IVB appeals at one site within that District. Statistics held by Districts regarding numbers of appeals could not therefore give a reliable figure for those appropriate to London.
  For this reason the statistics below are those provided by the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) for their London North and London South regions; and show the numbers of appeals received concerning IVB in the quarter ended March 1993 to be as follows:—

  London North—427

  London South—349

  236
  As these statistics represent all IVB appeals received, they will include cases where IVB is removed, or reduced. In addition, as the ITS regions include additional areas to the London postal area, the figures will include appeals received from people living outside that area.

  The statistics provided are the latest supplied by ITS.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, from data taken from the annual statistical inquiry in 1991, 1992 and 1993, how many households in Tower Hamlets are having weekly deductions made from their income support as appropriate, for(a) electricity and (b) gas of (i) under £2 per week and (ii) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £40 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Ms Mildred Gordon, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the number of households in Tower Hamlets who are having deductions made from their Income Support to meet fuel costs.
  The information is not available in the format requested this is because statistics are not kept which are specific to Tower Hamlets. However, I have placed in the attached appendix information which has been obtained from the Annual Statistical Enquiry, which is based on a 1 per cent, sample of Income Support claimants. The information is for the South East of England which comprises of the London North and London South administrative regions which cover the area of Tower Hamlets but cannot be broken down to a local level. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 500.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix

  Number of Income Support recipients in South East England with deductions from benefit in respect of fuel costs

  £

  Deductions for electricity

  Deductions for gas

  1991

  0·01– 2·00

  —

  —

  2·01– 3·00

  500

  —

  3·01– 4·00

  1,000

  500

  4·01– 5·00

  1,000

  1,000

  5·01– 6·00

  1,000

  2,500

  6·01– 7·00

  1,500

  3,500

  7·01– 8·00

  1,000

  2,500

  8·01– 9·00

  1,000

  4,500

  9·01–10·00

  1,500

  3,500

  10·01–11·00

  1,500

  4,000

  11·01–12·00

  1,500

  2,500

  12·01–13·00

  1,000

  1,500

  13·01–14·00

  1,000

  1,500

  14·01–15·00

  500

  1,500

  15·01–16·00

  500

  500

  16·01–17·00

  500

  —

  17·01–18·00

  500

  —

  18·01–19·00

  —

  —

  19·01–20·00

  —

  —

  20·01–21·00

  —

  —

  21·01–22·00

  500

  —

  22·01–23·00

  —

  —

  23·01–24·00

  —

  —

  24·01–25·00

  —

  —

  25·01–26·00

  —

  —

  26·01–27·00

  —

  —

  27·01–28·00

  —

  —

  28·01–29·00

  —

  —

  29·01–30·00

  —

  —

  30·01–31·00

  —

  —

  237

  £

  Deductions for electricity

  Deductions for gas

  31·01–32·00

  —

  —

  132·01–33·00

  —

  —

  33·01–34·00

  —

  —

  34·01–35·00

  —

  —

  35·01–36·00

  —

  —

  36·01–37·00

  —

  —

  37·01–38·00

  —

  —

  38·01–39·00

  —

  —

  39·01–40·00

  —

  —

  40·01 and over

  —

  —

  Total

  16,000

  30,500

  1992

  0·01– 2·00

  —

  —

  2·01– 3·00

  500

  —

  3·01– 4·00

  —

  1,000

  4·01– 5·00

  500

  1,500

  5·01– 6·00

  1,000

  3,500

  6·01– 7·00

  1,000

  5,000

  7·01– 8·00

  1,500

  5,000

  8·01– 9·00

  1,000

  6,500

  9·01–10·00

  2,000

  5,500

  10·01–11·00

  1,500

  5,000

  11·01–12·00

  1,000

  4,500

  12·01–13·00

  1,000

  3,000

  13·01–14·00

  1,000

  2,000

  14·01–15·00

  500

  1,500

  15·01–16·00

  500

  1,000

  16·01–17·00

  500

  —

  17·01–18·00

  500

  —

  18·01–19·00

  —

  500

  19·01–20·00

  500

  500

  20·01–21·00

  —

  500

  21·01–22·00

  —

  500

  22·01–23·00

  —

  500

  23·01–24·00

  —

  —

  24·01–25·00

  —

  —

  25·01–26·00

  —

  —

  26·01–27·00

  —

  —

  27·01–28·00

  —

  —

  28·01–29·00

  —

  —

  29·01–30·00

  —

  —

  30·01–31·00

  —

  —

  31·01–32·00

  —

  —

  32·01–33·00

  —

  —

  33·01–34·00

  —

  —

  34·01–35·00

  —

  —

  35·01–36·00

  —

  —

  36·01–37·00

  —

  —

  37·01–38·00

  —

  —

  38·01–39·00

  —

  —

  39·01–40·00

  —

  —

  40·01 and over

  —

  —

  Total

  15,000

  47,500

  Benefits Agency, Ilford
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claiming income support at the Ilford office of the Benefits Agency in 1992 and 1993 were refused benefit by an adjudication officer; how many appealed; how many of those who appealed subsequently had their claim for income support allowed; and how many of those concerned had children.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  238
  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 22 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about persons refused income support at the Benefits Agency's Ilford Office.
  The full range of information you request is not readily available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics relating to the refusal of Income Support and those which would identify children are not routinely collected. To obtain all the relevant information would require a physical examination of all Income Support records at the Ilford Office, which are in excess of 50,000.
  I am, however, able to provide records which show the number of income support appeals which are for January to December for each year and are shown below:—

  1992

  1993

  Appeals received

  503

  459

  Appeals allowed

  40

  54

  Appeals partially allowed

  10

  9

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

  I am sorry that I am unable to be of more help on this occasion but I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many objections have been made to the Child Support Agency over its investigations into the arrangement of maintenance(a) where a court order for maintenance was already in operation and (b) where the agency proposed the setting up of maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Women's Pensions
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the number of married women who revoke the election to pay reduced rate contributions in the latter years of their working life, in the belief that there may be some significant gain, yet still have to rely on category B retirement pension or an addition paid to their husband;

  (2) how many of women claiming a category B retirement pension in each of the last five years had revoked their election to pay reduced contributions either five, four, three, two or one year before retiring; and if he will estimate the value of the contributions they paid;

  (3) in how many cases an adult dependant addition paid with invalidity benefit has been adjusted to take account of a category A retirement pension which is being paid to a wife who revoked her election to pay reduced contributions within five years before retiring; and what is the value of contributions paid by these married women.

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance he has issued to the Contributions Agency and the Benefits Agency concerning advice to be given to women considering revoking the election to pay reduced contributions in the latter years of their working life; and what reference is made to the impact which the husband's benefit circumstances may have on the financial benefits available.
  239
  Mr. Hague
  It is 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 the expected state retirement pension from the Benefits Agency. If a women 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.

  If a women seeks advice about the advantages of cancelling her election, Contributions Agency staff have instructions to recommend she obtains a pension forecast. They will also give her as much information as she wants about her national insurance position but without influencing her decision in any way. Taking account of her own circumstances, a women should decide for herself whether to keep or cancel her election.

  If approached, the CA will suggest that she bears the following points in mind:

  (i.) the relevant costs of paying full rate and reduced rate contributions;

  (ii.) whether she will qualify for a basic pension and how that will compare with the pension she will receive on her husband's insurance when he reaches pension age and retires;

  (iii.) how long she will have to wait to receive a pension on her husband's insurance;

  (iv.) whether she will qualify for an additional pension and, if so, how much;

  (v.) the effect of contracted-out deductions on the additional pension if she is paying towards an occupational pension scheme;

  (vi.) if she anticipates qualifying for short-term benefits, the contribution conditions for the award of such benefits and the relevance of cancelling her election from the beginning of a tax year.

  Additional information is available in leaflet NI1— national insurance choices for married women, available from local Social Security offices. This explains to women that they can qualify for a basic pension on either their own or their husband's contributions but they cannot get two pensions.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has received from Nicole Davoud in relation to the disability working allowance; what reply he is sending; what action he will take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have recently received representations from Mrs. Davoud and will be replying in the next few days.

  Benefits Offices, Liverpool
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his latest estimate of the total amount of money allocated to each benefit office in Liverpool for 1993–94 that is so far unclaimed for(a) family credit and (b) disability working allowance; and how many people he estimates are failing to take up their entitlement to the above benefits of each such benefit office;

  (2) what is the total amount of money allocated to each benefit office in Liverpool for 1993–94 for (a) family credit
  240
  and (b) disability working allowance; and what is the planned allocation to each benefit office in Liverpool for each benefit for (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available. Benefit expenditure on family credit and disability working allowance is not planned or allocated on a regional basis.

WALES

  Dental Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what progress has been made by the health intelligence unit, in collaboration with district health authorities and family health service authorities, to develop measures of consumer satisfaction with dental services;

  (2) whether a baseline has been determined in 1993 for the purpose of assessing progress on the reduction in the proportion of 12-year-old children who have sustained dental injuries; and whether definitive criteria for this baseline have been published;

  (3) which family health service authorities and district health authorities (a) have submitted to the Welsh Office a programme for the involvement of the resident population of their areas in the planning, provision and improvement of dental services and (b) not submitted such a programme by 31 December 1993;

  (4) whether the protocol for investment in health care-oral health remains the basis of dental health policy objectives in Wales; and what assessment he has made of progress towards achieving those objectives;

  (5) whether a baseline was determined during 1993 against which dental health gain targets for people without equal opportunity for good oral health can be assessed, based on local dental planning areas; and whether the definitive criteria of this baseline have been published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All health authorities and family health services authorities in Wales have developed action plans to improve the health of their local population by the turn of the century. These are currently being assessed by the Department.

  The development of the local strategies for oral health has been guided by the advice issued by the Welsh health planning forum in November 1992. Responsibility for establishing the necessary baseline information and measuring progress towards locally set targets, including those relating to patient satisfaction, rests mainly with health authorities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress was made during 1993 on achieving the service targets for the proportion of the population registered for capitation for dental purposes in the nought to two years age group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  1992 Per cent.

  Position as at 30 September 19931

  Percentage of 0 to 2-year-olds in Wales registered with a dentist

  17·0

  21·0

  1 Latest date for which information is available from the Dental Practices Board.

  241
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made by the Welsh Office over the past two years in establishing a framework to encourage primary care dental practitioners to become involved in clinical audit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Last October, the Department announced its plans for developing clinical audit in Wales. An important part is the proposal to appoint a dental audit adviser whose first task would be 'to strengthen the present arrangements for dental audit and their integration with audit spanning a range of related professional groups.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of 3 February,Official Report, column 865, if he will list the 17 local authorities in Wales that registered representations on THORP; and if he will indicate those in favour and those against.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 17 Welsh authorities were Clwyd, Gwent, Gwynedd, Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan county councils; Ceredigion district council, Colwyn borough council, Isle of Anglesey borough council, Llanelli borough council, Meirionnydd district council, Pembrokeshire district council, Port Talbot borough council, Radnor district council, Rhuddlan borough council, Swansea city council, Taff Ely borough council, and Wrexham Maelor borough council.

  All submitted representations against THORP.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council and county council and in total for Wales as a whole in constant prices(a) the estimated actual spending for 1993–94 net of community care, (b) the standard spending assessments for 1994–95 net of community care, (c) the amounts by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a) and (d) the percentage by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Standard spending assessments net of provision for care in the community are given in the table. Budgeted revenue expenditure information on community care is not collected centrally, and comparisons with 1993–94 spending levels cannot be provided.

  Standard spending assessments for 1994–95, net of care in the community

  £000

  1994–95 SSAs1

  Alyn and Deeside

  10,125

  Colwyn

  8,253

  Delyn

  9,262

  Glyndwr

  5,501

  Rhuddlan

  8,717

  Wrexham Maelor

  16,372

  Carmarthen

  7,762

  Ceredigion

  9,979

  242

  1994–95 SSAs1

  Dinefwr

  5,866

  Llanelli

  12,868

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  11,273

  South Pembrokeshire

  7,740

  Blaenau Gwent

  15,185

  Islwyn

  11,534

  Monmouth

  9,765

  Newport

  22,472

  Torfaen

  13,702

  Aberconwy

  8,740

  Arfon

  9,826

  Dwyfor

  5,996

  Meirionnydd

  6,068

  Ynys Mon

  11,248

  Cynon Valley

  13,374

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12,226

  Ogwr

  20,598

  Rhondda

  17,746

  Rhymney Valley

  15,882

  Taff Ely

  14,644

  Brecknock

  6,257

  Montgomeryshire

  7,132

  Radnorshire

  3,283

  Cardiff

  45,765

  Vale of Glamorgan

  15,257

  Port Talbot

  8,896

  Lliw Valley

  8,827

  Neath

  10,148

  Swansea

  32,781

  Clwyd

  265,919

  Dyfed

  242,614

  Gwent

  294,362

  Gwynedd

  161,038

  Mid Glamorgan

  375,273

  Powys

  90,024

  South Glamorgan

  269,937

  West Glamorgan

  243,519

  Total Districts

  461,071

  Total Counties

  1,942,687

  Total Wales

  2,403,758

  1 Excludes £86 million of county SSA for care in the community.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council and county council and in total for Wales as a whole in constant prices(a) the estimated actual spending for 1993–94, (b) the standard spending assessments for 1994–95, (c) the amounts by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a) and (d) the percentage by which (b) exceeds or falls short of (a); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on 1993–94 revenue expenditure budgets and 1994–95 standard spending assessments is given in the table. Outturn expenditure information for 1993–94 is not yet available. Budgeted expenditure includes spending financed through the use of reserves and spending above SSAs within capping limits and is not directly comparable with SSAs. The 1993–94 budgets have been inflated by 4 per cent.—the 1994–95 GDP deflator. This does not necessarily reflect the changes in the costs of local authority services between the two years.
  243

  Local authority estimates of revenue expenditure for 1993–94 and 1994–95 SSAs

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Adjusted 1993–94 budgeted net revenue expenditure

  1994–95 SSAs

  Increase between 1993–94 budgets and 1994–95 SSAs

  1£000

  £000

  £000

  Per cent.

  Alyn and Deeside

  10,650

  10,125

  -524

  -5

  Colwyn

  8,215

  8,253

  38

  0

  Delyn

  11,901

  9,262

  -2,639

  -22

  Glyndwr

  6,805

  5,501

  -1,304

  -19

  Rhuddlan

  9,147

  8,717

  -430

  -5

  Wrexham Maelor

  17,124

  16,372

  -751

  -4

  Carmarthen

  9,481

  7,762

  -1,718

  -18

  Ceredigion

  10,253

  9,979

  -274

  -3

  Dinefwr

  5,920

  5,866

  -53

  -1

  Llanelli

  14,723

  12,868

  -1,855

  -13

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  11,370

  11,273

  -97

  -1

  South Pembrokeshire

  7,638

  7,740

  102

  1

  Blaenau Gwent

  16,998

  15,185

  -1,813

  -11

  Islwyn

  12,431

  11,534

  -897

  -7

  Monmouth

  10,225

  9,765

  -460

  -5

  Newport

  22,733

  22,472

  -261

  -1

  Torfaen

  14,363

  13,702

  -661

  -5

  Aberconwy

  9,246

  8,740

  -506

  -5

  Arfon

  10,576

  9,826

  -750

  -7

  Dwyfor

  7,216

  5,996

  -1,220

  -17

  Meirionnydd

  6,420

  6,068

  -352

  -5

  Ynys Mon

  13,097

  11,248

  -1,849

  -14

  Cynon Valley

  13,743

  13,374

  -369

  -3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12,465

  12,226

  -239

  -2

  Ogwr

  21,427

  20,598

  -829

  -4

  Rhondda

  17,706

  17,746

  40

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  16,465

  15,882

  -584

  -4

  Taff Ely

  17,559

  14,644

  -2,915

  -17

  Brecknock

  6,626

  6,257

  -369

  -6

  Montgomeryshire

  7,403

  7,132

  -270

  -4

  Radnorshire

  3,413

  3,283

  -131

  -4

  Cardiff

  48,690

  45,765

  -2,924

  -6

  Vale of Glamorgan

  16,620

  15,257

  -1,363

  -8

  Port Talbot

  9,483

  8,896

  -586

  -6

  Lliw Valley

  8,984

  8,827

  -156

  -2

  Neath

  13,046

  10,148

  -2,898

  -22

  Swansea

  35,326

  32,781

  -2,544

  -7

  Clwyd

  287,086

  280,306

  -6,780

  -2

  Dyfed

  264,490

  253,355

  -11,135

  -4

  Gwent

  314,900

  306,932

  -7,968

  -3

  Gwynedd

  173,533

  169,002

  -4,531

  -3

  Mid Glamorgan

  402,047

  388,857

  -13,190

  -3

  Powys

  95,438

  93,656

  -1,782

  -2

  South Glamorgan

  279,846

  280,920

  1,074

  0

  West Glamorgan

  266,549

  255,622

  -10,927

  -4

  Total Districts

  495,485

  461,071

  -34,414

  -7

  Total Counties

  2,083,889

  2,028,650

  -55,239

  -3

  Total Wales

  2,579,374

  2,489,721

  -89,653

  -3

  1 Net revenue expenditure budgets as reported by local authorities, inflated by the 1994–95 GDP deflator. Includes £19·2 million—at 1994–95 prices—of expenditure funded through the use of reserves and £69·3 million of spending over SSAs within capping limits.

PRIME MINISTER

  School Teachers Review Body
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current membership of the School Teachers Review Body.

  The Prime Minister
  The membership of the School Teachers Review Body is as follows:

  First appointed

  Expiry date

  John Gardiner (Chairman)

  1993

  1995

  Mrs. Brigita Amey

  1991

  1995

  Alan Cox CBE

  1991

  1995

  244

  First appointed

  Expiry date

  Philip Halsey CB LVO

  1991

  1995

  Mrs. Gill Rostron

  1993

  1996

  Mrs. Anna Vinton

  1992

  1996

  Mr. Michael Harding

  1993

  1997

TRANSPORT

  M27
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that any proposals to widen the M27 motorway are subject to a full public inquiry.
  245
  Mr. Key
  As indicated in an earlier answer to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 345, consultants have yet to be appointed for the widening, and future progress on the scheme depends on the outcome of the review of scheme priorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last August. It is too early to say whether a public inquiry will be held.

  Buses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the provision of low-floor buses is included in the consultations his Department is having with the European Commission Directorate-General III on its draft directive on special provisions for buses and coaches.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom has proposed amendments to the Commission draft which are a significant improvement in terms of first step height and technical requirements and which, if adopted, will improve accessibility. Discussions are continuing.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives he is considering for private operators in the deregulated bus industry to provide access for disabled people on public transport routes.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has funded a low-floor bus demonstration project in north Tyneside. A similar, but larger, project funded by London Transport was launched on 11 January. Both schemes are being monitored by my Department and the results will be made available to operators to help them assess the costs and benefits of such vehicles.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place within his Department and with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Northern Ireland Office regarding the development of the full potential of the United Kingdom's lead in low-floor bus technology.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has worked closely with the manufacturers on design features for low-floor buses.

  Land Use
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Department of the Environment as to the integration of transport and land use planning plans under recent Department of the Environment planning policy guidance.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A consultation draft of the revised planning policy guidance note on transport—PPG13—was issued in April 1993. My Department has worked closely with the Department of the Environment both in the preparation of the consultation draft and in producing the final text of the PPG, following the consultation. PPG13 should be published shortly.

  Vehicle Accidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the accident rates, including fatalities, for(a) cars, (b) heavy goods vehicles and (c) public service vehicles in each year since 1991–92.
  246
  Mr. Key
  The rate of injury road accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres for these vehicle types are shown in the table.

  Accident rates, by vehicle type and severity: Great Britain 1991–92

  Rate per 100 million kms

  1991

  1992

  Car1

  HGV2

  PSV3

  Car1

  HGV2

  PSV3

  Fatal

  1

  2

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Serious

  11

  19

  33

  11

  10

  32

  Slight

  49

  35

  197

  50

  34

  205

  Total

  61

  47

  234

  61

  46

  240

  1 Includes invalid tricycle, other three-wheeled car, taxi, car and minibus-motor caravans.

  2 Heavy goods vehicle-goods vehicle over 1·52 tonnes unladen weight.

  3 Public service vehicle.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last financial year the number of sick days taken by(a) men and (b) women working for the DVLA.

  Mr. Key
  For 1992–93 the figures are(a) 12,213 and (b) 43,714.

  Satnam/Tesco Application, Stockport
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his reasons for giving a direction to refuse Satnam/Tesco, Tiviot way, Stockport, application No. 58636: if he intends to review his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We directed refusal because additional traffic generated by this proposed development could interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the M63, particularly at junction 13.

  We shall review the direction if the applicants provide evidence to demonstrate that our concerns can be overcome.

  Road Programme
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what priorities his Department has established for the road programme.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: The review of the trunk road programme is still in progress. No final decisions have been taken on the priorities to be allocated to schemes within the revised programme. An announcement will be-made shortly.

  Public Service Obligation Grant
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the public service obligation grant to British Rail in the year to 31 March 1992 was fully taxable; whether the amount subsequently categorised as capital grant had been subject to tax; how much tax was paid in each case; and what policy had been applied in previous years to the taxation of public obligation grant.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: The public service obligation grant is not taxable.

  Traffic Cones (Security)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 763, if he will ask the police scientific development branch to study the use of standard traffic cones to conceal bombs in a recent attack in Northern Ireland and what other cases have been reported of concealing explosive devices in standard traffic cones.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The police are aware of no cases involving the concealment of terrorist devices in traffic cones in Great Britain. They have information about six such cases in Northern Ireland since 1976, the most recent of which, on 12 February, was the first not to have been safely defused. In the light of this new development I have asked for a further assessment to be made, in consultation with those responsible for security arrangements in Northern Ireland, of the case for publicly funded research on transparent cones and will write to my hon. Friend once this has been completed.

HEALTH

  Lister Hospital
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to the maintenance of clinical standards in pathology services at the Lister hospital following any decision to award a contract to a private company which takes clinicians out of the management arrangements; and what steps she will take to monitor the quality of these services.

  Mr. Sackville
  When placing contracts for pathology services, it is for trusts to specify the quality standards to be met, and to monitor compliance with those standards.

  Asthma
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken by or for her Department on correlations between atmospheric pollution and the incidence of asthma and respiratory illnesses.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is advised on the effects on health of air pollutants by two committees of independent experts, the Advisory Group on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution Episodes and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants.

  MAAPE advises on the short-term health effects of episodic exposure to air pollutants and has produced three reports, on ozone, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. All are available in the Library.

  COMEAP advises Government on the effects upon health of pollutants in outdoor and indoor air, liaises with other relevant bodies, and assesses existing scientific data, new discoveries and the need for further research. Two sub-groups of COMEAP established in 1993 advise on, respectively, the link between exposure to air pollutants and asthma, and the health effects of particulates.

  One research project on the effects of air pollution is being funded directly by the Department of Health. Professor Ross Anderson HR, of St. George's hospital medical school, is currently carrying out research into the air pollution episode in London in December 1991, and its effects on public health.
  248
  There are also a number of studies currently being undertaken in connection with asthma, but which are not solely concerned with atmospheric pollution. The social medicine and health services research unit, which is funded by the Department, is currently undertaking two research projects, due to be completed in 1994, into the incidence of asthma in the United Kingdom and the European Community.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the special training package for doctors seeking approval under section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983, or already approved, has been finalised.

  Mr. Bowis
  Discussions with the Royal College of Psychiatrists about this are continuing.

  Milk Substitutes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice she has given to dentists on milk substitutes and tooth decay;

  (2) what research her Department has undertaken into the link between milk substitutes and tooth decay.

  Mr. Sackville
  Only infant formula provides a substitute for breast milk in ensuring a sole source of nutrition for the newborn. The Government published the report from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food "Dietary Sugars and Human Disease" in 1989, copies of which are available in the Library, which concluded that lactose in milk and milk products is a negligible cause of tooth decay. Lactose is the carbohydrate in the majority of infant formulas retailed in this country.

  Infant formulas based on soya protein are available for infants allergic to cow's milk. Some soya-based products are formulated with carbohydrates other than lactose, which are more cariogenic. These products are suitable for infants who cannot digest lactose or for those being reared on a vegan diet.

  The proper use of infant formulas is a central feature of long-running programmes of education about feeding babies. These are directed both at parents and at health professionals including dentists. The importance of supervised bottle feeding and the change from bottle to cup feeding are all stressed as part of satisfactory weaning practices which contribute to dental health.

  The Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, through the national diet and nutrition survey programme commissioned a survey of children aged one and a half to four and a half years which has included a dental component. Results from this work will be available later this year.

  Home Visits (Fees)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will remind general practitioners that it remains her policy that fees for home visits are not permitted; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Fees that may be claimed by general practitioners are adequately set out in the "Statement of Fees and Allowances payable to General Medical Practitioners in England and Wales" and the "Statement of
  249
  Fees and Allowances payable to General Medical Practitioners in Scotland", copies of which are available in Library.

  Munchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children were returned to their parents from local authority care subsequent to a diagnosis of Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many children were taken into local authority care after their mothers were diagnosed as suspected or suffering from Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Internal Review
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the results of the internal review into whistle blowing in the NHS; and how many organisations and individuals were consulted.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The management executive has not undertaken such a review.

  Methadone
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policy considerations underlie the authorisation of doctors to prescribe methadone; how they receive a licence to do so; and how doctors prescribing methadone are monitored.

  Mr. Bowis
  Methadone is prescribed to opiate users for a range of treatments including detoxification, stabilisation and longer-term treatments. It can be a useful tool in helping to change the behaviour of some drug users towards abstinence and intermediate goals, such as reduction in injecting and the sharing of injecting equipment. "Drug Misuse and Dependence Guidelines on Clinical Management", issued by the Department of Health, includes advice to doctors on the prescribing of methadone. Copies of the guidelines are available in the Library.

  Any doctor may prescribe methadone, for which no licence is required. Monitoring of the prescribing of all controlled drugs, including methadone, is carried out by the Home Office drugs inspectorate and is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial arrangements are being made for the five NHS trusts dissolved on 31 March 1993.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pursuant to the dissolution of five national health service trusts on 31 March 1993, and their reconfiguration with parts, or all, of other trusts or directly managed units, I propose to create new originating capital debt for the six new trusts equal to the assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt of the five dissolved trusts.

  These operations involve no loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving the particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

  Population Census
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish details on the coverage and quality achieved by the 1991 population census.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the coverage of the 1991 census has been brought together in a 1991 census user guide—No. 58—copies of which have been placed in the Library. One of the methods used to assess the level of coverage was the 1991 census validation survey. The CVS report on coverage will be published before the summer recess.

  Information on the quality of answers to census questions will be given in a monitor to be published by the census offices in March. A full report will be published before the end of 1994.

  Creuztfeldt-Jakob dementia
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures available for the incidence of Creuztfeldt-Jakob dementia and related medical conditions in humans; and what age ranges are involved.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 2 February at column 722.

  British Health Care Association
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what donations from the British Health Care Association have been made to the NHS in the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 February at column 212.

  Climagest Tablets
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons two prescription charges are payable for Climagest tablets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A prescription charge is payable in respect of each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed, unless the patient is entitled to charge exemption or remission. Climagest contains two separate preparations, differentiated by colour, and two prescription charges are, therefore, due when these items are dispensed. The fact that for convenience, and as an aid to patient compliance, the two preparations are supplied in one pack does not alter the patients' liability for prescription charges.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct NHS trusts to release information relating to chief executive and managerial pay increases and levels of staff working within the trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are required to publish in annual accounts certain information about the average number of employees by main staff group and the emoluments of their chairmen and board members. From 1 April they will also be required to publish in their annual reports information about the total remuneration of chairmen, executive and non-executive directors.

  Policy Decisions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in the parliamentary year 1992–93 her Department has used(a) statements, (b) a press release alone, (c) a press conference or (d) an answer to a written question as the primary means for a policy decision to be made public.

  Mr. Sackville
  Major policy decisions are announced to Parliament in the first instance with press conferences or press releases or both used to explain the development and implementation of these policies. Apart from three formal statements to Parliament in 1992–93, it is not possible to determine accurately from our records the other information being sought.

  Registered and unregistered nurses and nurses in training in England 1988–92 as at 30 September for each year

  Whole-time equivalents1

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Registered

  241,920

  244,220

  242,340

  243,250

  246,570

  Unregistered

  92,980

  91,730

  93,560

  90,550

  90,850

  Nurses in training

  62,950

  62,100

  58,800

  47,340

  34,740

  Project 2000 nurses in training2

  0

  0

  3,000

  10,500

  18,300

  Practice nurses3

  3,480

  4,630

  7,740

  8,780

  9,120

  Others4

  0

  0

  0

  11,050

  6,630

  Source: NHS non-medical work force census.

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2 The figures for Project 2000 nursing students are approximate.

  3 Practice nurses are employed by general practices and do not therefore appear in hospital and community health services statistics.

  4 Due to a change in classification of nursing and midwifery staff in 1991 another category of "Others" was created. This category was for those staff whose pay scale did not allow them to be classified as either qualified, unqualified or as a learner.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton tabled for answer on 24 January regarding the appointments he makes to public bodies.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have replied to all the hon. Member's questions.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total number of listed buildings; and how many were listed since his Department was set up.

  Mr. Brooke
  At 31 December 1993, there were 443,470 entries in the statutory lists. Between April 1992 and December 1993, 4,293 entries were added to the lists.

  About 500,000 individual buildings are estimated to be protected.

  Shalfleet Bridge
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out the reasons for the hold up in granting permission for the rebuilding of Shalfleet bridge; and when this bridge was scheduled.

  Mr. Brooke
  Shalfleet bridge was listed on 20 January 1994 on the basis of English Heritage's advice that it is a building of special architectural or historic interest.

  Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of(a) whole-time equivalent registered nurses, (b) whole-time equivalent unregistered nurses and (c) whole-time equivalent nurses in training in England for each year from 1988 onwards.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: The information available is shown in the table. The definition of registered is both registered and enrolled nurses and midwives in hospitals and the community. This gives all qualified nurses, includes senior nurses, but excludes those nurses who have transferred to senior management terms and who cannot be identified separately from other senior managers.

  The bridge is included in the draft revised list for South Wight and, on 20 January, the Isle of Wight joint planning technical unit, which has a copy of the draft list, drew my Department's attention to a planning application for the demolition and rebuilding of the bridge. The unit requested an immediate decision on whether or not the bridge was to be listed.

  The effect of listing is that listed building consent is now required, in addition to planning permission, before the bridge can be altered or demolished. An application for listed building consent is at present being considered by the Department of the Environment.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last visited Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement on the present general condition of this building.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not visited the building myself, but my Department receives regular reports on its condition from English Heritage. I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 31 January at column 516.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the annual cost of the Broadcasting Standards Council in each year since it was established.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Broadcasting Standards Council was established in May 1988. Grant-in-aid paid to the council in each year since then is as follows:
  253

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  0·465

  1989–90

  1·080

  1990–91

  1·272

  1991–92

  1·439

  1992–93

  1·275

  11993–94

  1·465

  1 Allocation

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional support he plans to provide for the long-term development work of British non-governmental organisations in 1994–95.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government's main channels of assistance to the long-term development work of British non-governmental organisations are the joint funding scheme and the British volunteer programme. In 1994–95 the joint funding scheme will increase by almost 14 per cent. to £33 million and the volunteer programme by 8 per cent. to £21 million.

  These substantial increases reflect the Government's high regard for the work of voluntary agencies which are helping to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged people in developing countries.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional assistance he is providing to alleviate the plight of those affected by the recent outbreak of fighting around Kabul, Afghanistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development has approved a further package of assistance for Afghanistan amounting to £2·5 million. This is in addition to a total pledge of £7·5 million earlier this financial year. The new money will be provided (a) to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees —£1 million—for the urgent needs of the newly displaced for shelter materials etc.; (b) to the International Committee of the Red Cross—£500,000—for the maintenance of hospital supplies and convoys to Kabul; (c) to UNICEF—£500,000—for work on water supplies and sanitation in camps and (d) to various United Kingdom non-governmental organisations—£500,000— for a variety of projects also in the camps, providing basic assistance, for example blankets, tents, shelter materials and cooking sets.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is the quorum for meetings of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster;

  (2) how many meetings of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster have been inquorate since 1987.
  254
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The council's function is advisory and no quorum is required.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the attendance record of each member of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster since 1987 or from the date of his appointment, if later.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Members of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster are available to give advice to the Chancellor of the Duchy.

  The advice sought may not require the attendance of all members at any one time.

  However, the record of attendance since 1987 or their later date of appointment at full meetings of the council of those who form its present membership is:
  Attorney General, 100 per cent. Receiver General, 94 per cent. Vice Chancellor, 67 per cent. (otherwise in Court): Sir Michael Bunbury Bt, 100 per cent. Professor Christopher Howes, 100 per cent. Mr. J. R. Sclater, 81 per cent.

  Staff
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff are employed by the Duchy of Lancaster; and where they are located.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The average number of staff employed on the Duchy's estates outside London was 35 in 1993.

  The average number of staff employed in the Duchy office engaged in the management of the Duchy's assets was 13 in 1993.

  The administration of Bona Vacantia is carried out by the Duchy solicitor assisted by two members of the Duchy staff full time and three part time in 1993.

  The Duchy's duties in connection with the appointment of magistrates in the County Palatine, appointments to church livings and the administration of the benevolent fund were discharged by two members of staff in 1993.

  All staff members other than those employed on the estates are located in the Duchy office at Lancaster place.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton tabled for answer on 26 January regarding the appointments he makes to public bodies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have answered all 15 of the questions tabled to me by the hon. Member on 26 January 1994.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out what information he has on the political allegiance of the members of the magistrates bench in (i) Oldham, (ii) Rochdale and (iii) Manchester.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Candidates are asked to give their political allegiance when they apply to become magistrates. Figures available for the three benches are:

  Numbers

  Oldham

  Conservative

  70

  Labour

  46

  255

  Numbers

  Liberal Democrat

  34

  Independent/Not Known

  55

  Rochdale

  Conservative

  31

  Labour

  41

  Liberal Democrat

  36

  Independent/Not Known

  21

  Manchester

  Conservative

  119

  Labour

  113

  Liberal Democrat

  62

  Independent/Not Known

  88

  Market Testing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which departments have been subject to market testing; in each case what percentage of contracts have been awarded(a) outside and (b) inside the department; and what has been the cost of the process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All the main Government Departments have taken part in the "Competing for Quality programme. I expect to publish aggregate information on contract awards, and the cost of the process, in the citizens charter second report.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what savings have been achieved by market testing after taking into account(a) the cost of redundancy payments and (b) the cost of unemployment pay and other benefits in respect of civil servants rendered unemployed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The savings figures, to be published in the citizens charter second report, take account of the cost of redundancy payments. Information on the cost of unemployment pay and other benefits in respect of civil servants rendered unemployed is not available.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what monitoring arrangements exist in respect of outside contractors successful following market testing exercises.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Guidance has been issued on the monitoring of contracts and can be found in the Government's guide to market testing, which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what circumstances successful bidders in market testing exercises may withdraw from contracts; and how many have done so.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Contacts generally include clauses which allow for the termination of the contract by either side, after a given period of notice. The circumstances under which this may happen will be described in the contract. Information on contracts awarded following a market testing exercise which have subsequently been terminated is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants have had their terms and conditions of employment and pension rates altered following a market testing exercise.
  256
  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants have been transferred to successful contractors following market testing exercises; and to how many of these the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 applied.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I expect to publish this information in the citizens charter second report.

EDUCATION

  Adult Education (London)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each year since 1990 the number of enrolments of students aged 19 years and over in adult education institutions and further education colleges maintained by the inner London boroughs or funded through Inner London education authority successor bodies.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of enrolments by students aged 19 years and older on further education courses in adult education centres and further and higher education colleges in inner London which are maintained by an inner London borough or funded through an ILEA successor body are shown in the following table:

  The number of enrolments as at 1 November of the appropriate year by students aged 19 and over on further education courses in adult education centres and HE and FE colleges in inner London

  Academic year

  Number of enrolments (thousands)

  1990–91

  233

  1991–92

  212

  1992–93

  217

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much(a) capital and (b) revenue money has been spent by grant-maintained schools each year since the first grant-maintained school opened; and how many pupils attended a grant-maintained school in each of those years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  (a) Capital1 (£ million)

  (b) Revenue1 (£ million)

  Pupil numbers2

  1989–90

  2

  16

  15,100

  1990–91

  7

  63

  38,100

  1991–92

  10

  182

  109,000

  1992–93

  28

  479

  236,000

  1 The information on capital and revenue expenditure has been compiled from returns made by the schools, and includes expenditure financed from income other than grant.

  2 Pupil numbers have been derived from the Department's annual January census, for the schools which were self-governing by the end of each financial year. The totals therefore include some pupils whose schools were self-governing for only part of the financial year.

  School Numbers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary and secondary pupils are in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the last year for which figures are available and five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in January of each year are shown in the table.

  Pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England

  Primary (millions)

  Secondary (millions)

  1973

  4·90

  3·16

  1978

  4·64

  3·85

  1983

  3·84

  3·74

  1988

  3·84

  3·07

  1993

  4·17

  2·96

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the number of nursery places in voluntary-aided schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) on 1 February,Official Report, col. 726.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many new nursery projects have been approved by his Department in each year since 1989 in(a) voluntary-aided schools and (b) grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Numbers of proposals published under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 by the governing bodies of voluntary-aided schools for a significant change of character by the addition of a nursery which have been approved are as follows:

  Number

  1989

  14

  1990

  15

  1991

  20

  1992

  17

  1993

  26

  1994

  12

  Total

  94

  1 To date.

  No statutory proposals have been approved for the addition of nurseries to grant-maintained schools.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will set out the criteria used by his Department in assessing priorities for grant aid for major projects at(a) voluntary-aided and (b) grant-maintained schools for 1994–95;

  (2) if he will list (a) the schools and (b) the amounts awarded in grant aid for major projects at (i) voluntary-aided and (ii) grant-maintained schools in each education authority in England in 1994–95.
  258
  Mr. Forth
  The following criteria were applied in determining how capital resources should be allocated for major projects at voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools in 1994–95:Voluntary-aided schools
  Commitments arising from projects allowed for in previous capital allocations;
  New projects to provide additional school places in areas of population growth (basic need);
  New projects to implement cost-effective schemes to remove surplus places; and
  Improvement work to the extent that the remaining resources allowed.
  Grant-maintained schools
  Commitments arising from projects allowed for in previous capital allocations;
  Major repairs and other work required on priority health and safety grounds;
  Bids for projects involving work required to implement the national curriculum;
  New projects to provide additional school places in areas of population growth (basic need);
  Work involving access for the disabled.

  The amounts awarded in grant aid for major projects to voluntary aided and self-governing schools in each education authority are set out in press notices 427/93 dated 17 December 1993 and 425/93 dated 16 December 1993 respectively. Copies of these notices have been placed in the Library.

  An announcement about those schools which became self-governing between October 1993 and January 1994 will be made during March 1994.

  Chief Inspectors of Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which of Her Majesty's chief inspectors of schools—England—who have been in office since 1979 have had no experience(a) professionally in a primary or secondary school or (b) in another professional post in education; and what requirements he is making in respect of both the above in the appointment of the chief inspector due to take office on 1 September.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Between 1979 and 31 August 1992 when HMI were part of this Department, three people—Sheila Browne, Professor Eric Bolton and Dr. Terence Melia—held the post of senior chief inspector (England). The Education (Schools) Act 1992 created a new statutory office-holder, Her Majesty's chief inspector of Schools (England) and Professor Stewart Sutherland was appointed to head his own department, the Office for Standards in Education, which opened on 1 September 1992.

  All four had held professional posts in higher or further education. Professor Bolton had held a teaching post in a secondary school.

  Professor Sutherland has given notice of his intention to resign from 1 September 1994. The public advertisement for the post states that Professor Sutherland's successor will be expected to have a good understanding of developments in education but experience of working in education is not a necessary requirement.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state the names, current positions and the relevant experience of the panel of persons, or the person, who will make a final recommendation concerning(a) the short list and (b) the appointment of the next chief inspector of schools—England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A selection board will meet shortly to draw up a shortlist and interview candidates for the post
  259
  of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England with a view to making a recommendation to my right hon. Friend. The appointment is made by Her Majesty in Council.

  The board will consist of:
  Mrs. A. E. Bowtell, First Civil Service Commissioner
  Sir Timothy Lankester, KCB, Permanent Secretary, Department for Education
  Sir Ron Dearing, CBE, Chairman, School Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Mr. S. Kalms, Chairman, Dixons Group plc and Chairman of the Trust of Dixons CTC in Bradford
  Mr. J. C. Hedger, Deputy Secretary, Department for Education

ENVIRONMENT

  Hazardous Wastes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) on 12 January,Official Report, columns 200–1, (1) which hazardous waste shipments to developing countries have been prohibited on the grounds that they are not moving towards environmentally sound recovery operations; who is responsible for deciding which shipments to prohibit; and what information is taken into account in making the decision to prohibit a shipment;

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that lead battery recycling operations in Brazil are environmentally sound;

  (3) what criteria he uses to decide whether lead battery recycling operations are environmentally sound in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) non-OECD countries;

  (4) when he was informed to which Brazilian battery recycling facility the consignment of battery wastes which were prevented from loading on the container ship Brazil Express, at Tilbury docks on 10 February, was destined; whether he considers this facility to be environmentally sound; if he will prohibit this consignment from shipment to a facility whose environmental standards he has not investigated; and what steps he will take to ensure that this consignment moves towards environmentally sound recovery.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no powers under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 to prohibit shipments of non-ferrous metals destined for recovery operations. The operation of the 1988 regulations is normally a matter for the waste regulation authorities. However, in the event that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a notification under regulation 6 of the 1988 regulations, relating to the export of hazardous waste outside the European Community, he would consider that notification in accordance with article 4 of Council directive 84/631/EEC, as amended, on the supervision and control within the European Community of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. No such notification has been received in relation to any developing countries.

  The supervision of standards in lead battery recycling facilities in Brazil is, in the first instance, a matter for the Brazilian authorities. Environmentally sound management at overseas recovery facilities is the subject of the investigation referred to in my answer of 12 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) Official Report, columns 200–1. The question of environmentally sound management of wastes is also
  260
  being considered by a technical working group under the auspices of the Basel convention. Officials from my Department are participating fully in those discussions.

  All facilities recycling waste batteries in Great Britain must be licensed under part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  I have no information about the recycling facility referred to by the hon. Member. I understand that the waste regulation authorities concerned are investigating this case.

  Air Monitoring Sites
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Government air monitoring sites there are; what plans there are to increase their number; and what information he has on the number of air monitoring sites in(a) Germany and (b) Japan.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government fund a number of air quality monitoring stations. This includes 46 continuous automatic sites of which:

  29 monitor ozone,

  24 monitor nitrogen dioxide,

  21 monitor sulphur dioxide,

  19 monitor carbon monoxide,

  12 monitor fine particles (PM10)

  and 7 monitor 26 hydrocarbons including benzene, 1, 3, butadiene and ozone precursors.

  The Government also undertake air quality monitoring surveys using non-automatic techniques. Nitrogen dioxide is monitored in this way at over 1,100 sites and smoke and sulphur dioxide at 252 urban sites, both in collaboration with local authorities. In addition, lead is monitored at 21 sites, other heavy metals at six sites, toxic organic micropollutants such as dioxins at five sites and sulphur dioxide at 38 rural sites.

  In the second anniversary report of the 1990 Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance", the Government made a commitment to extend their urban air quality monitoring network to cover all major cities by 1997. In addition, the Government are currently considering responses to the recently published consultation paper on "The Future of Air Quality Monitoring Networks in the United Kingdom", in which proposals were made to develop a framework which draws local and national air quality monitoring together into a coherent quality assured network.

  Information on numbers of air quality monitoring sites in Germany and Japan is not held centrally.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the per capita coverage on provision of air monitoring sites in Britain and each other EC country for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government fund a number of air quality monitoring stations in the United Kingdom. The per capita coverage of these monitoring sites is presented in the tables.

  Pollutant

  Number of sites

  Per capita coverage x 10-7*

  1. Continuous automatic sites

  Ozone

  29

  5·30

  Nitrogen dioxide

  24

  4·40

  Sulphur dioxide

  21

  3·80

  Carbon monoxide

  19

  3·50

  Fine particles (PM10)

  12

  2·20

  Hydrocarbons

  7

  1·30

  261

  Pollutant

  Number of sites

  Per capita coverage x 10-7*

  2. Non-automatic sites

  Nitrogen dioxide†

  1,164

  212·00

  Smoke/sulphur† dioxide (urban)

  252

  45·80

  Sulphur dioxide (rural)

  38

  6·90

  Lead

  21

  3·80

  Heavy metals

  6

  1·10

  Toxic organic micropollutants

  5

  0·91

  * Assumes population of the United Kingdom of 55 million.

  † Monitoring undertaken in collaboration with local authorities.

  Information on numbers of air quality monitoring sites in other European countries is not held centrally.

  Atmospheric Pollution, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the levels of atmospheric pollution in the Greenwich area and, in particular, the levels of nitrous oxide and black smoke emissions, in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Atkins
  Annual average concentrations of black smoke, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in Greenwich and surrounding sites are given in tables 1 and 2. As part of the expansion of the urban monitoring network a site was established in Eltham, Greenwich in 1993 which continually monitors 26 hydrocarbons. The provisional data for benzene and 1, 3 butadiene for the first four months of operation are presented in table 3. Annual emissions of smoke, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide between 1985 and 1991 are given in the Department of the Environment's 15th edition of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Table 1

  Greenwich1

  Woolwich

  Year

  Black smoke (ug/m3)

  SO2 (ppb3)

  Black smoke (ug/m3)

  SO2 (ppb3)

  1985

  8·7

  66·3

  6·0

  48·2

  1986

  8·0

  47·1

  6·0

  47·1

  1987

  12·6

  50·1

  11·3

  51·0

  1988

  12·8

  58·7

  10·5

  63·8

  1989

  19·4

  55·2

  9·7

  40·2

  1990

  16·8

  50·5

  10·2

  47·3

  1991

  14·5

  45·8

  9·0

  47·1

  1992

  11·2

  36·2

  6·6

  36·0

  1 Greenwich site:

  West Greenwich branch library, Greenwich High road.

  2 Woolwich site:

  Shrewsbury house, Rushmore Crescent. Plumstead, SE18.

  3 Parts per billion at 20°C and 1013 millibars pressure.

  Table 2

  Year and site

  Annual average No2 (ppb)

  1991

  Shrewsbury house, Rushmore crescent. Plumstead SE18

  34·0

  1993

  (Kerbside), Greenwich town hall, Woolwich road, SE10

  20·6

  Environmental curriculum centre, Bexley road, SE9

  15·5

  De Lucy school, Cookhill road, Abbey Wood, SE2

  16·3

  Shrewsbury house, Bushmoor crescent. Plumstead, SE18

  13·7

  262

  Table 3

  Month/year

  Benzene (ppb)

  1,3 Butadiene (ppb)

  August 1993

  0·80

  0·16

  September 1993

  0·89

  0·21

  October 1993

  0·75

  0·17

  November 1993

  1·16

  0·21

  Private Water Companies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make regulations applicable to private water companies on the same lines as those in section 2(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Environmental Information Regulations 1992 apply among others to those bodies with public responsibilities for the environment as defined in regulation 2(3). It is for the water companies to interpret what responsibilities they may have under the existing regulations and for the courts to adjudicate if their interpretation is challenged.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what levels of teachers' pay was allowed for in the local government central support grant settlement for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  The settlement assumes that any increase in pay costs is offset by efficiency savings.

  Benzene
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to monitor and control airborne levels of benzene in the light of the report by the expert panel on air quality standards committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment is establishing a network of 12 sites to continually monitor benzene and 25 other hydrocarbons in urban areas in the United Kingdom. Sites have been established in London Bloomsbury, London Eltham, Middlesbrough, Belfast, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Cardiff. Sites in Leeds and Bristol are expected to be in operation by the spring and a further three sites are expected to be in operation by the end of the year.

  The expert panel on air quality standards recently published its first report in which it recommended an air quality standard for benzene in the United Kingdom of 5ppb as a running annual average and a target standard. The panel also recommended that this standard be reduced to the lower level of 1ppb running annual average in the longer term. The Government are considering the panel's recommendations on benzene very carefully and will shortly publish a consultation paper which will discuss how air quality standards should operate and ways in which they can be achieved. The Government will consider how the recommended standard could be used in this context and over what time scale the lower target standard could be met.

  Water Use
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will launch a Government action plan to encourage using water more wisely;

  (2) what action he has taken following the receipt of responses to the publication of "Using Water Wisely, A Consultation Paper", July 1992, DoE/Welsh Office.

  Mr. Atkins
  We intend to publish shortly a document setting out the range of actions that we are taking in the light of the responses to the consultation paper.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets and mechanisms he will introduce to ensure the sustainable use of water in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in articles 3 and 4 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Atkins
  For England and Wales, the system of water management, introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963 and most recently updated by the Water Act 1989, provides an excellent framework for ensuring the sustainable management of water. Systems for the same purposes exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The policies to be followed, and the challenges to be addressed, in running these systems are described in "Sustainable Development—The UK Strategy" (Cm 2426).

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 26, what are the criteria and rules applying to the house purchase loans for departmental staff on compulsory transfer including the circumstances under which loans can be written off; what were the total amounts loaned or granted under the scheme in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94; and how many staff were assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  Advances of salary are available to assist with the costs of house purchase when staff are involved in permanent and compulsory transfers. Loans are advanced when staff move to a higher-priced housing area or when, because of individual circumstances, they would not otherwise be able to afford to move home. Staff must take the maximum mortgage they can afford and contribute the net proceeds of sale of the old property. Loans are normally limited to half annual salary. Staff posted to London whose loan under the normal rules would be limited to less than £9,500 can, however, obtain an extra £1,000.

  Loans must be repaid within 12 years of the date of transfer, but repayment can be deferred for up to four years from the date of the transfer. The advance is repayable if the borrower ceases to be a civil servant or if completion of purchase is not made.

  Excluding PSA Services, there were 14 loans in 1992–93 amounting to £115,529 and 10 so far in 1993–94 amounting to £94,600.

  Write-off is unlikely and would normally be approved only after all avenues of recovery had been pursued. There have been no write-offs in 1992–93 or 1993–94.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to include part M of the Building Regulations in the Government's deregulation programme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to extend part M of the Building Regulations to include existing buildings and housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  Building Regulations made under the Building Act 1984 at present make provision for access by disabled people to new non-domestic buildings. I have asked the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to advise me on whether these provisions should be extended to cover certain alterations and changes of use in such buildings. I have also asked it to examine the desirability and practicability of extending the provisions in part M to new dwellings. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this before Easter. Any plans to introduce new or extended regulations are carefully scrutinised to ensure that the costs do not outweigh the benefits.

  Approved Contractors
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms are included in his Department's register of approved contractors.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department of the Environment manages two registers of approved contractors. These are the contractor management information system and the consultants register. There are 7,893 contractors on the contractor management information system and 3,239 consultants on the consultants register.

  Hayes Records Centre
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to speed up the decontamination work at the Hayes records centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The decontamination work at the Public Record Office site, Hayes, started in late November 1993. As the separate storage areas in the two buildings are decontaminated they are being handed over progressively so that the records in them can be accessed, with priority being given to the records which are most urgently needed. Six of the eight areas in building A, which contains the MOD records, have already been completed and the building should be fully decontaminated by 4 March. Four of the eight areas in building Y had been completed and the aim is to complete the final area by 10 March. The work on building Y is a seven-days-a-week operation.

  Hotels (Change of Use)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue guidance in respect of the change of use of hotels to(a) hostels for social security claimants and (b) housing association homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  On(a), this will depend on the outcome of our review. (b) There are no plans to issue guidance on the conversion of hotels to housing association homes.

  Subsidence
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of homes in(a) London, (b) the south-east of England, (c) the south-west of England, (d) the midlands, (e) the north-east of England, (f) the north-west of England, (g) Scotland, (h) Wales and (i) Northern Ireland were affected by subsidence from 1985 to 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are no centrally collected statistics on the number of homes affected by subsidence.

  BRE Digest 352 "Underpinning" (Revised 1993) gives the annual value and number of insurance claims for subsidence and heave damage to dwellings based on payments made by the major insurance companies. This shows the number of claims to rise from about 10,000 per year in 1985 and 1986 to about 65,000 in 1991 and the value to rise from about £110 million per year in 1985 and 1986 to almost £550 million in 1991. The most recent figure available is that the value of claims exceeds £260 million for 1992.

  A nationwide survey for the Building Research Establishment found that about 50 per cent. of all underpinning is carried out in London and the home counties. BRE Digest 352 illustrates the geographical distribution of underpinning projects as proportions of the national total in 12 arbitrary areas. The relevant figures are:

  Percentage of national total

  London and South East England

  33

  Central Southern England

  18

  South West England

  2

  Midlands

  20

  East Anglia

  12

  North East England

  3

  North West England

  4

  Wales and Welsh Borders

  3

  Scotland

  4

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Groundwork Trusts
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approve funding for a Groundwork trust to make payments to an existing environmental charity providing the same services as Groundwork trusts to pay for(a) core costs and (b) project costs.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Groundwork's grant in aid is given specifically to fund Groundwork activity. There is a wide range of grants available from this Department to fund the environmental activities of other existing voluntary organisations.

  Flats Over Shops Initiative
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will receive supplementary credit approvals under the flats over shops initiative for 1994–95 and at what levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have placed in the Library a list of the 131 local authorities in England to receive flats over shops allocations totalling £10 million in 1994–95.

  I am delighted with the progress that has been made with this scheme. As in the last two years, the programme
  266
  was again considerably oversubscribed. This shows that there is great interest in turning empty space above shops into residential accommodation.

  The aims of the initiative are twofold; to reduce housing stress by creating new homes and to demonstrate that such a change of use is possible and can have positive advantages for both property owners and the area generally.

  Creating flats over shops not only contributes to the growth of housing for rent, but brings life back to our inner cities and improves shop front security.

  I expect to see many more homes created this year as a result of this initiative.

  I hope that those local authorities which were not successful in gaining Government resources will still consider promoting flats over shops schemes in their area, using other available funds.

  Redundant Building Grant Scheme
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the criteria for eligibility for receipt of the Rural Development Commission's redundant building grant scheme; what were the criteria in April 1992; what parts of the country it covers now; and what parts it covered in April 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Virtually any building in a designated rural development area is eligible, provided that it will be used for business purposes when the works are completed. Grants are not, however, available for conversions to, or refurbishment of, residential property, nor for buildings which will be used for agricultural or horticultural purposes. Tourism and leisure projects are eligible, including quality, serviced, overnight accommodation but not small bed-and-breakfast and self-catering developments.

  Prior to April 1992, the Rural Development Commission's redundant building grant scheme was available only in the designated rural development areas. The scheme's coverage was extended in April 1992. Areas now eligible are:

  All rural development areas.

  All national Parks and the Norfolk Broads.

  Countryside employment programme areas.

  The rural coastal strip in the Worthington and Whitehaven areas of Cumbria.

  Rural parts of the Barrow peninsula, Cumbria.

  Portland, Dorset.

  St. Austell and surrounding area.

  Rural coalfield closure areas in:

  North East Derbyshire/West Nottinghamshire/South

  Yorkshire

  North West Leicestershire/South Derbyshire

  South East Northumberland

  East and West Durham

  Yorkshire

  North Warwickshire

  East Kent.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently in receipt of the Rural Development Commission's redundant building grant scheme; and how many were in receipt in April 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: At the end of January 1994, the Rural Development Commission had paid £19·89 million in grants to 3,144 redundant building grant projects since the scheme's inception in 1982. At the beginning of April 1992 the comparable figures were £15· 7 million to 2,723 projects.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Integrated Prison Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his evaluation of the integrated prison scheme in which vulnerable and ordinary prisoners share all activities together.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 23 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the evaluation of arrangements in those prison establishments where vulnerable and ordinary prisoners share regime activities. An evaluation study is to be undertaken as part of the Prison Service's planned research programme for 1994–95.

  Traffic Laws (Police Enforcement)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 801, who is conducting the review of police enforcement of the traffic laws; when it will be completed; if he will make the results public; what is the time scale for public consultation as part of the review; if he will place a list of those being consulted in the Library; and if he will make it his policy to advise any organisation or individual being consulted that their response may be made public unless they request otherwise.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Government officials will be reviewing traffic policing duties in consultation with the police service and police authority representatives. My right hon. and learned Friend expects to receive a report on that exercise in the autumn. He will consider the impact of any changes proposed on operational efficiency and the quality of service that the police offer the community. He will also wish to consider how best to consult the public if any changes are proposed that would affect the police interface with the public.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date of police operations in connection with protests in Wanstead against the construction of the M11 link road.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 22 February,Official Report, column 154.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the police tactics decided on for the final removal of protestors occupying houses in Wanstead in opposition to the M11 link road; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the level of seniority within the Metropolitan police service at which the decisions were taken as to the number of officers to be deployed, and the
  268
  tactics to be used, in the final removal of protestors from houses in Wanstead occupied as a protest against the construction of the M11 link road.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that his officers were present at the request of the high sheriff of Greater London who was seeking to enforce an order of the High Court obtained by the Department of Transport for possession of the site. The role of the police was to prevent any breach of the peace.

  The Commissioner informs me that his officers sought, for reasons of safety and to enable the order to be enforced, to establish cordons around the area and to direct traffic away from it. Police officers then cleared the road in front of the houses to enable the high sheriff's officers to take possession of them. Once this had been achieved, most of the police officers withdrew, although a few remained to prevent the site from being reoccupied. Decisions on deployment and tactics were taken by an officer of the rank of commander.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the police operation against the M11 link with protestors at Wanstead on 16 February cost; and what are the total costs to date of policing activities in relation to the M11 link road.

  Mr Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the additional costs of the police operation on 16 February are estimated to be more than £200,000. The total manpower costs since September of security and policing for the M11 link road through Wanstead are £470,075. Information on the cost of support services and other resources involved is not available.

  Ethnic Minority Grants
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the effect of withdrawing section 11 funding on schools in Avon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All posts approved for funding under section 11 remain eligible for grant. It is a matter for grant recipients to decide, within their overall financial provisions, how they propose to proceed in the light of the reductions in the level of section 11 expenditure which we regret it has been necessary to make.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the schools within the Tooting constituency that are receiving funding under section 11.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Teacher posts approved for funding under section 11 are currently allocated to the following schools identified as being in the Tooting constituency:

  Balham Nursery

  Broadwater—junior mixed infants

  Burntwood

  Chestnut Grove

  Eardley—junior mixed infants

  Earlsfield—junior mixed infants

  Ernest Bevin

  Fircroft—junior mixed infants

  Franciscan—junior mixed infants

  Furzedown—junior mixed infants

  Graveney

  Hillbrook—junior mixed infants

  Penwortham—junior mixed infants

  Ravenstone—junior mixed infants

  Sellingcourt—junior mixed infants

  269

  Smallwood junior mixed infants

  St. Anselm's—junior mixed infants

  St. Boniface—junior mixed infants

  Swaffield—junior mixed infants

  Trinity St. Mary's CE—junior mixed infants

  Wandle—junior mixed infants

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 698–99, when the hon. Member for Walthamstow can expect to receive the letter referred to.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Cannabis (Sentencing)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the average sentence and (b) the range of sentences for those convicted of dealing in cannabis in the latest convenient period; and how many people are currently in prison for this offence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in tables S2.28 and S2.31 of the Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 30/93 "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1992 (Supplementary tables)", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in prison as a result of convictions for possessing cannabis.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of persons in prison on 30 June 1992—the latest date for which figures are available—is contained in table S2.31 of the Home Office statistical bulletin No. 30/93 "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom 1992 (Supplementary tables)", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 February,Official Report, column 1010.

  Members (Statutory References)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory references to hon. Members in respect of(a) parliamentary constituency boundaries, (b) disqualification and (c) any other matters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There are no references to hon.Members in the legislation governing the drawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries.

  (b) The main statutory references to disqualification for membership of the House of Commons are contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695, the Act of Settlement 1700 and schedule 7 to the British Nationality Act 1981, the House of Commons (Clergy
  270
  Disqualification) Act 1801, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, the Representation of the People Act 1981, the Representation of the People Act 1983, and section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

  (c) Information about other statutory references to hon. Members is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fires (Letting Accommodation)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires occurred, by fire authority, in letting accommodation not requiring fire certification as a result of six-bedspace legislation in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The statistical information requested on the number of fires in such properties is not available centrally.

  Urgent Inquiries
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his target for replying to urgent inquiries from hon. Members.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no specific target for replying to urgent inquiries from hon. Members but I aim to do so as quickly as possible. Inquiries requiring urgent attention are identified by my private office which ensures that they are treated with priority.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond to the resolution of the European Parliament concerning the deserters and conscientious objectors in former Yugoslavia; and what action will be taken to assist those individuals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have noted the terms of this resolution. All applications for asylum, including those from deserters and draft evaders, are considered carefully on their merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list, by country of origin, how many asylum seekers whose applications were made before the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have since had their application determined; how many were granted refugee status; how many were granted exceptional leave to remain; and how many were refused;

  (2) if he will list, by country of origin, how many asylum seekers have made application since the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; how many of these applications have been determined; how many applicants have been granted refugee status; and how many have been granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The table provides information on applications and decisions made in the period 1 August 1993 to 31 January 1994.

  A split of the decision figures between those where the application was lodged before enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and those lodged after is not readily available.
  271

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions1, by nationality, 1 August 1993 to 31 January 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications received2

  Decisions2 3

  Total decisions

  Recognised as a and granted granted asylum4

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leaves5

  Total refusals6

  Europe and Americas

  Bulgaria

  55

  20

  —

  *

  15

  Colombia

  175

  70

  —

  *

  70

  Romania

  150

  155

  —

  5

  150

  Turkey

  730

  515

  80

  40

  400

  Former USSR

  195

  25

  —

  —

  25

  Former Yugoslavia

  620

  155

  5

  100

  55

  Others

  325

  80

  *

  *

  80

  Total

  2,255

  1,020

  80

  145

  790

  Africa

  Angola

  195

  145

  *

  *

  140

  Benin

  5

  15

  —

  —

  15

  Cameroon

  35

  15

  —

  —

  15

  Congo

  5

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Ethiopia

  295

  95

  5

  25

  65

  Ghana

  925

  630

  *

  *

  625

  Nigeria

  1,200

  315

  —

  5

  315

  Sierra Leone

  475

  170

  *

  5

  165

  Somalia

  600

  760

  10

  615

  135

  Sudan

  145

  120

  35

  10

  75

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  180

  95

  —

  *

  90

  Uganda

  185

  205

  *

  15

  185

  Zaire

  245

  250

  *

  5

  245

  Others

  905

  420

  10

  50

  380

  Total

  5,405

  3,245

  65

  740

  2,445

  Middle East

  Iran

  160

  80

  40

  5

  35

  Iraq

  260

  145

  75

  60

  15

  Lebanon

  145

  50

  *

  5

  40

  Others

  145

  130

  10

  15

  110

  Total

  705

  405

  120

  85

  200

  Asia

  China

  120

  40

  10

  5

  30

  India

  685

  560

  *

  5

  560

  Pakistan

  545

  330

  —

  5

  320

  Sri Lanka

  1,130

  235

  5

  50

  180

  Others

  315

  130

  5

  5

  120

  Total

  2,795

  1,295

  20

  65

  1,210

  Other and unknown nationalities

  130

  25

  —

  *

  25

  Grand Total

  11,285

  6,000

  290

  1,040

  4,670

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5 with *=1 or 2.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.

  4 Excluding south-east Asian refugees.

  5 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject than to further review.

  6 Total refused includes: those refused after full consideration, those refused on third country grounds where the applicant had arrived from a safe third country, and those refused under paragraph 180F of the immigration rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by(a) Her Majesty's Treasury and (b) his agencies (i) in the current financial year and (ii) planned
  272
  for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested covering the Treasury is shown in the table. None of the Chancellor's agencies mounted campaigns costing more than £10,000. The information relating to campaigns to promote the sale of coins covers those which are paid for by the Treasury. It does not include campaigns mounted by the Royal Mint to promote sales of its other products.
  273

  Campaign

  Objectives

  Cost £

  Effectiveness

  HM Treasury1993–94

  BT3 share offer

  To inform prospective purchasers that the BT3 share offer was taking place and the key dates on which action had to be taken.

  13,500,000

  Effectiveness was assessed through market research conducted on hehalf of the Treasury and involving the Central Office of Information.

  £5 Coronation crown

  To promote sales of the circulating of the 1993 £5coronation crown.

  470,000

  Sales of the coin were monitored before and afterthe campaign.

  1994–95

  £2 Commemorative coin

  To promote sales of the £2 commemorative coin.

  415,000

  Sales of the coin will be monitored before andafter the campaign.

  Mortgage Protection
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to assess the Financial Services Act 1986 to include the sale of mortgage protection policies.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to extend the range of insurance products which fall within the scope of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department plans to take to encourage the development of mortgage protection policies for borrowers.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government believe that the development of mortgage protection policies is a matter for the insurance market.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue will be raised by the imposition of 8 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  Figures published in the 1993–94 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" show that imposing VAT at 8 per cent. on domestic fuel is expected to raise £950 million in 1994–5.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the number of people who will not be able to afford house contents insurance due to his imposition of a 3 per cent. levy; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received no such specific representations. At the low rate proposed the tax is unlikely to have any significant effect on the take-up of insurance.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response his Department has made to the report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on mortgage repossessions.

  Mr. Nelson
  I was interested to read the recent NACAB report on mortgage repossessions. I commented on the report in a letter to Ms Ann Abraham, the chief executive of NACAB, on 25 November 1993 and I am placing a copy of my letter in the Library. Since then, the Council of Mortgage Lenders has published figures showing a further significant fall in mortgage arrears and possessions in 1993.

  National Tax Burden
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what the nation's tax burden as a percentage of gross domestic product will be in 1998–99; and what this figure was in 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates for the non-North sea tax burden are shown in table 2A.2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95".

  Percentage of Gross Domestic Product in the finance and business sector1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  21992

  North

  5

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5

  5

  6

  7

  7

  6

  7

  8

  8

  8

  East Midlands

  6

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  8

  East Anglia

  7

  7

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Greater London

  15

  15

  17

  19

  21

  21

  22

  23

  22

  22

  Rest of South East

  13

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  17

  17

  16

  16

  South West

  8

  8

  8

  9

  10

  9

  10

  10

  10

  9

  West Midlands

  7

  7

  7

  8

  9

  8

  9

  9

  8

  9

  North West

  7

  7

  7

  8

  8

  8

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Wales

  5

  5

  6

  6

  7

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Scotland

  7

  7

  8

  8

  9

  8

  9

  9

  9

  10

  Northern Ireland

  5

  5

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  7

  7

  United Kingdom

  9

  9

  10

  11

  12

  12

  12

  13

  12

  12

  1 Excluding rent on dwellings.

  2 1992 results are provisional.

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table giving(a) the average mortgage interest rate for the leading building societies on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October of each year since 1990, (b) the average interest rate paid to investors by the leading building societies on each of these dates and (c) the differential between them.

  Mr. Nelson
  The table gives(a) the average mortgage rates charged by building societies, (b) the average share rates paid by them and (c) the difference between the two, on each date specified. The rates are taken from "Financial Statistics" published by the Central Statistical Office. The interest rate paid to investors has been enhanced to take account of withheld tax paid by societies direct to the Inland Revenue, on investors' behalf.

  Mortgage rate

  Gross share rate

  Differential

  1990

  January

  14·44

  13·28

  1·16

  April

  15·24

  14·21

  1·03

  Tax Increases
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent representations he has received concerning the cost to the average family of the cumulative tax increases announced since last March.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of letters from correspondents about the impact of the Budget on their family finances.

  Finance and Business Sector
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each region was accounted for to the finance and business sector in each year between 1983 and 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest available estimates consistent with the United Kingdom "National Accounts Blue Book", 1993 edition, expressed in percentage terms are as follows:

  Mortgage rate

  Gross share rate

  Differential

  July

  15·25

  14·37

  0·88

  October

  15·25

  14·44

  0·81

  1991

  January

  14·34

  13·41

  0·93

  April

  14·24

  12·71

  1·53

  July

  12·75

  10·61

  2·14

  October

  11·82

  9·77

  2·05

  1992

  January

  11·39

  9·69

  1·70

  April

  10·96

  9·23

  1·73

  July

  10·82

  8·84

  1·98

  October

  10·60

  8·41

  2·19

  1993

  January

  8·98

  6·29

  2·69

  April

  8·04

  5·76

  2·28

  July

  8·01

  5·80

  2·21

  October

  8·00

  5·77

  2·23

  1994

  January

  8·00

  5·32

  2·68

  Source: Financial Statistics (CSO).

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to make a decision concerning the application of Bolton institute of higher education to become a university.

  Mr. Newton
  No such application has been received. There is however an application for the institute to be granted powers to grant research degrees, which is currently under consideration.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Secretarial Allowances
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members pay their secretarial allowances into private or public limited companies.

  Mr. Newton
  There has been no significant change in the number of Members who have authorised payments from their office costs allowance direct to companies and other organisations from that quoted in my reply to the hon. Member on 19 July, 1993,Official Report, columns 23–24.

  Automated Access Control
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effect on Divisions of the House of the introduction of automated access control at the entrance to New Palace Yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  No such specific assessment has been undertaken, but I am not aware of any significant difficulties having been caused in relation to Divisions. It is, of course, the practice for the side gate at the subway entrance to be open during Divisions to avoid any risk of congestion at the turnstiles.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Korean Peninsula
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Government about tensions on the Korean peninsula.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are in regular and continuous contact with the United States Government on Korean matters.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the IGADD—Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development—talks seeking to bring peace in Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Intergovernmental Authority for Drought and Development leaders have had some success in reconciling the factions of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, who agreed on 6 January to a joint 278
  position on an agenda for peace talks. But progress with the Sudanese Government is more limited. On 17 February the Sudanese Government announced the postponement of a meeting between Presidents Bashir and Moi arranged for 18 February. We urge the Sudanese Government to respond positively to the IGADD initiative and make a serious effort to achieve a negotiated settlement.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press at the United Nations Security Council for a no-fly zone to prevent the bombing of civilian targets in southern Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore the latest outbreak of fighting in the south, and condemn the bombing by the Sudanese air force of civilian targets. On 21 February we and our European Union partners issued a declaration to this effect, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. We have not ruled out recourse to the United Nations Security Council but would not want to pursue this option unless we were confident that it would be constructive.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress there has been in the talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Talks at permanent secretary level between India and Pakistan on Kashmir resumed last month in Islamabad after a gap of over a year. We were encouraged that both sides were prepared to discuss their differences over Kashmir at length. We hope that they will continue their efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem through bilateral dialogue.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is British Government policy that the Simla agreement should form the basis for progress in talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to believe that the best way forward on Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement, an improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political progress there, and an end to external support for violence in Kashmir.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what significant changes in the United. Nations position on Somalia have been made following the recent meeting of the Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Security Council reviewed the mandate of UNOSOM II during late January/early February in light of the decision by the United States of America and most European nations to withdraw most of their forces from Somalia at the end of March 1994.

  SCR 897 of 4 February 1994 redefines UNOSOM II's mandate as:

  (a) Encouraging and assisting the Somali parties in implementing the "Addis Ababa Agreements", in particular in their co-operative efforts to achieve disarmament and to respect the ceasefire;

  279

  (b) Protecting major ports and airports and essential infrastructure and safeguarding the lines of communications vital to the provision of humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance;

  (c) Continuing its efforts to provide humanitarian relief to all in need throughout the country;

  (d) Assisting in the reorganisation of the Somali police and judicial system;

  (e) Helping with the repatriation and resettlement of refugees and displaced persons;

  (f) Assisting also in the ongoing political process in Somalia, which should culminate in the installation of a democratically elected government;

  (g) Providing protection for the personnel, installations and equipment of the United Nations and its agencies, as well as of non-governmental organisations providing humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance.

  The main difference between the new mandate and the previous one is that United Nations troops will no longer attempt to disarm factions by coercive means, but will instead rely on the parties to disarm voluntarily.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average length of time for the disposal of a case before the European Court of Human Rights from the time of petition to the time of setting down for trial.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average time taken from petition to the European Commission of Human Rights to judgment by the Court is about four and a half years.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many petitions have been brought by United Kingdom citizens before the European Court of Human Rights in each of the years since its establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Cases are referred to the European Court of Human Rights by the Commission or by the state concerned, not by individuals. We do not have a figure for the total number of petitions received by the Commission. Many are rejected as unfounded or frivolous, and details of these are not notified to the Governments concerned.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many judgments adverse to the British Government have been delivered by the European Court of Human Rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Court of Human Rights has delivered 31 judgments adverse to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many petitions brought by United Kingdom citizens have been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights as being within its jurisdiction in each of the years since its establishment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In all, 48 individual applications against the United Kingdom have been referred by the European Commission of Human Rights to the Court and resulted in judgments on the merits. The number of those applications which have been brought by United Kingdom citizens is not readily available and could be determined only at disproportionate cost.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the talks with China over Hong Kong's constitutional development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A White Paper on the development of representative Government in Hong Kong will be published and laid before Parliament on Thursday 24 February. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The White Paper will explain the background to the talks with China on electoral issues in Hong Kong, give a summary of the talks, and an assessment of the proposals put forward by both sides against our requirement that the elections should be open and fair.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity (Rural Properties)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance is available in Northern Ireland to connect rural properties to the mains electricity supply.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I understand it is the practice of Northern Ireland Electricity plc to bear 40 per cent. of the cost of connecting rural properties.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council.

  Mr. Ancram
  Membership of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council is as follows:

  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield KCB (Chairman)

  Mr. Roy Bailie Professor Peter Bush

  Mr. Dan Harvey

  Dr. Tony Hughes

  Dr. Paula Kilbane

  Professor Peter H. McKie

  Mr. Declan Morgan

  Mr. Finlay Scott

  Professor Dorothy Severin

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Local Enterprise Development Unit.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The current membership of the Local Enterprise Development Unit is as follows:

  Mr. Paul McWilliams (Chairman)

  Mrs. Joan Ruddock

  Mrs. Teresa Townsley

  Mr. Garry Mullen

  Mr. Will KcKee

  Dr. Bill McCourt

  Prof. Jim Magowan

  Mr. Michael Black

  Mr. Sean Quinn

  Ms Claire Faulkner

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to each education and library board.
  281
  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS

  Belfast

  Chairman:

  Rev. J. McAllister

  Members:

  Mr. J. Alderdice

  Mrs. L. R. Brown

  Mr. D. H. Browne

  Mr. N. B. Butterwick

  Mr. J. Carson

  Mr. D. C. Carty

  Mr. V. Cochrane

  Mr. J. A. Coggle

  Mr. J. J. Collins

  Mr. J. Cooper

  Rev. T. D. Cooper

  Mrs. M. Cruickshank

  Mr. N. A. Dodds

  Mr. T. D. Hamilton

  Mr. T. J. Kirkpatrick

  Rev. W. A. Lewis

  Ms P. Lewsley

  Mr. S. McBride

  Mr. N. A. McCausland

  Mrs. M. McGuinness

  Mr. W. F. C. McKay

  Rev. J. McManus

  Mrs. M. F. MacNally

  Mr. O. J. Magill

  Mrs. M. S. Muldoon

  Miss C. Murphy

  Mr. J. P. A. Murphy

  Mrs. A. Odling-Smee

  Rev. P. F. Patterson

  Mr. F. Proctor

  Mr. F. Rogers

  Mr. W. M. Sillery

  Rev. E. Smyth

  Mr. J. Walker

  South Eastern

  Chairman:

  Mr. H. R. Small

  Members:

  Mr. D. G. Andrews

  Rev. R. G. Bagnall

  Rev. W. J. Beattie

  Mrs. H. M. Bell

  Mr. T. P. Benson

  Mr. W. J. Biggerstaff

  Mrs. H. E. Bradford

  Mr. S. A. Campbell

  Miss R. B. Carabine

  Rev. T. V. Craig

  Mr. M. J. Curran

  Mr. I. Davis

  Canon S. M. J. Dickson

  Mrs. L. P. Douglas

  Mr. R. Gibson

  Mr. R. A. Jones

  Mr. S. R. Kilpatrick

  Mr. W. D. Linton

  Mr. P. McAleenan

  Mrs. M. M. McGoran

  Rev. J. H. McIntyre

  Mr. W. R. Magill

  Mr. W. J. Masterson

  Mr. C. Moore

  Mrs. F. M. Reid

  Dr. R. J. Rodgers

  Mr. S. Semple

  Rev. K. J. Smyth

  Mrs. D. Tennis

  Miss G. Tigchelaar

  Mrs. A. Thompson

  Mrs. S. T. Townsley

  282

  Mr. W. G. Watson

  Rev. D. Whyte

  North Eastern

  Chairman:

  Rev. R. F. S. Poots

  Members:

  Rev. S. Allen

  Mr. J. A. Beggs

  Mrs. E. T. Black

  Mr. R. S. Bolton

  Mrs. J. Christie

  Rev. D. Clarke

  Mrs. C. C. Corrigan

  Mr. E J. Crilly

  Mr. J. Currie

  Mr. S. C. Dickson

  Rev. J. A. Fair

  Mrs. L. Frazer

  Mr. J. A. Gaston

  Mrs. P. A. Gillespie

  Mr. J. Graham

  Mr. R. J. Hanna

  Mr. J. B. H. Hill

  Mr. D. Hollis

  Mr. P. A. Kilpatrick

  Mrs. P. A. Lerwill

  Mr. T. A. Lyttle

  Mr. A. P. McConaghy

  Mr. R. E. McCrea

  Rev. B. McGoldrick

  Mr. P. G. McShane

  Mr. F. R. H. Marks

  Mr. J. J. Meehan

  Mrs. K. Regan

  Mrs. G. E. Scott

  Mr. J. A. Scott

  Mr. R. J. Sloan

  Mrs. D. M. White

  Rev. J. R. Wilson

  Rev. T. H. Wilson

  Southern

  Chairman:

  Councillor N. R. D. Mulligan

  Members:

  Mrs. M. Alexander

  Mr. C. W. Breen

  Mr. B. Costelloe

  Mr. F. E. Crowe

  Mr. F. Feely

  Rev. G. A. Green

  Rev. A. Hamill

  Mrs. F. Hamill

  Mr. I. B. Hanna

  Mrs. P. M. B. Kelly

  Mrs. C. O. McAnerney

  Mrs. D. A. McBride

  Mr. J. V. McCart

  Mrs. E. McClurg

  Sister O. A. E. McConville

  Mrs. J. M. McCool

  Mr. A. C. McElhinney

  MMr. V. M. McGahie

  Mr. W. J. McIlwrath

  Mr. A. McKelvey

  Mr. J. H. McParland

  Mrs. S. McRoberts

  Rev. M. McVeigh

  Mr. W. J. Martin

  Rev. S. A. Matthews

  Mr. W. J. Mitchell

  Rev. S. Rice

  Mr. A. Ruddy

  Mr. J. A. Speers

  Rev. F. D. Swann

  Mr. J. Tate

  Mr. J. W. Trueman

  Rev. W. R. Twaddell

  Mrs. P. E. Wilson

  283

  Western

  Chairman:

  Mrs. B. B. McIvor

  Members:

  Mr. M. Bradley

  Mr. S. J. Burnside

  Mr. T. B. Campbell

  Rev. R. W. W. Clarke

  Rev. C. Clerkin

  Rev O. Crilly

  Rev. P. J. Crilly

  Mr. R. E. Dallas

  Mr. A. J. Dardis

  Mr. P. Devine

  Mr. A. Doherty

  Dr. E. M. Downey

  Mr. P. Duffy

  Mr. H. Faulkner

  Mr. J. Gallagher

  Mr. T. J. Gallagher

  Mrs. S. C. Hogg

  Mrs. T. Kelly

  Mr. J. J. Kerr

  Mr. P. M. C. Little

  Mr. A. C. McFarland

  Miss D. M. McNamee

  Mr. D. Nixon

  Mr. W. C. Noble

  Mr. G. O'hEara

  Mr. P. O'Kane

  Mrs. S. M. O'Kane

  Rev. D. C. Orr

  Mr. S. Shields

  Mr. E. Turner

  Mrs. E. Waterson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Probation Board for Northern Ireland currently comprises 14 members, including a chairman and deputy chairman. In the interests of personal security it would not be appropriate to name individual members of the board.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The current members of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland are as follows:

  Mrs. J. R. Smyth Chair and Chief Executive

  Mr. R. A. Coughlin Deputy Chairman

  Professor S. B. Dickson Deputy Chairman

  Mrs. M. S. V. Young

  Dr. D. Kennedy

  Mrs. P. Feeney

  Mrs. J. Eve

  Ms A. Hope

  Ms B. Callaghan

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to each of the boards of visitors and visiting committees.

  Sir John Wheeler
  In the interest of personal security it would not be appropriate to name individual members of boards of visitors or visiting committees.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Historic Monuments Council.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Historic Monuments Council are as follows:284

  Reverend Canon A. E. T. Harper (Chairman)

  Professor M. G. L. Baillie

  Mrs. D. Browne

  Professor R. E. Buchanan

  Mr. A. Candon

  Mrs. Corcoran

  Dr. R. M. M. Crozier

  Mr. C. W. Dickinson

  Miss M. M. Gallagher

  Ms K. M. Gormley

  Dr. A. Lynch

  Dr. P. Robinson

  Mr. C. W. Tweed

  Mr. R. B. Warner

  Mrs. P. Wilson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company are as follows:

  Mr. I. Doherty (Chairman)

  Mrs. P. Farren

  Mr. A. Keery

  Mr. S. R. Reed

  Mr. N. Whitehead

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland review body for operator and vehicle licensing.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland review body for operator and vehicle licensing are as follows:

  Mr. M. Hale (Chairman)

  Mr. N. Caters

  Mr. W. S. Anderson

  Mr. E. Sheridan

  Mr. S. Best

  Ms H. E. Roulston

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Economic Council.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The current membership is as follows:

  Professor Sir C. M. Campbell (Chairman)

  Professor S. Birley

  Professor R. P. Kinsella

  P. D. Montgomery

  Janet M. Trewsdale

  R. M. Gibson

  R. T. Jordan, OBE

  W. J. McCourt

  G. P. McGrath

  N. P. E. Smyth

  T. Carlin

  M. Dummigan

  J. Freeman

  Ms P. Holloway

  J. McCusker

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Chairman

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Carswell

  Members

  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, KCB

  Mr. J. B. Garrett

  Professor D. S. Greer

  His Honour Judge Gibson, QC

  285

  Mrs. S. Grant

  Mr. H. P. Kennedy, QC

  His Honour Judge Markey, QC

  Mr. J. Meehan

  Mr. I. Montgomery

  Miss M. Walsh

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Travellers.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Travellers are as follows:

  Mr. W. J. Newburn, OBE, Chairman

  Councillor J. A. Agnew

  Councillor M. J. Byrne

  Councillor H. Casey

  Ms D. Cunningham

  Mr. T. Curran

  Miss E. M. Gallagher, OBE

  Dr. M. Gordon

  Mr. T. Haverty

  Councillor P. McElroy

  Councillor C. D. McGimpsey

  Mr. D. A. McMurray

  Mr. T. McQuillan

  Mr. M. Mongan

  Alderman F. Proctor

  Mr. P. Stokes

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside are as follows:

  Professor P. Newbould Chairman

  Mr. R. Hanna Deputy Chairman

  Ms D. Allen

  Sister U. Beggan

  Mr. R. Blakiston-Houston

  Mrs. D. Browne

  Mr. P. Casement

  Mr. P. Doughty

  Dr. D. Kennedy

  Professor A. Long

  Miss M. Lyons

  Mr. N. McLaughlin

  Councillor M. McSparran

  Councillor J. McVitty

  Dr. A. Mitchell

  Dr. K. Milton

  Mrs. H. Northridge

  Miss A. Nugent

  Dr. J. Parsons

  Professor D. Wilcock

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Rent Assessment Panel.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Rent Assessment Panel are as follows:

  Mr. J. V. Arthur

  Councillor Mrs. J. Baird

  Councillor P. J. Bradley

  Councillor D. Browne

  Mr. G. R. Burgess

  Mr. B. Campfield

  Councillor T. J. Catherwood

  Councillor W. Clulow

  Mrs. J. Conaghan

  Mr. J. E. Cousins

  Mrs. A. O. Curran

  Councillor J. McD Dow

  Councillor S. Dunlop

  286

  Mr. J. L. Frazer

  Miss D. J. Gillings

  Alderman D. G. R. Green

  Mr. P. V. Hopkins

  Mr. R. H. B. Houston

  Mrs. A. C. Lismore

  Mrs. G. M. Loughran

  Miss M. P. Mackintosh

  Mr. L. McBrinn

  Mr. S. A. McCauseland

  Mr. D. P. McDonagh

  Mrs. C. McGuckian

  Mrs. M. McMullan

  Mr. J. G. Neill

  Mr. J. Nixon

  Councillor P. O'Hare

  Councillor G. V. Peoples

  Mr. R. J. Polley

  Mr. B. T. Shiels

  Mr. B. H. Sleith

  Mr. D. Smyth

  Ms F. M. Stelfox

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Water Council.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Water Council are as follows:

  Mr. John G. Kelly, Chairman

  Councillor Joan Baird

  Sister Mary Una Beggan

  Dr. Clare Elizabeth Carter

  Dr. Stanley Robert Cochrane

  Mrs. Patricia Farren

  Mrs. Joan Irene Harbison

  Mr. Anthony Francis Hennessey

  Mr. Allen Kilgore

  Councillor Robert McKee

  Mr. George S. McKinley

  Mr. C. G. M. Mills

  Alderman William F. O'Connell

  Mr. Michael D. Playle

  Alderman Geraldine A. Rice

  Mr Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Local Government Staff Commission.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members of the Local Government Staff Commission are:

  Prof. D. Rea Chairman

  Mr. P. Devine

  Ms D. Vaugh

  Mr. D. Haughey

  Mr. G. Kane

  Mr. J. McCammick MBE

  Mr. C. McGimpsey

  Ms A. McGonigle

  Mr. R. Gilmore

  Mrs. I. Belshaw

  Mr. P. O'Neill

  Mrs. M. Taggart

  Mr. G. Burns MBE

  Mrs. M. Young

  Mr. N. Jackson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Historic Buildings Council.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Historic Buildings Council are as follows:

  Dr. P. Robinson, Chairman

  The Viscountess Brookeborough

  Mr. T. Brown

  Cmdr P. C. D. Campbell

  Mrs. A. Davey Orr

  287

  Mr. D. Evans

  Mr. P. C. Fay

  Dr. M. H. Gould

  Lady Humphreys

  Mr. S. Leighton

  Miss O. Madden

  Dr. D. S. MacNeice

  Mrs. C. McGuckian

  Mr. J. D. Thompson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Laganside corporation.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Laganside corporation are as follows:

  The Duke of Abercorn, Chairman

  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick

  Mrs. Margaret Spence

  Councillor Reg Empey

  Dr. Brian Feeney

  Mr. Ernest Airey

  Mr. G. R. Irwin

  Councillor Fred Cobain

  Mrs. Lucinda Blakiston-Houston

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland are as follows:

  Mr. R. S. Hawthorne

  Mr. F. J. Warke

  Mr. F. G. Guckian

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the housing benefit review body.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the housing benefit review boards are as follows:

  Belfast area panel

  Ms E. Evason1

  Mr. W. Glendinning1

  Mrs. M. McMullan1

  Ald. N. Dodds

  Mrs. K. G. Dunlop

  Mr. S. H. Egerton

  Mrs. E. M. Fulton

  Miss K. Gill

  Mr. W. J. Heyburn

  Mr. D. W. Irvine

  Mrs. M. Muldoon

  Mr. D. Wasson

  North east area panel

  Cllr. W. H. King1

  Ald. J. Neeson1

  Mrs. P. Whittley1

  Ald. Mrs. R. G. Armstrong

  Mrs. S. Hillan

  Cllr. Mrs. A. Kelly

  Mrs. M. P. Moran

  Mr. C. Steele

  Mr. G. Wells

  South east area panel

  Mrs. B. McErland1

  Mr. J. Wells1

  Mrs. W. Bleakley

  Mrs. A. Boyle

  Cllr. W. J. McAllister

  Mrs. B. McKeown

  Mr. A. D. Nichol

  Mrs. C. Shannon

  288

  South area panel

  Mr. J. McGaffin1

  Mr. D. J. Ryan1

  Mrs. J. Allister

  Cllr. Mrs. A. Brolly

  Mrs. A. Gray

  Mrs. E. F. Hendron

  Mrs. E. Holt

  Mr. H. McCafferty

  Cllr. W. McFadden

  West area panel

  Cllr. O. Gibson1

  Mrs. M. Jefferson1

  Cllr. A. Kane1

  Cllr. T. Kerrigan1

  Mr. R. Rogan1

  Mrs. M. Campbell

  Cllr. J. Canning

  Mrs. M. Devlin

  Cllr. G. Gallagher

  Mrs. E. McClelland

  Mr. J. A. McConnell

  Miss M. R. McEneaney

  Cllr. McGrath

  Mr. S. Stennet

  1Denotes Chairperson

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee are as follows:

  Mr. E. G. Isherwood (Chairman)

  Ms R. C. M. Bevan

  Mr. D. F. Cannell

  Mr. P. Cooke

  Mr. K. Ewart

  Mr. M. Ferguson

  Mr. K. Harper

  Mr. J. A. Hill

  Mrs. S. Ingram

  Ms M. McKeown

  Mr. E. A. McKinley

  Mr. A. S. Nelson

  Mr. C. O'Cathain

  Mr. T. G. Rankin

  Mr. G. W. H. Silcock

  Mr. J. Smith

  Mr. J. K. Stevenson

  Mr. R. F. White

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members of the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers Superannuation Committee are:

  Mr. F. Ledwidge, OBE, FCA (Chairman)

  Councillor Mrs. E. T. Black

  Mr. J. Galbraith

  Mr. K. Brown

  Councillor Mrs. M. Bradley

  Mr. T. Salmon

  Mrs. C. Shields

  Mr. E. Hesketh

  Mr. S. J. Lyons

  Ms B. Callaghan

  Mr. E. G. Corscadden

  Mr. G. Manly

  Mr. G. S. McKinley

  Miss P. D. Bunting

  289

  Mr. G. McKinley

  Ms E. May

  Mr. F. E. Donnelly

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are as follows:

  Chairman:

  Mr. John McEvoy

  Vice-Chairman:

  Mr. William Carson, CBE

  Members:

  Mr. John Hood

  Mr. Sydney McDowell

  Mrs. Elaine Waterson, MBE

  Mrs. Fionnuala Cook

  Mrs. Anne O'Donoghue

  Mr. Jack Allen, OBE

  Mr. Sandy Spence, MBE

  Mr. Eddie Turner

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Planning Appeals Commission.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Planning Appeals Commission are as follows:

  Full-time members:

  R. S. Hawthorne, Chief Commissioner

  F. J. Warke, Deputy Chief Commissioner

  J. S. Turner, Senior Professional Commissioner

  G. R. B. Farrington, Senior Professional Commissioner

  B. A. M. Banks, Senior Professional Commissioner

  Part-time members:

  Mrs. I. Marie Campbell

  Ms. Jane O' Dempsey

  Mr. Don Crawley

  Mr. W. J. Mitchell

  Mr. James Rowlan Mossop

  Mr. Iain Kirk

  Mr Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Construction Industry Advisory Council.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The members currently appointed to the Northern Ireland Construction Industry Advisory Council are as follows:

  Mr. W. E. Little

  Mr. T. Patterson

  Mr. A. A. Reynolds

  Mr. W. F. Gillespie

  Mr. P. R. Scott

  Mr. R. B. Anderson

  The Hon. T. R. V. Dixon, MBE DL

  Mr. J. N. Finlay

  Mrs. J. White

  Mr. F. Cogan

  Mr. W. H. Dowds

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the forestry review group.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive the forestry review group's advice within the next few weeks.
  290
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the planting of broadleaved trees.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations in relation to the review of forestry incentives, which is part of the work of the forestry review group. Some of these have been concerned with planting broadleaves.

  A90 Upgrading
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the upgrading to dual carriageway of the final section of the A90 Aberdeen to Perth road to be complete.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Brechin bypass, the final section of the A90 Perth to Aberdeen trunk road to be upgraded to dual carriageway, is scheduled to open fully to traffic within the next two months.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the operations of the sheriff court system.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations about the operation of the courts. In recent months he has been receiving responses to the wide-ranging proposals we have made for improving the delivery of justice in Scotland.

  Reinventing Government
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on reinventing government and the accountability of quangos and other public bodies and public services, delivered at the Eglinton management centre, Edinburgh, on 7 February.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of my speech on reinventing government.

  Roads (Crash Barriers)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorway and dual carriageway there are in Scotland that do not have crash barriers along their central reservations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are 19 miles of trunk road motorway and 106 miles of trunk road dual carriageway in Scotland without central reserve safety fencing.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on capital allocation to regional councils for the repair and replacement of school buildings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will be announcing within the next few weeks the detailed distribution among authorities of capital allocations for 1994–95, in respect of their non-housing programmes, including educational building.

  Housing, Glasgow
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the representatives of tenants' associations to discuss the housing needs in Glasgow.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet tenants' organisations to discuss housing needs in Glasgow. In the first instance, it is for the City of Glasgow district council to assess the housing needs of its area. In the course of my own housing visits in the Glasgow area I often meet tenants and hear their concerns at first hand while my officials are in regular contact with the council.

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Lang
  I last discussed the Scottish economy with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 14 December 1992.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Highland health board over the introduction of NHS trusts in its area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Approval was given on 6 December 1993 to the application for trust status by the Highland communities NHS trust. All provider units in the Highland health board area will be self-governing trusts from 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trained nurses employed by agencies were employed within(a) NHS non-trust and (b) NHS trust hospitals in Scotland in the three months ended December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on the overall number of agency nurses—head count—employed in the NHS in Scotland is not held centrally. The information which is held, however, shows that the average hours worked by agency nursing staff during the six months ending 30 September 1993, the latest period for which data are available, were as follows:

  Average hours

  NHS non-trust hospitals:1

  Total:

  204·5

  Nurses

  157·5

  Nursing assistants

  47·0

  NHS trust hospitals:

  Total:

  56·2

  Nurses2

  38·5

  Nursing assistants

  17·7

  1 No separate figures are as yet available for Lothian trust and non-trust hospitals. Both are, therefore, shown under this category.

  2 1 whole-time-equivalent nurse contributes 875 hours of work in a six-month period.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the chairman of Tayside health council to discuss the Perth and Kinross trust.
  292
  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic development of the west highlands and islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The west highlands and islands share the confidence in the economic outlook which Government policies have promoted throughout the highlands and islands.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to maintain the current levels of public expenditure by his Department upon development, training and infrastructure in the highlands and islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will continue to review the needs of the highlands and islands as part of the annual public expenditure survey.

  GPs' Patients
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures of the average number of patients per general practitioner; and what they were in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Stewart
  At 1 April 1993, the average number of patients per general practitioner was 1,549; the figures for 1 October 1979 and 1 October 1989 were 1,856 and 1,590 respectively.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of interest rate changes since October 1990 on the performance of industry and commerce in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Treasury estimates that in the United Kingdom as a whole the reductions in interest rates since October 1990 are worth over £13 billion a year off companies' interest payments, when fully passed through.

  Given Scotland's share of the number of registered companies, this suggests that the reduction in Scottish companies' interest payments is worth over £700 million a year.

  Cumbernauld Airport
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bids were received by Cumbernauld development corporation for Cumbernauld airport; who made these bids; and which was the highest offer.

  Mr. Stewart
  Two bids were received by the closing date. These were from Cormack Air Services Ltd., which made the higher bid, and the West of Scotland Flying Club Ltd.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the various tenant associations throughout Scotland to discuss bad housing in Scotland.
  293
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), on 26 January 1994,Official Report, column 277.

  Health Provision, Glasgow
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health provision in the Greater Glasgow area.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State regularly meet with representatives from all health boards to discuss health provision issues. He expects to meet with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board in due course.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most recent estimate of the cost of local government reform.

  Mr. Stewart
  The likely costs of local government reform were detailed in the Government's White Paper "Shaping the Future—The New Councils", published last July. The Government have estimated that following the changes in boundaries agreed during the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, there will be annual savings in the range £16 million to £60 million arising from the new structure, with some consequential reduction in transitional costs. In addition, some local authorities concerned have estimated that the new structures will be more cost effective in a number of respects.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the range of salary payments to health board chairmen in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  Levels of remuneration of health board chairmen vary according to the size of the respective boards in terms of population and budgetary responsibility. At present, the rates payable range between £7,200 and £25,140 per annum.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairmen of the health boards to discuss funding.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State will meet the chairmen of health boards on 25 February 1994 to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss unemployment.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) earlier today.

  Rents
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish community-based housing associations raised their rents above the rate of inflation in 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average council home rent; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average standard rent in 1993–94 of local authorities in Scotland is £26·51 per dwelling per week. Local authority rent levels are a matter for decision by the local authorities concerned.

  University Entrance Examinations
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what comparisons the Scottish Office has made between secondary education university entrance examination procedures in Scotland with that of the rest of the European Union.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Education Department has participated in a Europe-wide survey of entrance requirements to higher education in the European Union which is about to be published by EURYDICE, the official EC information network for senior policy-makers in education. The survey report will include comparison of university entrance procedures and requirements, together with a statement of restrictions on admissions.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make dedicated funding available to enable the Scottish local authorities to increase the respite care provision they offer in respect of increases in the numbers of those receiving care in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Although I have no plans to introduce such arrangements, £6·5 million has been allowed in grant-aided expenditure for day, domiciliary and respite care services in 1994–95. It is, however, for local authorities to determine their own spending priorities. Taking account of the DSS transfer, authorities in Scotland will have additional provision of approximately £170 million for community care expenditure in 1994–95 compared with 1990–91.

  Central funding is also provided towards the development of respite care services through the mental illness specific grant scheme, bridging finance and direct to voluntary organisations. Of the 230 projects assisted by mental illness specific grant, in the current year, the 117 which provide respite care have been allocated almost £5 million.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of voluntary organisations operating in Scotland who have a direct and recognised role in the implementation of care in the community policies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the river purification boards.

  Mr. Lang
  The members of the river purification boards are:Clyde River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Mr. D. A. Biggart

  Mr. S. G. Cannon

  Mr. D. A. S. Cranstoun

  Mr. J. W. Lawrie

  Mr. A. J. Love

  Mrs. A. R. McKay

  Mrs. J. Mitchell

  Mr. G. S. Murray

  Dr. I. Simpson

  Mr. G. J. Young

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor C. Hebenton, JP

  Councillor A. Lambie, JP

  Councillor A. MacLean, JP1

  Councillor J. Martin

  Councillor D. Mills, MBE

  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor J. Foley

  Provost A. Macdonald, JP

  Councillor A. Nisbet, JP

  Councillor D. Roach, JP

  Councillor J. Shields

  Forth River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Dr. J. Balfour

  Dr. J. Blair

  Mr. J. H. Brown

  Mr. I MacKenzie

  Dr. P. S. Maitland

  Mr. D. A. Pate

  Lt. Cmdr. E. F. B. Spragge

  Cptn. A. H. F. Wilks

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor J. Connelly JP

  Councillor W. Drummond JP

  Councillor W. Hanlon

  Councillor R. King OBE Jp1

  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor A. Fowler

  Councillor W. Russell

  Councillor R. N. Turpie

  Councillor D. Wilson

  Highland River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Mr. W. Brown

  Mrs. M. Dennis

  Mr. N. M. Graesser OBE1

  Mr. A. J. Kelly

  Mr. I Lambart

  Major J. MacAlpine Gregor Grant TD

  Mrs. B. MacDonald

  Mr. D. A. McLeod

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor N. Cameron

  Councillor Col. Sir A. M. Gilmour

  Councillor N. J. O. Graham

  Councillor R. W. Munn

  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor J. Anderson

  Councillor D. Fraser

  Councillor J. H. Green

  296

  Councillor Rev. A. MacArthur

  North East River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Mr. A. S. Buchan

  Mr. J. P. Grant

  Mr. J. A. D. Harrison

  Mr. A. Hume

  Mr. D. R. Paton

  Dr. M. Young

  Mr. J. G. Watson

  Dr. S. Woodin

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor G. A. Barnes

  Councillor B. M. S. Dunlop

  Councillor A. Stuart

  Councillor G. Swapp

  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor A. Gordon

  Councillor J. B. Gordon1

  Councillor C. Mossie

  Councillor (Mrs.) J. Watson

  Solway River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Mr. A. P. G. Dodd

  Mr. G. H. Gordon

  Dr. P. G. Hopkins

  Mr. J. Y. Ogilvie

  Mr. D. M. Rothwell

  Mr. S. Watson Pain

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor B. D. Conchie

  Councillor N. Parke

  Councillor J. Pirrie

  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor W. N. Copeland, MBE TD DL

  Councillor J. Nelson1

  Councillor A. Turner

  Tay River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Mr. M. A. E. Browne

  Mr. J. C. Compton

  Mr. J. Goodfellow

  Dr. J. A. Horobin

  Mr. S. G. House

  Mr. W. J. McGregor

  Mr. I. Mitchell1

  Captain J. J. Watson

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor W. F. Barr

  Councillor J. A. O. Fordyce, JP

  Councillor J. Glover

  Councillor R. N. Turpie

  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor N. A. McGowan

  Councillor R. W. Nairn

  Councillor C. Rhind

  Councillor A. Thomson

  Tweed River Purification Board
  (Members appointed by the Secretary of State)

  Mr. D. Bumpsteed

  Mr. R. Bruce Cowe, MBE

  Mrs. M. McGregor

  Mr. W. Paton

  Mr. V. Tokely

  Mr. N. P. Yonge

  (Members appointed by Regional Councils)

  Councillor A. J. C. Hewat1

  Councillor P. Fishbourne

  Councillor A. S. Watt

  297
  (Members appointed by District Councils)

  Councillor J. M. Davidson

  Councillor S. A. Rose

  Councillor G. Till

  1Chairman (appointed by the board)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board.

  Mr. Stewart
  The members currently appointed to the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board are as follows:

  Mr. D. J. MacLeod, CBE, CA (Chairman)

  Mr. Y. Ali, OBE

  Mr. D. R. Campbell

  Mr. J. J. G. Good, CBE

  Mr. J. C. G. Halley, OBE

  Mr. J. Lumsden

  Mrs. C. McAteer

  Mr. H. McLevy

  Mr. A. Merrills, OBE

  Professor J. C. Shaw, CBE

  Mr. P. Timms, MBE

  Mr. P. H. J. de Vink

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Dental Establishments.

  Mr. Stewart
  The current members are:

  Mr. J. R. Wild (Chairman)

  Mr. C. J. Allan

  Dr. I. G. Chestnutt

  Mr. D. MacIntyre

  Dr. J. S. Rennie

  Professor P. Sutcliffe

  Mr. T. R. Watkins

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Records Advisory Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The members are:

  Professor R. H. Campbell, CBE (Chairman)

  Dr. Barbara E. Crawford

  Mrs. A. Dundas-Bekker

  Mr. M. A. J. Gossip, OBE

  Sheriff P. G. B. McNeill, QC

  Rt. Hon. the Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

  Miss Marion M. Stewart

  W. W. Scott, CB

  Andrew Tod

  Miss A. B. F. Farquhar

  Dr. M. A. Crowther

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the local review committees for Her Majesty's prisons and young offenders institutions in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:Aberdeen Prison

  Mr. W. D. McKenzie

  Mr. J. M. Pirie

  Dr. Audrey A. Dawson

  Mr. G. Bell

  Mrs. H. Smith

  Mr. T. Houlichan

  Castle Fluntly Young Offenders' Institution and Noranside Prison

  Mr. D. Watt

  Mr. B. McWilliam

  Mr. E. Carnegie

  Mrs. B. L. Jack

  Mr. A. Courtney-Dunn

  298

  The Hon. Mrs. E. Lyle

  Cornton Vale Prison and Institution

  Mr. R. F. Fyfe

  Mrs. H. R. Corbett

  Mrs. B. Docherty

  Mr. W. Brown

  Mrs. A. Dando

  Mrs. E. Murdoch

  Dumfries Young Offenders Institution

  Mr. J. Brydson

  Mr. M. K. Marchbank

  s. M. Bogie

  Mrs. B. McGilliard

  Mr. I. M. Harvey

  Mr. J. W. B. Taylor

  Dungavel/Barlinnie Prisons

  Mr. D. Crawford

  Mrs. R. Cochrane

  Mrs. J. Young

  Mr. J. Beresford

  Mr. H. McGregor

  Edinburgh Prison

  Mr. P. W. Milliard

  Mr. L. Findlay

  Mr. D. Gray

  Mr. R. S. Lancashire

  Mrs. C. Gill

  The Rev. Hillary Smith

  Father James Morrison

  Mr. C. Hawkes

  Mr. A. Duncan

  Glenochil Prison

  Mr. A. R. T. Henry

  Mr. R. McGregor

  Mr. R. McQuillen

  The Rev. D. Redwood

  Mr. I. B. Johnston

  Mr. J. H. M. Forrest

  Mr. J. L. McKiddie

  Mr. A. Hunter

  Mr. R. Burns

  Mrs. M. Lawrie

  Penninghame Prison

  Mrs. A. E. Findlay

  Mr. P. W. Bolland

  Mr. J. Haylett

  Dr. R. Simpson

  Lt. General Sir Norman Arthur

  Mr. J. Bateman

  Mrs. M. O'Brien

  Perth Prison

  Mrs. M. Owens

  Mrs. C. N. M. Fowlie

  Mr. J. D. Robertson

  Mr. T. Aitken

  Mr. A. W. Prescott

  Mr. A. Manson

  Mr. J. Howden

  Peterhead Prison

  Mr. A. Hamilton

  Mr. J. G. Morgan

  Mr. J. G. E. Paulin

  Mrs. E. Strachan

  Mr. C. D. Mackenzie

  Polmont Young Offenders' Institution-Greenock Prison

  Mr. J. Graham

  Mr. J. Muirhead

  Councillor P. McCafferty

  Mr. R. Barnes

  Mr. J. Leinster

  Mr. A. Mackenzie

  Mr. J. B. Adams

  299

  Ms J. Martin

  Shotts Prison

  Mrs. E. Williams

  Mr. A. Hall

  Mr. A. W. McCallum

  Mr. F. Pontin

  Ms M. Anderson

  Mrs. F. Corsar

  Mr. J. Donaldson

  Mr. P. Streater

  Mr. M. Lipsey

  Mrs. E. Aughey

  Mr. A. Law

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Advisory Committee on Medical Establishments.

  Mr. Stewart
  The current members are:

  Dr. A. B. Young, Chairman

  Mr. M. D. Cook

  Dr. C. A. Cormie

  Dr. A. Cremona

  Professor G. W. Fenton

  Dr. J. A. Ford

  Dr. H. P. McEwan

  Mr. A. B. MacGregor

  Mr. P. McNally

  Dr. S. B. M. Reith

  Dr. M. A. Roberts

  Dr. I. S. Ruthven

  Professor A. A. Spence

  Professor F. Walker

  Professor J. Weir

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Stewart
  The members currently appointed to the board of Scottish Enterprise are as follows:

  Professor Donald lain MacKay, MA, FRSE, Chairman

  Ronald Garrick, CBE, Deputy Chairman

  Dr. James Adamson, OBE

  Professor Andrew Bain

  Tom Farmer, CBE

  Michael Gray, OBE

  Barbara Kelly, CBE

  Rosemary McKenna

  Cameron McLatchie, OBE

  Professor John Shaw, CBE

  Yvonne Strachan

  In addition the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise is an ex-officio member of the board.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The present membership of the Scottish Legal Aid Board is as follows:

  Mrs. Christine Davis, Chairman

  George Barrie, Esq

  Mrs. Patricia A. M. Bolton

  Mrs. Pamela Bowman

  Miss M. Lynda Clark, QC

  Archibald Gilchrist, Esq

  Professor Peter H. Grinyer

  George D. Holmes, Esq CB FRSE

  David A. Leitch, Esq

  Robert J. Livingstone, Esq

  Mrs. Isobel G. McColl

  Colin N. McEachran, Esq QC

  Sheriff Robin G. McEwan, QC

  Mrs. Gillian M. Peebles

  Mrs. Margaret Tait

  Supplies (Quality)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department takes if the quality of supplies from one of its contractors does not meet the specification.

  Mr. Lang
  Should the quality of supplies from a contractor fail to meet the specification, the contractor will immediately be invited to discuss with the Department what measures the supplier intends to implement to rectify the problem. If the problem with the quality of supplies is not rectified, the Scottish Office will consider exercising its rights under the terms and conditions of the contract.

  Contracting Out (Pension Rights)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has issued about the effect of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 on the transfer of pension rights in services in his Department which are subject to contracting out.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 February, at column 1010.

  EC Structural Funds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has as to what proportion of EC structural funds for industrial and urban areas in decline—objective 2 areas—will be apportioned to(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: The European Commission recently announced indicative allocations to member states. The United Kingdom share of objective 2 funds for the period 1994–96 has been set at 2,142 mecu at 1994 prices.

  Allocations to individual objective 2 areas will be linked to the submission of satisfactory regional development plans to the European Commission and the establishment of Community support frameworks for the respective objective 2 areas. The Commission has indicated that use within the United Kingdom of the same criteria for internal allocation as were used to set the United Kingdom total would result in the allocation of 19 per cent. of the available resources to Scotland, as follows:

  Eastern Scotland 118 mecus

  Western Scotland 289 mecus

  The Western Scotland area includes Strathclyde region outside objective 1 apd a small part of the Glasgow travel-to-work area in central region.

  Funds are not normally earmarked for specific parts within designated objective 2 areas. Individual areas benefit through projects competing successfully for funds by demonstrating value for money and lasting economic benefit.

  Local Authorities (Applicants)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to local authorities on the appointment of chief executives; and if he will make a statement.
  301
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no locus in the employment practices of local authorities and has therefore offered no advice on the subject.

  Court of Session
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to consult interested parties before the next revision of fees for actions in the Court of Session.

  Mr. Lang
  Officials have asked the Law Society of Scotland for views on proposals for the attribution of costs to different items of business in the Court of Session in preparation for revision of the Court of Session fees.

  AIDS
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be given to each health board in Scotland in 1994–95 for(a) HIV/AIDS and (b) drugs services.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: Discussions are currently taking place with Scottish health boards to consider the proposals which each has submitted for the funding of HIV/AIDS and drug misuse services in 1994–95.

  Planning Guidelines
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to issue draft planning/mineral guidelines; if he proposes to make these open to consultation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: Draft national planning policy guidelines on land for mineral working were issued for public consultation in July 1992. We do not propose further consultation, and intend to issue the final guidelines soon.

  Cancer Clusters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what surveys have been undertaken by the Scottish Office into cancer clusters in the west of Scotland; and what conclusions they have reached.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 February 1994]: Over the last three years, the information and statistics division of the NHS in Scotland has carried out four studies of cancer incidence in the west of Scotland, as follows: cancer incidence in the Port Glasgow area; childhood leukaemia in Largs and Millport; cancer incidence in the Cumbernauld and Muirhead areas; and childhood cancer in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area. Each study concluded that there was no evidence of abnormally high rates of cancer in the area studied.

  Hearing Aids (Children)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which agency monitors the provision of insurance on hearing aids for children and young people; and what plans there are to change the present arrangement;

  (2) if he will list the conditions under which children and young people are entitled to be provided with the most appropriate hearing aid whether or not this is part of the national health service range of hearing aids;
  302
  (3) which agency is responsible for monitoring the provision and maintenance of hearing aids for (a) pre-school children, (b) children at school and (c) young people aged 16 years and above who are in full-time education; and what plans there are to change the present arrangement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: Hearing aids are available under the national health service for anyone who needs one. It is for the clinician concerned to decide which aid is most appropriate in each case, whether it is from the standard range or purchased by hearing aid centres from a commercial source. As hearing aids are provided on loan there is no requirement for the patient, or in the case of a child under 16 the child's parent, to insure the device. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of voluntary organisations in Scotland receiving funding from regional social work departments in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations his Department has received from voluntary organisations expressing concern that(a) the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill has no statutory requirement for the new councils to establish a social work committee, or a director of social work and (b) that there is no requirement for a director of social work, if appointed, to hold a professional qualification in social work.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: As at 16 February representations have been received from 27 voluntary organisations, four housing associations and five individuals expressing concern that the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill has no statutory requirement for the new councils to establish a social work committee or a director of social work. Those same correspondents have also expressed concern that there is no requirement for a director of social work, if appointed, to hold a professional qualification in social work.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dentists have been recruited by each of Scotland's health boards in each of the last three years; and how many dentists are currently employed by each of Scotland's health boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The information requested is shown in table 1. General dental practitioners are not employed by health boards but are independent contractors who join a health board's dental list and undertake to provide NHS dental services. The number of general dental practitioners on health board dental lists is contained in table 2.
  303

  Table 1

  Hospital, community and salaried dentists; by health board: at 30 September

  Recruits in year ending 30 September

  Number in post

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19931

  Scotland

  62

  60

  29

  462

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  5

  3

  30

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3

  2

  1

  21

  Borders

  1

  —

  —

  9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  —

  1

  13

  Fife

  2

  4

  2

  26

  Forth Valley

  3

  1

  1

  15

  Grampian

  6

  6

  —

  31

  Greater Glasgow

  17

  10

  7

  112

  Highland

  4

  2

  5

  25

  Lanarkshire

  4

  1

  6

  36

  Lothian

  11

  26

  2

  98

  Orkney

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Shetland

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Tayside

  4

  —

  3

  53

  Western Isles

  1

  2

  1

  8

  1 Some dentists may hold contracts in more than one health board and are therefore double counted.

  Table 2

  Number of general dental practitioners on health board dental lists as at 30 September 1993

  Health Board

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  163

  Ayrshire and Arran

  126

  Borders

  34

  Dumfries and Galloway

  40

  Fife

  116

  Forth Valley

  81

  Grampian

  160

  Greater Glasgow

  356

  Highland

  67

  Lanarkshire

  142

  Lothian

  283

  Orkney

  3

  Shetland

  6

  Tayside

  139

  Western Isles

  10

  Total

  1,726

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the date, purpose and itinerary of official visits made to each Scottish parliamentary constituency by himself and each Minister in his Department since January 1993.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: The information is not held in the form requested and its compilation would involve disproportionate costs. Scottish Office Ministers have paid around 450 official visits to many parts of Scotland since January 1993.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what plans the Commissioners have for a separate pension fund to be set up with independent trustees; and if it will be the Commissioners' policy for the size of the fund to be 304
  actuarially sound to meet all committed pension payments even to the extent of funding it out of income for a number of years.

  Mr. Alison
  It is the Commissioners' intention to ensure that the arrangements for the funding of clergy pensions should be placed on an actuarially sound basis. A leading firm of actuaries has been appointed to offer independent advice and discussions are being held with the Church of England Pensions Board and others about the best way forward. The Commissioners' assets comfortably exceed the pensions liabilities which have accrued to date.

  Investment Advisers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 9, what consideration the Church Commissioners gave to dismissing any of their commercial property investment advisers in the last three years.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners regularly review the performance of their commercial property advisers. None has been dismissed but, following competitive tendering, the day-to-day management of their American properties has passed from Chesterton to Aldrich, Eastman and Waltch of Boston, Massachusetts.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what plans the Church Commissioners have to contract out to independent professional advisers any investment advice currently obtained in house.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners already have the benefit of a wide range of professional investment advice through the use of external managers for their property portfolio and from brokers in relation to their stock exchange investments. The independent actuaries, to whom I referred in my previous answer will, in addition to expenditure liabilities, also advise on investment strategy and management.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will list which recommendations outlined in the Lambeth Group report and Coopers and Lybrand report to the
  305
  Archbishop of Canterbury last year have now been implemented, with particular reference to (a) the recommended alternations in the investment strategy and (b) regarding pensions as a first charge on the Commissioners' assets.

  Mr. Alison
  I have arranged for a copy of GS 1093 to be placed in the Library. This note was prepared by the Commissioners to inform the General Synod debate last 306
  November about the Lambeth report and lists action taken in response to the report's recommendations. The outstanding recommendations are being actively pursued, although the reduction of the Commissioners' dependence on property investment has to be sensibly managed against market conditions and may take several years to achieve. As regards pensions, I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer.

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

Computer Disks: Violent Material
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their attention has been drawn to the video "Jolly Roger Cookbook III", and whether they intend to legislate against videos that offer instruction on the commission of violence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the police in Cleveland have seized a computer disk called "Jolly Roger Cookbook III". They are considering, in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, what action to take under the existing law.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As this floppy contains instructions on how to make drugs, how to kill people, how to make explosives and how to con cash machines, is it not time for this kind of material to be made illegal? Will he consider seeking reciprocal arrangements with the United States in an effort to have it cut off at source?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is precisely in order to see whether this particular computer disk is illegal that discussions are taking place at the moment. My noble friend will realise that it is an offence to import obscene material and the customs do seize computer disks periodically. The law is being tightened up very much in this area, particularly under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is at the moment before another place.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, if it is proved that such videos are not illegal, cannot the Government take action to make them illegal?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not a video; it is a computer disc. Videos are not exempt from classification. It is not desirable to impose a system of pre-censorship and classification on all computer disks, the vast majority of which are harmless. However, the matter is being looked at.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not a general difficulty in law here? Obscenity is not necessarily what this Question is about. Supposing I were to describe in detail how to make a bomb. I do not believe that many people would consider that obscene, but does my noble friend agree that it would be a highly undesirable thing for me to do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. It would be highly undesirable and, if I may say so, highly unlikely. The law on obscenity also
626
covers violent material and works which promote the unlawful use, for instance, of controlled drugs. Obscenity is not just sexual obscenity.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we are pleased to learn from the Minister that there is an effort by the Government to tighten up the law on these matters. However, since we have passed the relevant legislation, particularly as regards satellite broadcasts from outside this country, it is quite clear that we have no control over all the filth which is being beamed into this country? Does the Minister agree that we should review these matters with a view to putting ourselves in charge of what is happening on our television screens as a result of these videos?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, how television is dealt with is a separate matter from this particular problem which relates to computer disks. I can assure your Lordships that considerable action is being taken in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Obscenity offences and child pornography offences will be made serious arrestable offences. The Bill will extend the law to cover simulated child pornography which is manufactured on a computer. It will clarify the law in relation to other child pornography which is stored on a computer. It will extend the duration of search warrants for child pornography from 14 days to 28 days and, in addition to the current fine of £ 5,000, will impose a custodial sentence on those convicted of possessing child pornography. The maximum prison term is being increased, as are the powers of trading standards officers. We have also tabled amendments to the Bill to extend the Obscene Publications Act to cover the transmission of electronic data from one computer to another.
Lord Elton: My Lords, welcome as this indication of the Government's anxiety and activity is, does my noble friend agree that the sheer volume of material now being produced is such that there can be no effective direct supervision or indeed classification of it? Does he further agree that what is needed is, first, an international convention to control this vile material at source under the laws of the countries in which it is produced and, secondly, continuing vigilance by Her Majesty's Government? Does he accept that the report of the Select Committee of another place on computer pornography, which came out about three days ago, is already being outdated by rapid developments in technology.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a large quantity of this kind of material. It is becoming increasingly difficult, with the advent of computers, to control it. What one can do is make it an offence in certain cases for people to transmit various items, whatever the method of transmission may be. The fact that they do so may mean that they are contravening the law. It is another matter finding those people and gathering sufficient evidence on which to produce a criminal prosecution.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since it is generic to computer disks that they are, first, easily copyable and, secondly, easily transmissible down telephone lines, is it not possible to devise a block or a code to prevent those two undesirable activities happening?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are getting into the realms of high technology. I do not know whether I am the best person to reply. My immediate response is that, although it may be fine to put a block on one particular thing, it is not easy to construct a law that would enable you to put blocks on the things you want to put blocks on without putting blocks on the things you do not want to put blocks on.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that the Metropolitan police have a very competent unit to deal with such offences and that the unit works in co-operation with police forces throughout England and Wales?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is right. The police have a very efficient unit and are concerned, as, I think, everyone is concerned, to make certain that that which is obscene or improper should not be transmitted. Of course, one has to weigh that against the business of free speech and control over such matters.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill comes before this House, will the Government consider embodying in it some, if not all, of the recommendations of the Select Committee of another place on this matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Select Committee reported only yesterday. I think that my noble friend would agree that to give an immediate and affirmative answer to that question would be going pretty fast, even by the Government's standards. However, I can tell my noble friend that we are considering these matters carefully and will take such action as is necessary.

Community Care Assessment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that local authorities uphold their duty to consult carers as part of the community care assessment procedure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, as a matter of good practice our guidance has made it clear that we expect carers to be fully involved in assessments. We have in place extensive programmes to monitor and support the community care reforms in order to enable them to be effectively implemented.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer— as far as it goes. However, does she agree with the carers' associations, such as the Carers' National Association and the Alzheimer's Disease Society, that carers have very few, if any, statutory rights under the National Health Service and
628
Community Care Act? Is she aware that despite the community care reforms many local authorities still do not consult— or are failing to consult— carers and carers' organisations about the assessment process, and that they are certainly not making the necessary provisions to allow carers to carry on caring for as long as possible? Therefore, will the Minister agree to try to persuade the Government to take a careful look at carers' needs to have some statutory rights in the assessment process as well as the provision of services that would enable them to continue caring for as long as they can?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although there are no statutory rights, the Government have made it clear that they expect carers to be involved in care plans and assessments, working with all the statutory authorities involved. We have repeatedly encouraged local authorities to ensure that there are written care plans so that carers know what is proposed and can influence the services that are provided.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister is always helpful, but is she aware that the Carers' National Association has said that many carers are now worse off than before because of government cuts? They do not benefit from the arrangements that the Minister mentioned simply because they do not know about them. Therefore, could not the Government finance a scheme to ensure that all carers are fully aware of their entitlements?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are no cuts in terms of the resources that are being put into community care. In fact, by the end of next year £ 1.2 billion of extra money will have been put into this operation specifically for social services and health authorities to work together to improve services. I was in touch with the Carers' National Association this morning and the director told me that she felt that in some places the involvement of carers had improved although in others it had not. The picture that is coming over clearly to us is that that is patchy, but one might expect that since the reforms have been in place for only 10 months.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is the second day in succession that your Lordships have heard questions raising serious concerns about the operation of the new community care arrangements. Does the Minister now agree that it would be a very good idea to implement a nationwide review of the arrangements which, as she says, will be one year old in April, with particular reference to the idea of introducing national standards for community care, as was proposed by the British Medical Association and the major voluntary organisations, which I believe include special protection for carers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a great deal of monitoring is going on. In September, the Social Services Inspectorate and the regional health authorities monitored all 109 local authorities. There are 14 special studies now to be carried out by the Social Services Inspectorate and the National Health Service

629
Management Executive. A report has been commissioned from KPMG on information for users and carers. The National Users' and Carers' Group has been established by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who is particularly responsible for community services. So, a great deal is going on. I am not an advocate of national standards because I think that every area of England is different. There are different strengths in different communities and we have to draw on those. I think that, on the whole, local decisions are better decisions.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister go a stage further and tell us how, in the absence of those statutory rights for carers, we can now proceed to convince those local authorities which are obviously not going to commit themselves to making that provision for carers, that they have to do so?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a question of persuasion, monitoring and withholding funds when certain provisions which we expect to be adhered to are not adhered to. The national association, with the support of the local authorities, is running a campaign in May to heighten awareness of local authorities. I understand that that is an initiative which they welcome.

Public Sector Pay Policy
2.50 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the way in which their public sector pay policy is working.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, yes. The Government's approach to public sector pay in 1994– 95 was set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 14th September last year and reflected in the: expenditure programmes announced in the Budget on 30th November. The Government are satisfied that all parts of the public sector will accommodate the costs of pay settlements within those expenditure totals.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I accept the need for the Government, in their management of the economy, to be concerned with pay levels in the public: sector? However, will he in turn accept that if there is a pay bill freeze rather than a pay freeze, given that typically two-thirds of running costs relate to pay, there will inevitably be wage cuts and job cuts, despite the fact that "Downing Street sources" said recently that there will not be job cuts? Does the noble Lord accept that those job cuts are inevitable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that that is inevitable. We feel that any pay increases should be offset by efficiency improvements. That is what we have asked the Civil Service and the rest of the public sector to do. There is absolutely no freeze on pay settlements and the normal pay determination arrangements are not pre-empted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who have some past experience in this matter are full of admiration for the way in which the Government are handling the issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. My noble friend is aware of the importance of the need to keep public expenditure and public sector costs under extremely firm control. Therefore, the current pay realism must continue. We hope that low settlements will become the norm rather than the exception.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that they have worked out effective ways in which to identify and reward improved performance in the public sector, even in those areas where that cannot be measured in financial terms?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall continue to pursue our long-term objectives of increasing flexibility within the public sector pay system and strengthening the link between performance and pay. We are satisfied that there is sufficient flexibility in the system to allow for that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister think that that policy is justified bearing in mind that nurses in the health service are on a ridiculously low income for the job that they do and that at the same time many jobs are being created in the new health trusts and the chairmen are awarding themselves salaries of over £ 60,000 per year? Where is the fairness in that policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I understand it, nurses have been offered a pay increase. The important factors to bear in mind when considering pay levels are the need to recruit, retain and motivate staff within what is affordable in the system. I see no evidence of a shortage of nurses in the health service.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I too have experience of a job similar to that held by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Does the Minister agree with the statement of the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his autobiography who, when talking about pay rules, said that he found such a course to be a well-trodden road to disaster?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is another former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and he will be well aware of the importance of the need to keep public sector expenditure under control. That is why we have announced that while there should be no formal limit on public pay sector policy, we expect all pay increases to be paid for within current budgets and within efficiency improvements which can be brought about.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, do quangos come within the public pay sector?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all public pay is affected by the statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that by imposing that pay policy on public sector

631
workers, many of whom are low paid, the Government are forcing those low-paid workers to subsidise the public services enjoyed by the rest of us?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not agree with that.

Fish Conservation Policy
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the recent abandonment of one of their key fish conservation measures, whether they will consider increasing the decommissioning budget to further reduce the capacity of the British fishing fleet.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the suspension of days at sea controls, which would have ensured value for money from our decommissioning expenditure, means that the Government need to review other elements of their conservation package. However, payments will be made under the 1993 decommissioning scheme, and if further schemes go ahead, the balance of the original £ 25 million remains available for future financial years.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am grateful to him for agreeing that the decommissioning scheme is of critical importance to both the conservation policy and the severe financial hardship of many fishermen. Will my noble friend tell us how much extra money will be needed above the £ 25 million to meet our commitment to the EC to reduce our fishing fleet level capacity by 1996? Secondly, will he undertake to look now into ways in which to improve the present scheme so that the fishermen will benefit now rather than later?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, decommissioning needs to be complemented by days at sea controls to ensure conservation benefits and value for money. Suspension of days at sea policy has broken that link. The Government need to consider whether decommissioning can proceed in that situation. It is certainly difficult to justify an increase in decommissioning expenditure when value-for-money safeguards are no longer available. The Government and the industry are concerned to conserve fish stocks. The package of measures originally proposed by the Government, together with some adjustment to the days at sea restrictions to meet interested concerns, would have achieved that end. We regret that we cannot move forward in that way until the European Court has pronounced.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that whenever this question is to be reviewed, decommissioning must be first considered? Does he agree that the alternative to decommissioning is really to do nothing in particular to save fish stocks? Changing net sizes and so on would be merely to play
632
with the problem. Therefore, does my noble friend agree that the only answer available to the Government at the moment is an enhanced decommissioning scheme now?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of my noble friend to what other member states are trying to achieve. We are still in the early stages of the 1993– 96 programme. Like the United Kingdom, other member states are still developing their package of measures. The multi-annual guidance programme system deliberately allows member states a fair measure of flexibility. Most— and this is relevant to my noble friend's point— will rely on decommissioning, but the Dutch will depend mainly on days at sea. The Commission is closely monitoring the progress of those measures and the Government support them in that.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, when a judicial review is referred by the English courts to the European Court of Justice, and when the subject of judicial review is the implementation by the British Government of policies in pursuit of objectives proposed by the European Community, is there not a very strong case for a fast-track approach by the European Court of Justice in dealing with that reference? Have any overtures of that kind been made to the European Court and in particular, have they been made on this occasion with regard to fish?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, expedition in this context is a relative term. However, the Government persuaded the domestic court to include a request for expedition in its order referring certain questions to the European Court of Justice. We hope that the court in Luxembourg will now recognise the need for a ruling within a reasonable timescale. When I say "a reasonable timescale", that may be one or two years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, because Britain and Ireland were the only EU countries not to have a major decommissioning scheme, have not British fishermen, confined to harbour for long periods, been exasperated to see foreigners fishing all the year round, while not visualising the fact that many foreign fishermen are unemployed or already in other occupations because of decommissioning? May not this British exercise of subsidiarity have been misplaced, as it would have looked fairer to our fishing communities if all EU fishermen had been treated in the same way?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the reduction of the fleet will inevitably mean fewer jobs. The Government have every sympathy with fishermen and their families. However, unless the fishing effort is reduced, stocks will inevitably collapse and the jobs of all fishermen will be at risk.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, while there is no question that decommissioning and the ability to trade quotas will very largely reduce the number of fishermen fishing with net in modern trawlers, have the Government considered how they could help the employment situation in fishing communities? For example, have they considered allowing the free landing

633
of fish caught by the long-line system which always fetched extra money in the market? If that was allowed, it would greatly help the unemployment situation and would not cause the same damage to stocks.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I stated earlier, the Government's basic aim is to conserve stocks. That is the only way to safeguard the fishing communities and the jobs that depend on fishing. The noble Lord made an extremely interesting point about long-line fishing; but, equally, he also referred to the immense value of the modern-day trawler and all its technical equipment.
Lard Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in view of the fact that some people would like to see an increase in the decommissioning funds available, can my noble friend tell the House exactly how the present decommissioning cash has been used in connection with the scheme?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as regards the year 1993, we currently have a shortfall of £ 750,000. However, we shall not know the full result until 1st March 1994.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his impeccable use of English grammar in the answers that he has given, which is unlike that printed in the Question on the Order Paper. Does he not consider that this House of all places ought to set an example in that context?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that mistake. However, I am not directly responsible for the printing of the Order Paper.

Business of the House: Debate This Day
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde set down for this day shall be limited to 5 hours. — (Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 2 to 4 and Schedule 2; and that amendments to those clauses and that schedule be marshalled in accordance with the Instruction of 2nd February. — (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Marks Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 45,

Schedule 1,

Clause 46,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 47 to 101,

Schedule 3,

Clause 102,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clauses 103 to 106. — (Viscount Goschen.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Family
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde rose to call attention to the United Nations International Year of the Family and to support for the family in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I feel honoured to move the Motion today— honoured because the family— in all its various shapes and sizes in the UK — is important to all of us, and honoured because we shall hear maiden speeches from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre.
In 1988 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that 1994 should be designated the International Year of the Family. It was a timely choice of topic and one which has been taken up by over 100 countries throughout the world. The overall theme for the year is "Family Resources and Responsibilities in a Changing World" and the objective is that governments should develop long-term family friendly policies.
Although the debate calls attention to support for the family in the UK, the year is an international one and I have no doubt that noble Lords may well rightly wish to develop that theme. Families all over the world are struggling to survive, thrive and make some sense and order out of the colossal changes confronting the world at the end of the 20th century.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the debate is in no way intended to single out and point the finger in any morally judgmental way. Nor is it an attempt to dictate individual personal standards of conduct. It is important to start by recognising the very major and positive contribution that families make to our society, often under tremendous difficulties. Those of us who were brought up in a happy, supportive family know only too well how fortunate we have been and what a marvellous start in life it gave to us. We may not have had much by way of material luxuries but the sense of well-being, of being wanted and loved, gave a feeling of security which was immeasurable. So this year should be a celebration of the family in all its various forms and sizes.
Some would question if "the family" as we have known it still exists, and, if it does, whether it has a future. The family in society has changed over the ages; it has not remained in one static form. But, yes, I believe very much that it does have a future; indeed, it is at the very heart of the kind of society that I would hope we have in the future.
Families here in the UK have never been more diverse, more under pressure and more in need. In recent months, the very nature of the family here has been under the intense glare of a harsh spotlight which has tended to lay so many of our current problems at the door of families and especially parents. I believe that that has been wrong and totally misguided.
Family, of course, means different things to different people. What has emerged is the knowledge that, although opinions vary about what family means, there is strong agreement that families do indeed matter and that their well-being is crucial to the well-being of society.
The UK International Year of the Family Association is leading the campaign in this country. Organisations in the voluntary sector, despite the tremendous pressures they are toiling under, have joined the campaign. Business, the trade unions, education and community groups are all involved in giving active support to the year.
Government are also involved. But they need to do more. The challenge of the year cannot be shuffled off to the voluntary sector, and in other countries that has been recognised. The role of government and the policies they adopt is crucial to developing the intentions of the year and making the UK a much more family friendly place than it sadly is today. The UK Government have, I gather, put in a commitment of something like £ 100,000. On the other hand, the Australian Government, with similar economic problems to ours, have given the equivalent of £ 6 million to this vital work.
The theme of the year raises fundamental questions. Who are our families? What are their views about the family? What are their hopes, aspirations, experience and problems, and what would help them manage their lives more effectively? At the end of the year, a conference will report back on some of the answers to those questions, as seen by the family, to create a family agenda for change.
No doubt individual speakers will choose to concentrate on one of the many topics covered by the three themes for the year. I would like to take my time in ranging over the themes, identifying some points of particular concern to me. Families and work is the first theme. There is a need to help people achieve a better balance between their paid work responsibilities and their family and caring responsibilities. The world of work has gone through so many changes, yet work provides the basis of stability in the family. A secure job provides the springboard for the family to plan their lives together and to see their standards improve by their own hard work. Without work there is little hope.
Continuing high unemployment and drastic structural changes to work patterns, casualisation, temporary
636
work, and the replacement of full-time jobs by part-time, all contribute to a lack of family security which undermines stability in the home. How does a family plan to buy their own home? How dare they enter into a mortgage when the breadwinner is on a casual contract which will never become permanent or when a job may finish at the end of a fixed term, and when neither job carries pension accumulation rights, holiday pay or sick pay?
Part-time employment has a positive role to play, especially for women, but not when those part-time jobs carry no proportional benefits to the full-time jobs they have replaced. In the 1980s 1.3 million jobs, all of them part-time, were created. We have now seen the emergence of the working poor. Their pay is so low that 40 per cent. of those designated as living in poverty are actually in work — in low paid jobs. All of that puts enormous pressure on the ability of families to take responsibility for themselves; to provide and not to be dependent upon the state. A recent government commissioned survey came to the conclusion that the increasingly unregulated labour market was returning to the way it was in the 19th century; to the master and slave relationship that existed before trade unions were able to represent people. It is a form of industrial peasantry.
Certainly, the abolition of wages councils is now generally accepted as being responsible for the emergence of many below poverty wage levels. Most of the 2.5 million workers affected by the elimination of wages councils were women. Most of them were receiving the princely sum of £ 2.50 to £ 3.60 per hour. I suggest that it is to our shame that Britain is the only country in the European Union without a legal minimum wage.
In January a debate took place in this House, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on nursery education and child care. It was a first-class debate. Not surprisingly, it made the case yet again of the crucial and urgent need for nursery education and child care provision. I know that the Employment Committee in another place is looking at the subject of provision for working mothers and that part of its consideration will be that of child care. Surely, in this International Year of the Family, we can make progress. We can do it; we did it in World War II. The Equal Opportunities Commission, the TUC and many other bodies have identified this as the single biggest step which could be made in helping single parents today.
The Government have said that child care will be provided when resources are available. When is that? The question that needs to be asked is: can we afford not to provide affordable and good child care? Many local authorities already provide nursery school places. Only last week I was gratified to see that 40 per cent. of all three to four year-old children living in Labour controlled areas are in nursery education. Unfortunately, the equivalent for Conservative areas is only 13 per cent.
The second core theme of the International Year of the Family is poverty and family resources. The latest figures suggest that no matter what measure is used to define poverty, there has been a considerable increase in

637
the past decade. But poverty is not just about a lack of money; it is also about a lack of opportunity, particularly in families where one of the members has a disability. Experience of the Family Welfare Association, which is 125 years old this year, gives us much that we should listen to in this International Year of the Family. Its concern is that large sections of our society have become marginalised, leading to a consequent loss of shared responsibility for each other. Such shared family responsibility and a value system should be the hallmark of any civilised society.
Our record in recent years in Britain has not been a good one in dealing with poverty, especially when we are led to believe that the 1980s was a period of economic expansion. That was not the experience of many families. In 1991,13.5 million people in Britain — or 24 per cent. of the population— were living in poverty, compared with 9 per cent. in 1979. Of the 13.5 million,8 million were parents with children. Today,4 million children in Britain live in poor households. Poverty is the black hole of descent into helplessness, alienation from mainstream society and despair for so many families affected by poverty. The repercussions on family life, the pressure on support services, especially the voluntary ones, and on society as a whole are very damaging.
Increasing debt in the family is one manifestation of the growth of poverty. In 1993 the Citizens' Advice Bureau published two reports about its anxieties. One, called Make or Break, looked at people living below benefit levels due to the deductions from their benefit. Another, called Out of Control, looked at the difficulties of poor people having access to the supply of gas, electricity and water. That too was raised in another place only this week.
Some years ago my mother reminded me of an old saying, "When poverty comes through the door, love goes through the window". Perhaps, like all generalisations, that is not totally accurate, but there is a grain of truth in it. Continual worry about money, knowing that as each week goes by debt is becoming larger, with no possible hope of repaying it, must have an impact on family life. And it was a harsh fact of British life in the 1980s that the number of homeless families with children rose by 46 per cent. during that decade.
Many noble Lords will, like me, remember the stunning impact of the television drama, "Cathy Come Home", which was broadcast some years ago. Although a drama, it made us sit up and take note of the plight of homeless families. Have we perhaps become too selfish to respond similarly today? Has the cult of the individual overtaken the collective responsibility that we must share'?
I am sure that none of us is comfortable with the fact that last year's National Children's Home survey of 354 families, half of whom were on income support, showed that one in five had gone hungry at some time in the previous month. Yet, amazingly, despite such a desperately depressing picture, the majority of families do manage to stay together. We must remember that. They still provide a stable, loving and supportive home for their children.
I believe that the Government should agree, in this International Year of the Family, to test every fiscal policy against a set of values and "How will this affect the family in all its various shapes and sizes and what positive help will it give?". If that had been the test, the changes due in April would not have brought 400,000 low paid people into the tax system. What impact will that have on already hard pressed families? What will it yield to the Treasury?
In the 1970s the gap between rich and poor was getting smaller. The 1980s reversed that trend. Whereas the average income of the population as a whole grew by 36 per cent, the real income of the bottom 10 per cent. of our society fell by 14 per cent. Real incomes for the top 10 per cent., however, rose by 62 per cent. during that same decade. That hardly gives out the right messages or examples to families in poverty.
Families and relationships is the third theme of the year of the family. Healthy relationships are crucial to the well-being of families. All too clearly, the pressures of change on families are taking their toll on relationships and family life. Being a parent today presents enormous challenges. I was interested to read four positive proposals from Relate, the marriage guidance body. Relate proposed that we should extend relationship education; reform the law on divorce; strengthen counselling services; and promote real research into marriage, divorce and relationships. I hope that those proposals will be adopted.
There is the impact, too, of the increasing number of people in the "third age", as demonstrated by the Carnegie sponsored third age report. I look forward very much to hearing the contributions of noble Lords. The United Nations year can make a difference if we choose to make it so. There is little doubt in my mind that economic policy must be linked with social justice. It has to be recognised that the increasing emphasis on individualism, exemplified in our economic orthodoxies, is presenting a serious challenge to family values and a challenge to us all, not least the purveyors of some of the hairshirt philosophies which have brought us to this low point. I recognise that it will not be possible to deal immediately with all the changes needed to meet the challenge of the International Year of the Family but we could, and we should, make a start in this year. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I wish to start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for introducing this debate today. The family is of such fundamental importance to society that I am sure we all welcome the opportunity to discuss it. I begin by saying how much we look forward to hearing the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford, whom I think of as both a friend and a neighbour, and whose contributions on "Thought for Today" on Friday mornings I am sure we have all heard. I also wish the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, well. We all look forward to hearing her maiden speech today.
I am sorry that I cannot take part in the debate which is to follow this one and which is to be introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. As he may well say, he and

639
I stood shoulder to shoulder, as it were, in the Oxford Union some two weeks ago proposing the motion that this House would welcome a return to traditional family values. I am happy to say that we won that motion. Without wishing in any way to draw too many conclusions from this one debate, it seems to me to illustrate that young, highly intelligent and articulate students, all opinion-formers, are concerned about the state of the family today. That is a point to which I shall return.
What is the state of the family today? I do not think there can be any disagreement about the figures because after all they have all been recently produced in the latest issue of Social Trends. In referring to the figures I am stating facts; I do not in any sense wish to apportion blame to anyone. The facts are that one in three marriages now end in divorce; there are thought to be something like 150,000 children each year who become the victims of divorce. Those people who cohabit before marriage have a higher rate of divorce. Thirty per cent. of babies are born out of wedlock. Single parent families represent some one in five British households. The number has risen from 840,000 in 1979 to 1.3 million today. One-parent families have almost doubled as a proportion of all families with dependent children from 10 per cent in 1976 to 19 per cent. in 1991. The cost of all this— if we are worried about that — is £ 6.6 billion a year.
There are three other trends which I detect. There are now a number of women who apparently think that it is their right to have a baby. I am not referring to teenage pregnancies but to pregnancies among older women. That seems to me a most dangerous slogan because it suggests that a baby is rather like a commodity to be bought off the supermarket shelf along with the cornflakes. There is another attitude which I find becoming increasingly common and which was referred to on a recent television programme. It implies that men are at best a liability to be disposed of at the first possible opportunity, or at worst an irrelevance. I find it surprising that I should speak up for men but I think this is a rather sorry situation.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sorry for you. There has also been a decline in the birth rate. In the United Kingdom the figure is 1.8 per cent.; in Germany it is 1.6 per cent and in Italy and Spain it is probably between 1.2 and 1.4 per cent. If that were to continue, one can see that we shall eventually die out as a race. Perhaps that is a desirable outcome but it is a trend which needs to be observed. Bearing in mind this catalogue of facts, it is not an exaggeration to say there is a real danger of a breakdown in the fabric of society. If we were to be here in five years' time, what would be the statistics on this? There would be more divorces, more children born out of wedlock and more single parent families. We are going down, at a very rapid pace, an extremely slippery slope and no one knows what the end of it will bring. This is a new situation which has really only existed in the past 30 years. I
640
believe it is relevant to ask what the United Nations International Year of the Family will contribute to all of this.
Three particular themes have been identified in relation to this year of the family. The first one is families and work — that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. I serve on the boards of two companies, the National Westminster Bank and Marks and Spencer. They are both members of Opportunity 2000. Both support fair employment practices and both have introduced flexible work practices such as career breaks for women with small children, job sharing, job splitting, part-time work, and opportunities to enable employees to work in the school term and to stay at home in the holidays. These are all desirable trends which need to be adopted more widely by employers.
At one point when I was a Minister I had ministerial responsibility for the Civil Service. Tremendous efforts were made to apply all those good practices. I have absolutely no reason to suppose that that has stopped. However, we must face the fact that it is much more difficult for small companies and companies that are just starting up (from where the new jobs will emerge) to apply all these practices. Certainly that is so when companies are just starting up. We must also face the fact that all of us are entering a vastly more competitive world. The Government cannot alter the power or halt the rise of the countries of the Far East. That will affect all of us fundamentally, whatever our views.
Secondly, the issue of families and poverty has been mentioned. Much has been said about poverty and no one can see it as anything other than a tragedy. However, an important question is asked in a briefing I was sent; namely, who are the poor? Most of the poor in 1990– 91 comprised lone parents. I do not think that should surprise us. After all, it is difficult for a man to support two wives. It is difficult for a woman to manage on her own, no matter how well educated and capable she may be. One of the tragedies that underlines all this is that so many families today comprise lone parents and are therefore poor. Unemployed people are also poor. Again that is a tragedy but we ought at least to be grateful that in Britain unemployment is coming down, unlike many countries on the Continent of Europe and in the European Economic Union, where unemployment is still rising. Real incomes have risen. Even after a long recession the average British married man with two children is more than 40 per cent. better off than he was in 1979.
The third matter which I wish to raise is families and relationships. I believe that this is the most important of all. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to RELATE. I believe that it is valuable that there should be more emphasis on training for relationships, but we must understand what they are. If relationships in the family are to work they require commitment and responsibility. When the going gets very tough it is difficult to bring up children.
I found the statement in the briefing that the family is the smallest democracy absurd. A family is not a democracy. The husband and wife are equals but they stand in loco parentis to the children. One of the most damaging things today is that we undermine parents and

641
take away their responsibilities and far too much is placed on children at too early an age. That type of slogan simply emphasises that fact.
My time is up, but I should like to conclude by saying that in relationships we ought as a country to look very seriously at supporting the traditional family, for the sake of the children, for the sake of their education and for the sake of us all in an uncertain world in the future.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for having given us the opportunity to have this debate this afternoon. Like the two previous speakers, and as a recent maiden speaker myself, I should like to wish the two maiden speakers this afternoon well. I hope that the House will pardon an Oxford head of house if he looks forward with particular eagerness to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
The subject we are discussing is one in which every one of us must declare an interest. Many in this House undoubtedly have more reason than I have to be pleased with their own contribution to family life, and I do not make any particular claims. However, I shall make one general claim, if your Lordships will pardon a few brief words of philosophy.
In modern free societies we depend for our well-being, or, as I should like to put it, for our life chances, above all on three things: on the rights which we all have as citizens to participate in the lives of our society, including labour markets; on the choices which are open to us, many of which are choices opened up by economic opportunities; and on a sense of belonging, which we can obtain only from religion, local links and ties and, perhaps ultimately, from the family in which we live.
Those three pillars of our well-being do not necessarily easily support each other. We have to see that the development of individual rights of citizenship — to my mind one of the most desirable and important developments of the past two centuries— at the same time has not necessarily contributed to keeping intact the bonds of locality, religion and family.
Similarly, we have to recognise that some of the advances which we have made economically have not by the same token strengthened families, localities or other bonds of belonging. Values of competitiveness, efficiency, productivity and flexibility are immensely important. Certainly I would not deny their importance in creating a world of choices and prosperity. But they are also high risk values. They are values which often set one person against another, and which create a sense of competition and rivalry where, in certain areas, we depend for our well-being on solidarity and community.
Therefore, one of the most important questions which we face as we discuss the family as the core of this sense of community and solidarity is how we can have the kind of economic, social and political progress which we seek and at the same time not destroy the cohesion of the communities in which we live, notably that of the family.
642
That is not an easy question to answer. I do not suggest that there is any clear answer to it. But I believe that there is reason for us to consider whether we are offering the right kinds of incentive to keep the bonds of community and family strong while developing economically and politically.
Perhaps I may give three brief examples of what I have in mind, again without being in a position to offer any clear solutions. It is right and proper that women should be able to go to work on an equal footing with men. It is right and proper that opportunities should be offered to all citizens, men and women alike. Yet something strange is happening in relation to mothers who work. If mothers go out to work and perhaps use a part of their income to support someone who looks after their children, that has a wonderful effect on that measure of growth which we are all so fond of— gross domestic product. If they stay at home and look after their children and their families, that has a negative effect on gross domestic product, at least in the terms in which we normally measure it.
In other words, we are somehow or other going for economic advances which may, at least in this little corner and by implication, have an interesting and dare I say negative effect on another set of values— the values of the family. A mother who looks after her children at home makes no contribution to GDP. A mother who goes to work and uses part of her income to finance somebody who looks after her children makes two contributions to GDP.
What exactly do we want? Are there not ways not merely of rethinking what we mean by wealth and wealth creation, but of rethinking the ways in which we recognise the contribution of women who stay at home and look after their families and their children, acknowledging why they do so, and recognising it later in life in the form of pension entitlements? That is a broad question, and an important one if we want to build incentives for the family into our world.
My second point— and again I have to be far too brief to do justice to it— concerns the question of single mothers. There is no particular reason to believe that having a single mother is worse for the child than living with an unhappy couple. Nevertheless, it is a fact that one in five children grow up in lone parent families, and the numbers are growing. It is also a fact that there is a growing number of men who do not seem to belong anywhere— and incidentally, unemployment figures are much worse for men than for women— who hang around, who are alienated and disenchanted. They perhaps form the material from which some of the delinquency which we see around us is made. How can we create conditions which provide incentives for those two separate lifestyles to come together? Can we create such incentives? Can we do something in the field of housing? Can we create incentives for charities or philanthropists to build communities which provide a basis for the re-creation of families?
I wish briefly to mention a third major issue. The nuclear family has long replaced the extended family. However, the replacement of the extended family by the nuclear family has meant that we have a growing number of old people who are not looked after in any

643
regular sense in a family context. A growing number of sick and elderly people are palmed off to institutions; and in those institutions they have little opportunity to live a life which is even for moments satisfactory and full. We accept responsibility for young children. We do not accept the responsibility for many of the elderly in need. Perhaps that, too, is an area in which incentives which we could afford could be created for families. No society in the medium term can afford to look after the needy elderly as life expectancy extends and the number of those in need grows. That again forms a starting point for more action for the family. Thus, this year should give us the opportunity to rethink some specific social issues in order to make real what we believe in— the family as a value.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to support, in the guise of a maiden, the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and for her kindly words of welcome and those of my Oxford neighbours.
I know that many in this House share the feeling that things have been going seriously wrong with the family. Vast social forces have been at work shaking the very concept of the family to its foundation. Things good in themselves, such as the emancipation of women, the financial independence of women, and contraception, together with the availability of divorce and a libertarian sexual ethos, are widely recognised as factors. But there are others— for example, the simple fact that we all now live longer. The average length of a marriage now is in fact longer than it was 150 years ago. Then, many women died as a result of child bearing and the average marriage did not last much longer than 14 years. Now couples face the prospect of 60 or more years together with each phase posing a particular challenge. As someone once put it, "For better, for worse, yes; for richer, for poorer, yes; in sickness and in health, yes. Home for lunch every day, no".
All our families, including those of noble Lords, are affected by current changes. Many of us therefore will welcome the United Nations emphasis this year on the family, and what has already been said in the debate. I should like to say something first about one kind of invaluable support that can be given to families in the United Kingdom, and then something about the international dimension.
Not all is gloom. For example, there are at present 6 million informal carers in Britain— people with responsibility for the disabled or elderly— of whom 43 per cent. are in paid employment. Contrary to the popular myth that family members have moved away from each other, a recent British study showed that 32 per cent. lived under an hour away and only 9 per cent. reported that they were more than five hours away from their family. Contact is also fairly frequent, with 69 per cent. of older people in the UK having contact with their families at least once a week.
Nevertheless, as we all recognise, these are times of unprecedented pressure on the family. The Church is doing what it always seeks to do; upholding the ideal of
644
a lifelong union in which children can be brought up, as the old Prayer Book put it, in the "fear and nurture of the Lord", and at the same time ministering with understanding to those whose families have broken up or who have no close family ties. Other noble Lords will speak of some of the work that is being carried on by secular bodies. So far as concerns the Churches,25 Church organisations of all denominations are fully committed to making the idea of an International Year of the Family a reality.
Within the family the well-being of children will, I know, be of particular concern to the House. Here I should particularly like to stress the importance of educating and supporting parents in their role. Parents, particularly those who themselves experienced poor parenting, need help. Invaluable work is being done by voluntary organisations such as Homestart, Parentline, and by nurturing programmes, but at the moment those organisations reach only a few thousand families. In the United States, where the work is well developed, it is now generally accepted that for every dollar that is spent on parenting education and support, six dollars are saved in reduced cost of crime, health and welfare.
In relation to children, the Churches particularly welcome the Prime Minister's target of universal state education from the age of three. But at the moment less than half three and four year-olds are in nursery education and, as has already been pointed out, provision varies widely from one authority to another. Pre-school education, like parenting support programmes, has beneficial effects not just for the children themselves but for the whole future of our society. For example, a recent study, Crime in the Family, concluded that pre-school education has a key role to play in reducing crime. A good school builds up a relationship with parents and by getting parents involved, addresses two problems associated with delinquency; namely, parental disinterest and pupil failure. Prevention is better than cure. Money put into pre-school education is a better investment than money put into solving crime in later years with those teenagers.
Such early education is not only life enhancing for mainstream children, but life changing for those who are disadvantaged. It is also, of course, of crucial importance for women who work. The percentage of working women in Great Britain with pre-school education children has increased from 24 per cent. in 1981 to 42 per cent. in 1991. In contrast, the proportion of lone parents in employment has fallen from 47 per cent. to 43 per cent. in the past 15 years. I very much hope that the Government target can indeed become a financial priority and that all means will be deployed to achieve this clear and eminently worthwhile goal.
This is the International Year of the Family and the concern of the Churches is not limited to this country. In November of last year,1,000 delegates from 100 countries met in Malta to consider the state of the family worldwide. The general conclusion was that there is very great pressure on the family in almost every country in the world with stress increasing greatly. All governments, they concluded, need to take the concept of the family more seriously. Until now, understandably enough, we have taken the family and its survival for

645
granted. However, we now have to wake up to the fact that we can no longer afford to do that. In particular, we need to look at the impact of all policies on the family. Economic and political programmes need to bear in mind the question whether they will support or undermine the family.
From time to time we read of some horrifying statistic— for example, more than 100 children shot dead in a year in a Brazilian city: shot like vermin simply because they have nowhere to live and nothing to live on. We cannot dissociate these terrible scenes from the quality of governments and the effect of their economic policies. A combination of corruption by the ruling oligarchies, capital flight, and international debt, results in policies which directly affect family life for ill. Millions of landless rural poor make their way to the rubbish tips outside already swollen cities, sending yet more children into the streets to a life of abject poverty, crime and potential death.
We cannot separate the well-being of the family from the social and economic forces which bear upon those families. There is a tendency in some quarters to polarise debates between those who emphasise personal morality and those who emphasise social factors. The fact is that both apply. Human nature does not change very much. After the 1917 revolution in Russia, people used to consult Lenin about life in a socialist society. One peasant tramped hundreds of miles to ask: "Comrade Lenin, is it permissible in the new society for a mart to keep a mistress?" "Comrade," replied Lenin, "it is not only permissible, it is obligatory, for then a man can tell his mistress that he has to be with his wife and can say to his wife that he is with his mistress. Meanwhile he can be getting down to some solid work in the library".
In order to support the family, we need both personal ideals and political policies which strengthen rather than undermine family bonds. The Churches do all they can at a local level, both here and overseas, but in addition to that we need to examine all political and economic policies in order to evaluate their effect upon the family.
I am grateful for this opportunity, not only on behalf of the Church of England but of all the Churches in this country who are deeply committed to the cause, to support the thrust of the Motion.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Misheon: My Lords, before embarking on a speech which will have the invaluable advantage of being short, may I on behalf of all your Lordships say how much we enjoyed the speech which has just been delivered by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford? The son of an outstanding soldier, he himself has been a great and courageous soldier of the Church. He is the first person, to my knowledge, who in this House has shown an amusing side to Lenin.
Perhaps I shall also be forgiven if I mention the speaker who is to succeed me in saying, again on behalf of your Lordships, how delighted we are that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, is able to make a speech to us today. We always enjoy his contributions and we are glad that he is 'well enough to be with us this afternoon.
646
I said that I would be brief; I have only Four points that I wish to mention. My noble friend Lady Dean spoke in the introduction to her speech of the advantages that all in this House most likely enjoyed by way of family life. One of the outstanding points in regard to that was that we had a home. That was the basis of our family life.
Only a week ago today, on 14th February, this was the headline in the London Evening Standard:
"Human cost of London's heartbreak families".
I quote the first paragraph of the article:
"It breaks up families, ruins their health and causes endless heartbreak. It also costs hundreds of millions of pounds a year — and yet being kept in sub-standard hostels and bed-and-breakfast hotels is the only answer for thousands of homeless families in London".
The article goes on to talk about a special appeal by Barnardos to try to assist in the problems of those who seek homes. I hope and believe that it would be a common plea from all sides of your Lordships' House: may the Family Year lead to a campaign to see that the homeless are fewer, that homes are built and that local authorities are given the power and the funds to do the job.
My second point is on education. The question of training has been mentioned. Is it not usual that one has to have a training and some kind of preliminary knowledge of the jobs that one may be expected to do in life in the ordinary course of the school curriculum? Yet the most difficult job that most of us have had to face in life is that of carrying on a marriage successfully. The divorce rate has been mentioned. Is it too much to ask that in the Family Year in this country, and, one hopes, in every country, at least in the sixth form, something of the training necessary for the relationship between husband and wife and on being a parent, even if it has to be in a preliminary form, is taught in our schools?
My third point is to do with the statistics which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave so forcefully in her speech. On the question of divorce and unhappy children as a result of divorce, may we see during the Family Year the family court? So many noble Lords — and perhaps I may include myself— have been pleading for that family court for many years. It would be one place in which children and parents could be dealt with from the start of the trouble— and we hope at an early stage ending the trouble— until after a divorce and the question of the children has been attended to, with conciliation all along the line. As we all know, at present different aspects are being dealt with in different courts by different judges and different registrars with different people dealing with conciliation. May we see a family court?
My last point may be one that does not register in the hearts of all noble Lords. Could we see a little less of licence in our adoration of the principle of freedom? By that I mean that, while they may be old-fashioned, could some of the old disciplines come back into our family life and our general life? It would be for our good and our children's good.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his kind personal reference to me. I also thank your Lordships for the impression I received of a wave of silent sympathy for what he said about me. I am glad to take part in the discussion today and I am grateful, therefore, to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for her Motion which I support. I am not quite sure that I shall be able to be as forceful and concise as I would wish, but I am glad of the discipline of the Clock.
I rejoice and marvel that the normally arcane procedures of the usual channels have succeeded in putting the subject on the Order Paper today. I believe that there could be no more important issue for this House, this country, or indeed any country, than the state of the family. I therefore welcome the Motion. I shall spend more time studying the United Nations report. I should be surprised if it was dominated by changes in economic policy which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, recommended should be the Government's reaction to the United Nations Year of the Family.
What the noble Baroness advocated was that the Government should flinch from those economic decisions which they judge to be necessary if this country is to remain as internationally competitive as it is now. I must say to the noble Baroness that it would be no kindness to the family or to anyone else if the government of the day, whatever its colour, were to refrain from the difficult economic policies that are needed to improve or maintain our international competitiveness and as a result to allow either inflation or unemployment to increase.
I shall not use precious time decrying any part of the noble Baroness's speech. But I was disappointed that she seems to hanker for a return to the very high personal taxation which, when reduced later by a Tory Government, led to the position of what she described as "the rich growing richer". That resulted only from the fact of taxation on high earnings rising to the 90 per cent. level under a Labour Government. It was a policy of recklessly high taxation, one which has led in Sweden to the emigration of the wealth and job creators of that country and one which, if we returned to it in this country, would make our economic plight even worse.
I should like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in welcoming the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It was a most convincingly self-confident and fluent performance. It touched on matters of high sentiment, and introduced of course the undoubted and indispensable part that the Churches have to play in family integrity and family strength. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that he did himself and his cause justice by the way in which he spoke to us this afternoon. I for one was very impressed. He showed no trace of nervousness, nor any trace of uncertainty, in the firm way in which he dealt with the Motion. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of this House when I say that I hope that we shall very often hear from him in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I am one who believes that the United Nations report should have referred— and I shall scour it to see whether it does— to the much more difficult matters which lie behind the health of the family. Of course economic issues are important. But the House will not be surprised to hear me return to a subject on which I have taken its time before; namely, the quality of parenting, upon which a great deal depends. It is not something that governments can bring about by legislation, or indeed by any method within their power. It is upon the quality of parenting that many of the issues that preoccupy government— for example, rising crime and school standards— depend.
In a way I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, did not simply say casually that we need good parenting. Of course we do. But just as with improved standards in education, it is one thing to aspire, and quite a different thing to bring about the improvement in schools or parenting that probably in one way or another we all strongly desire.
At one time there was a potential large rift between the parties in this House on the composition of the family, to which the United Nations report so rightly refers. There were those among my noble friends in the Conservative Party who were vociferously led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in support of marriage as the basis of a healthy family life. At one time I got the impression that the Labour Party had only to establish what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, supported in order to decide to support the opposite point of view. In this case, had this debate occurred one or two years ago, we might have had the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, arguing that the lone parent family was quite as good for parenting and for the development of children as the family based on marriage. We have no need to waste time and energy on that argument today. I believe that the rift between the parties may have been healed.
Before I come to that point, I should like to say how grateful I was to my noble friend Lady Young for rehearsing the sombre statistics of family instability today. We live at a time when the number of marriages each year is about equalled in many years by the number of divorces. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us how much child unhappiness divorce may cause. We also know that our birth rate is well below the net reproduction ratio and that, of the smaller than ideal number of births that occur, a substantial and rising proportion each year turn out to have been out of wedlock. In a recent year the proportion rose to two-thirds.
The rift has, I hope, been healed because of an initiative taken by the health and welfare unit of the Institute of Economic Affairs. The health and welfare unit convened a colloquium of people of both parties who were interested in family matters. I had the good fortune to attend. Out of the colloquium came a booklet which I heartily commend to noble Lords called Families without fatherhood. It is published by the IEA. The writers of the booklet are Norman Dennis and George Erdos, and an introduction is written by an Oxford professor of sociology, Professor Halsey, who was for some years adviser on social policy to the Labour Party. In the booklet and in the introduction

649
those three contributors describe themselves— it is not my description but theirs— as "ethical socialists". The booklet is about family matters and rehearses some of the issues that we are discussing today.
It emphasises the importance of what that great lady Mia Kelner Pringle used to describe as "good enough parenting". If any noble Lord wishes to know what good enough parenting is, although I am no authority I understand it to mean the consistent combination of love and discipline from parents to the children. Love alone, though indispensable, is not enough. There has to be an element of discipline. The mixture of love and discipline has ideally to be consistent.
I remind the House that it was a French 18th century sociologist who drew most vividly the picture that we face, on behalf not just of one country but the whole world. He used to write of the globe being invaded each year by about 10 million uncivilised barbarians. He was speaking unemotionally of babies ! He emphasised how much those babies needed to be trained before they could be fit and suitable members of tolerant, peaceable and orderly societies. The job of parents is immensely difficult. Children need to be trained in mutual respect, self-discipline and tolerance, which are not automatically easy accomplishments.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but the timed debate allows him only nine minutes to speak and he has already reached the 13th minute. Despite his extremely interesting speech, he is going into time that other noble Lords may require.
Lord Joseph: Tie reminder is entirely proper. I shall cut my speech as much as I can. I must point out that extra money will rot solve the problem. More money for parents will not in itself produce good enough parenting. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, did not advocate, as it were, a facile financial solution to the problems of the family.
I suggest to the House that there is something that can be done by the Community to help parents provide good enough parenting. It is the province of a relatively new charity called Home Start. I have spoken before to the House about that charity. It is not the family alone that can provide good enough parenting. The children need to be under the influence of the Churches and the schools, which are both components of their uprearing. We were all encouraged to hear the right reverend Prelate pledge the support of the Churches for the work of families.
I am ashamed to confess that the Conservative Party in recent years has nibbled at the tax concessions available to a married couple. I believe that good enough parenting is made harder if family incomes are squeezed too much. Therefore I regret that a Conservative Government should approve Budgets that nibble at marriage allowance. Indeed, I urge my honourable friends in another place who voted for those erosions, to reconsider. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and other speakers I urge that the interests of the family should be considered in all legislation. I ask the noble Lord the Minister of State at
650
the Home Office to bear in mind the support of families in distress that is provided by the charity Home Start, of which I spoke briefly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend will have to conclude his speech. He has gone well over time. This is a timed debate and he must conclude his remarks.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I entirely support the noble Baroness's Motion and I am grateful for the courtesy of the House to me.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Dacre: My Lords, I am ashamed to say that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for many years and it is only now that I rise to make my maiden speech. Noble Lords may well ask why I have waited so long. Let me give two reasons. First, I wished to be with my husband who was a playwright and, I felt, needed me more than this House. Secondly, I was too scared to make that speech. The latter reason still stands today.
The debate is about our support for the family in the United Kingdom. That is something which means a great deal to me, to this House, I hope, and to the country at large. There is wide concern about a breakdown in family values and the very fabric of the family.
I come from a family in which relationships have meant a great deal, perhaps more than anything else. Mine was a small family because of sad circumstances. There was just my sister and myself. Nonetheless, it was a very happy one. My parents set an example of love for each other and caring for us. As we grew up we had great freedom. But somehow, by their example, we had firm guidelines about what was right or wrong. I cannot say that we did not stray from those paths from time to time, because we did. But we respected the guidelines and came back to them.
Those family values have helped me all through my life. So, in a way, I stand up today to pay tribute to my parents and to thank them for the great happiness that they gave me and the strength and security that they provided for me— which we all need in our early lives.
I suggest very humbly to your Lordships that we address ourselves to the reason why today we feel that the very substance of the family is at risk. Perhaps we should return to the traditional start of a family: the marriage of two people. Could it be that the vows that they make are not taken seriously enough or even thought of at all? I fear that in many cases marriage is performed only for the reception afterwards and that the real meaning of the ceremony itself is drowned in a sea of champagne and speeches.
I do not know the statistics of families in which there has been a divorce. However, I do not need statistics to realise the effect of divorce on the children of the marriage. I can see it around me and all too often. I feel that the vows must have been forgotten. I should like to remind your Lordships of them now. I take my example from the Church of England service. These are the words of the husband to be:

651
"I take thee to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth".
What wonderful words they are, and how binding they should be!
Could the fault be that of the Church or does it lie with the parents when there is a breakdown? We must do our best to remedy it. I was lucky to have had a very happy marriage. Truly, I can say that it was founded on those vows. They helped my husband and me to remain faithful and true to each other. I do not want to sound censorious about divorce, but I know that in some cases parents are so incompatible that it would be to the detriment of that family if they were to remain together. But sometimes they part for a selfish reason— their own unhappiness. If, for the sake of the children, they were to remain together and bear that unhappiness, the saving of that marriage for their children's sake would become more important than their original unhappiness.
So I am for encouraging couples to remain together before separating and, sadly, eventually divorcing. In fact, I should like to see divorce harder to come by than it is today. To encourage a family to be together and happy I should like to see more benefit money going to parents to encourage one or other to stay at home to care for their children in those important early years. I know that there are calls for more money for nursery schools, but I feel that the reason for that necessity is that parents cannot afford to be at home with their children and have to go out to earn. Nothing can replace the early teaching of a parent and there are plenty of would-be good parents about if one of them could afford to be at home.
I quote two lines from John Masefield's poem The Everlasting Mercy:
"And he who gives a child a home Builds palaces in Kingdom come".
I have four children and from them I have great hope for the future, and from their friends. I feel that they are returning to those values and I like to think that that will help them as it helped me.
Finally, I know that I could not have managed my life after the death of my husband without the help of my children. So in good times and in bad times it is important to have a united family to sustain you. Long live the family !
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, it is my pleasure on behalf of your Lordships to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, on her maiden speech. As she indicated, we have had to wait a long time to hear her but I hope that the way in which she spoke today will encourage her to speak on many other occasions. In order to encourage her to do that perhaps we need more debates on the family. The speeches today indicate what an excellent subject it is.
As my noble friend Lady Dean said, families differ in different parts of the world and from generation to generation in our own country. Changes in the family in part reflect the changes in society and, equally in part, they accelerate those changes. Nevertheless, the family
652
is still the most important basic unit within our society, but it has changed and is changing. It seems to me that there is no point in expecting the family ever again to be as it was in our own childhood. We must look at it as it is now and as it is developing and try to find ways and means of supporting and strengthening the family in today's environment.
One of the major changes that has taken place within the family is women's economic position, and I should like to concentrate my remarks on that this afternoon. Within the family the woman is no longer entirely dependent on her husband, but is herself a major and important contributor to the breadwinning for the family. Women now form approximately 50 per cent. of the labour force. Over the past 20 years the number of married women in employment increased by almost 50 per cent. In 1991,59 per cent. of mothers in the United Kingdom were economically active. Moreover, the percentage of working women with pre-school age children virtually doubled from 24 per cent. in 1981 to 42 per cent. in 1991. The majority of those mothers work part time. But the percentage of those working full time also increased in that period from 6 per cent. in 1981 to 13 per cent. in 1991. We must recognise that that trend is likely to continue.
Despite that major change in employment, there has been no equivalent major change in work patterns. Of course, there have been some adjustments; but basically employment is still geared to the male norms of full-time work and work being regarded as the first priority in life. Women have had to adapt to fit into that pattern as best they can. That often resulted in their occupying positions in employment well below their potential or occupational qualifications, with an accompanying downgrading of pay and provision for retirement. That is a contributory factor to women's hourly pay being only 78 per cent. of men's hourly pay. In other words, the needs of the family have not been built into the employment system in the way that they were built into it when men were regarded as the sole bread winner and women as the home makers.
Inevitably, there are differences in the work patterns of men and women and they need to be catered for. However, I would point out that men are beginning— albeit slowly— to take an increasing share in family responsibility within the home and that too needs to be catered for in our system. So what are the needs of the family vis a vis employment? They can be divided into two groups— women's needs and joint parental and family needs.
When we look at women's needs the pattern of women's employment changes when women become pregnant and have their first child. Therefore, maternity provision is essential. We discussed that subject at some length in recent debates on employment legislation. We talked of the quality and complexity of the present statutory maternity provisions in the United Kingdom. I therefore remind your Lordships that many of us believe that maternity provision is far from satisfactory and needs to be reconsidered.
Secondly, so long as mothers are regarded as the major carers they need more flexible work patterns made available to them. The present deregulated system

653
of low paid, unprotected, part-time work is not the answer and is unacceptable if we are to recognise the needs— financial and caring— of the family. Some firms, but only a small proportion, offer women the possibility of returning to their current job, after maternity leave, on a part-time basis. Some 2 per cent. of private sector employers and 10 per cent. of public sector employers are prepared to offer part-time or job sharing opportunities to women returning after maternity leave. But all women returning to work after maternity leave need the option of part-time work with the same terms and conditions of employment available, but on a pro rata basis.
Thirdly, for those women who want to remain at home while their children are young— that is a right that should be available to them— help should be provided at the time of returning to work. Those women probably need reskilling either in their previous profession or type of job, or in a completely new sphere. We must not ignore the enriching experience of child-bearing, child nurturing and caring, which often prompt women to seek a much more fulfilling career when they return to work. In its recent evidence to the Employment Committee in another place, the Equal Opportunities Commission recommended a national policy for retraining returners, which I commend to the Government for their attention.
When we look at joint parental and family needs the first thing that comes to mind is childcare provision. That is really the first essential which applies to the needs of women and men. A survey undertaken for maternity rights indicated that 50 per cent. of the mothers interviewed said that the lack of affordable childcare was the biggest barrier to returning to work. Again, the Equal Opportunities Commission has made recommendations about that, together with the employers' group, Employers for Childcare, and others, who are recommending the Government to develop a national strategy for childcare. The national strategy would not only include nurseries, nursery education and after school care, but should also look at the problems of flexibility in employment.
For governments there would be long-term benefits for the Treasury in that there would be savings involved as well as additional income from an increasing number of tax payers and in national insurance contributions. Employers recognise that there would be economic benefits for them, too. For the family there would be tremendous benefits through quality care of children, plus the enrichment of family life.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, in her Motion this afternoon. I am pleased to speak as an unashamed advocate for the family. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, in her excellent maiden speech, has reminded us of the enormous value of the family to each of us as individuals. It is perhaps there that the importance of the family within the structure of society is most clearly revealed because it is within the family that we learn our values, a sense of our own selves, how to love and how to be loved.
654
We learn also of course how to deal with the conflicts and hostilities in sibling rivalry, the generation gap, arguments and other tensions which naturally arise. How much more easy it is, however, to learn how to deal with tensions and rivalries within the loving environment of a family than it is to try to deal with them in the cold and alien adult world. As other noble Lords have said, the family of course has changed and adapted much over generations past and it perhaps faces now more of an urgent need to change and adapt than at any time in its history.
When I say that I am an advocate of the family in its traditional sense, I recognise that I speak as one deeply blessed to be now in the 42nd year of a very good and happy marriage. But I have watched my children and their friends, as many other noble Lords have done, wrestle with the much more complex world of relationships in their generation, where the institutions of marriage and the family have been severely under attack.
Marriage itself is being attacked as an institution which denies the freedom of the individual; usually the freedom of the woman. But freedom of course is not an absolute. The freedom of each of us as individuals is limited by the necessary freedoms of others. It is important for us all to recognise that our own freedom must be exercised within the network and framework of our families and our society.
I was very touched at being asked by one of my children's young friends, now 20 years of age: "How do you account for the success of your marriage? How come that you knew, magically,40 odd years ago, that you could be in love for life?". I felt very touched by such a question. My reply — inadequate as it was— was, "You don't know. When you fall in love arid marry you do not know that you are going to love somebody for life. You know that you love them then and you work daily after that to make it last for life".
Because I believe in the family as a basic building block of a healthy society does not mean that I am anxious to indulge in any witch-hunt against those who are unable to conform to that pattern. If we, as individuals or as a nation, are trying to regain our moral high ground, we must remember that the moral high ground includes tolerance and compassion — virtues which are all too often forgotten as people leap to one side or the other of an argument.
My aim is not to attack those living in different patterns, but to ask how we can establish a social and legal framework which will help to support the family as the majority choice of the young people now entering their 20s and 30s. It is my belief, from personal experience as well as from various surveys which have been done, that the vast majority of single parents would like to be within a family unit. They are not where they are by choice. Most of them are in that situation because they had no other alternative; because of the breakdown of relationships.
As others have said, marriage in this country is still a very popular option. We have the highest rate of marriage in the European Community. Unfortunately, we are the second highest as regards divorce arid that too

655
has been mentioned by other noble Lords. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves questions as to why the traditional family is so much under attack.
I would like to address three areas which I believe are good in themselves, but which have deeply threatened the structure of the family in our present society. First, there are the biological advances. It seems to me to be an immensely important part of human identity that children should be of a known pair or biological parents. I find the current debate about extracting embryos from dead foetuses an alarming one indeed. I do not believe that it helps for a child to grow up with no known mother who never lived herself. Having watched one of my friends search desperately for her biological mother after a very happy 30 years being an adopted child, I have learnt from personal experience how desperately important the search for that biological identity can be for many individuals.
Again, artificial insemination is a great blessing to many. Nevertheless, figures from the United States estimate that by the end of this century— that is, the next six years— 1.5 million Americans will have been born by artificial insemination; two-thirds of them born to single mothers. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, that tends to make me ask: Are we saying now that men as fathers are redundant? Are we no longer to offer children the value of a father as well as a mother?
The second reason which has provided a problem for the modern family is one which it is difficult for me to say. But undoubtedly the changing position and aspirations of women have created great strains within the family. I do not believe that we need to return to the pattern of the family where its stability and strength rested on the self-immolation of the mother who gave up her own aspirations and interests in the world outside in order to hold the family together. Modern feminism and modern women are no longer concerned with an irrational pursuit of some kind of self-sufficiency at the expense of others, nor is there any great satisfaction any longer among modern women in competitive and aggressive competition with men out in the market place.
I believe that women today are seeking a partnership with men both in their homes, in the sharing of tasks in the home, and in working life. Surely, when God made both men and women he intended us to use the strengths of both, privately and publicly, in the market place and in the family. Somehow we must create a structure and support within our society which allows that partnership to be real.
I am tempted for a moment to be light-hearted and say how nice it is that we have achieved what is very unusual and perhaps unique; namely, an almost exact mathematical division between male and female speakers in the House today.
The third area is one which again depends on the biological advances in birth control which have created the unexpected changes in sexual morality which we have all seen. Surely we are not saying to young people that there is no more to them than a set of biological spare parts? Surely we are not saying that the reasons for loyalty and commitment to a lifelong relationship
656
rested in the past purely on the risks of unwanted pregnancy? Is there no more to human relationships than that?
While I believe that there is much to be done, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that it is to our educational system that we must look for solutions for the generations coming up towards their decision-making era. After parents, teachers are probably the most important influences on the lives of young people. I believe that they must accept that they have as role models a very important influence to bear on the way in which young people think about relationships, marriage and the family. They must do this with the respect of the public outside. We cannot expect young people to respect their teachers if we, as parents and members of society, fail to give teachers the respect and support which they need if they are to fulfil their roles properly.
Most of all, I believe that it is vitally important that teachers recognise that part of their job is to give a sense of moral values to children. I find it distressing that we hear from HMI in its recent report that in only a small minority of schools was the spiritual and moral development of pupils promoted consistently, and, that in one-quarter of secondary schools the promotion of moral and spiritual values was unsatisfactory. Surely we must look to education better to support this most important issue of family values.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, in her very valuable opening speech, naturally took as a springboard the International Year of the Family. We must remember that there are other types of families than those in our own society. There is the extended family, which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, mentioned, and the polygamous family, but the noble Baroness rightly switched our attention to the type of family for which we have responsibility— the monogamous, lifelong partnership of a man and a woman with the aim, in general, of bringing up a family.
Your Lordships will, I hope, understand, with such a very big subject, that I am confining myself to the responsibility of the law for such a family. It demands our asking: what is the value of such a society? First, it is a body within which the necessary and inevitable division of labour can take place because it is women who suffer economic disadvantage by nine months of fatigue and nausea, terminated by hours of peril and pain. It was claimed at one time by politicians that the state should ensure that there should be from each what he could contribute and to each what he needed. That has proved disastrously wrong on a national scale, but it is the sort of thing that can be done within the family. It is one of the advantages of the family that it enables that very high ideal to be consummated.
However, where there is a division of labour, there is inevitably inequity and an obligation to see that the fruits of that labour are divided equitably between the people concerned— in our case, the husband and wife. Our present law falls very short in that respect. When we recently debated the Child Support Act and its repercussions, we were reminded of what was said at the

657
time of the Divorce Reform Act 1969. That was repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, last week; namely, that there are very few men in this county who are affluent enough to support two families and that as soon as one brings two families into existence, both are liable to fall to the level of poverty. That has happened repeatedly when people have been made single parents by divorce.
I have dealt rather aridly, I know, with the social purpose of marriage and the family, but we must remember that the human side is of equal, if not greater, importance. Your Lordships will remember the lines from Shakespeare:
"He is the half part of a blessed man, Left to be finished by such as she; And she a fair divided excellence, Whose fulness of perfection lies in him".
That is another side of the family which we should not forget.
There is yet another aspect of the family, called by Ferdinand Mount "the subversive family"; namely, that the family is one of the strongest intermediate institutions between the state and the private individual, protecting or buffering the private individual from the overweening power of the state.
I turn now to the two legal problems with which I want to deal. The first is the question of termination of marriage. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave the statistics, and they do not need repeating. They show the disastrous effect (if one looks at the effect on the children) of what happened in 1969. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in introducing a debate on divorce quoted statistics showing that it is the breakdown of the marriage that does the real harm to the children. That was certainly my experience as a matrimonial judge. I found that children could deal with a good deal of turmoil but that it was in the actual moment of disruption that there appeared symptoms such as bed-wetting, speech disorders and a plummeting class performance.
The first question that should be asked when we consider termination of marriage is: do we really believe, as was claimed, that children come first or do we think that the wishes of the parents to be rid of each other, or even the wishes of one parent to throw off a spouse who has become irksome, come before that? Do we believe that children should come first?
The second question to which I want to address myself is that of finance and property. Surely it is wrong that a married woman who stands by her marriage is worse off proprietorially and financially than one who divorces. But that what our present law vouchsafes. I am in favour of community property, but we need not go so far. There are two Bills outstanding from the Law Commission— one on the shared matrimonial home and one on co-ownership of the matrimonial chattels within that home— the contents of which have found favour with a number of antipodean jurisdictions. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there is an urgent necessity for a family court in which these problems can be solved.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Dean for introducing this subject and I congratulate the two maiden speakers on their excellent speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, was unfair in saying that my noble friend had advocated the return to high marginal rates of taxation and all the horrors of the 1970s. `Why not?", as someone said — I shall come to that in a moment. I do not believe that my noble friend was making that point. She was pointing out that the considerable economic pressures which we have experienced during the past 14 years, resulting from the redistribution of income in favour of the rich, have caused problems.
High marginal rates of taxation are always bandied about but I wish to ask why no one is doing anything about the high rate of taxation which is paid by the poor. If a lone parent decides to go to work and makes more than £ 15 per week she will lose pound for pound in benefits. We have tolerated 100 per cent. marginal rates of taxation for the poor and complained about 87 per cent. marginal rates of taxation for the rich. Somehow we believe that high marginal rates of taxation are an incentive for the poor to work and a disincentive for the rich. That is an anti-family policy. We should he doing something to encourage and assist lone parents or anyone who wishes to return to work. In that respect our tax system is anti-family.
No matter what anyone says in pontificating about the family, there is another respect in which our fiscal system is anti-family. Typically in all the entitlements that we receive, the principal claimant receives, say. £ 50 but the live-in partner does not receive an equal amount. That person receives only 60 per cent. The system provides an incentive for any lone parent not to have the spouse around because the spouse may cost more than the extra payment. Indeed, it would be expensive for a woman to have a man around because the extra money received would not meet the cost of feeding him.
As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, the welfare state has decided that the normal pattern is of a full-time working man. However, we have also decided that the typical family must have built into it that inequality of benefits. The time has come radically to rethink the nature of our welfare state. Work will not be as normal as it used to be and many men will have frequent interrupted spells of work, as experienced by women. We must devise ways in which people can carry on and maintain a good standard of living, even when their working episodes are infrequent. If during a life cycle a person can pay back through taxation what he or she receives in entitlements we should be generous in benefits and not be niggardly and questioning, as is the welfare state.
As I have said on other occasions, we need a basic income guarantee— a citizen's income entitlement— for everyone. That will take care not only of single parents but of carers, people who experience episodic employment and so forth. While people may think that that is expensive, careful analysis will show that we waste a great deal of money in our inefficient and rather mean welfare state. A proper welfare state in which

659
people can claim without continually having to prove their claim will substantially improve and eradicate the problems of poverty. It will also improve employment incentives. With a basic income guarantee there may be no need for a minimum wage; nor would we have to worry about the problem of the low number of claimants. Carers and lone parents fail to claim. At present we are setting up a welfare state which is niggardly, interfering and expensive.
We must have at heart the interests of the family, especially the children. Ultimately, the family is a device only for taking care of children and, if possible, of taking care of the elderly. We have shed caring for the elderly as we have gone along because we have adopted the nuclear family. However, we must still take care of our children and ensure that they do not suffer deprivation early in their lives. We have failed in that, as many noble Lords have said. If we are going to do anything about it we must rethink the basis on which people receive entitlements. If we are bold enough to consider a citizen's entitlement we will gain not only in family stability but in the most important aspect of all, which is the quality of life in this country.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as one who lives in Oxford, I offer my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I am sure that the people of his diocese will read his significant maiden speech with deep appreciation. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, for her contribution, which enhanced the debate.
I shall speak on family relationships, which is one of the three key aims and objectives of the International Year of the Family. I wish also to deal with the wider issue of relationships in this country and overseas. Of course, work, poverty and resources are important issues but personal relationships within a family and the relationship of the family within the community are the foundations of the International Year of the Family. In this country there has been a breakdown in the art of personal relationships, which involves understanding, tolerance and humour.
I wish to touch on the reflection of parents' personal relationships on the behaviour of their children. Research carried out by the Maudsley Hospital indicated that the relationship of parents with each other, or a personal problem of one parent, affects the behaviour, happiness and well-being of the children. It is fitting that today I should refer to a scheme in Oxford which is sponsored by the Rowntree Trust and in which the wife of the right reverend Prelate is involved. Young children of primary school age who show signs of unhappiness and disruptive behaviour are referred to a qualified team of workers who do not see the children but offer casework skills to the parents. It is found that often where there are strained relationships or where one parent has a personal problem the parents' strain is mirrored in the behaviour and happiness of the children. It is known as the family nurturing scheme. One of the
660
assets of the scheme is that it involves early intervention in the family. I fear that that is greatly lacking today both in education and in social services.
The Rowntree Trust research also shows that children suffer greatly when the mother and father separate. Their loyalties are divided and one might say that a house divided is a house that falls.
How is it that the people of Europe on the whole love their children more than we do in this country? Why do the people of Europe and other lands regard grandparents, much beloved by the grandchildren, as close members of the family with whom they keep in constant touch?
I wish to speak also about relationships in public life. The Children Act 1989 laid down three principles: first, that the welfare of the child is paramount; secondly, that children are the prime responsibility of their parents; and thirdly, that all those involved in the care, health and education of children should work together. I dare to suggest that Part I of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, shortly to come before your Lordships' House, transgresses those principles.
What is the relationship between the three government departments dealing with children; namely, the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education? I refer to the Home Office's proposal to set up what one might call children's prisons for the few delinquent children aged 12 to 14 years. Such children must be dealt with, but I suggest that they should not be dealt with in the way proposed. When considering how to deal with those children it should be borne in mind that prison will not help. What will help are valuable personal relationships. Although no one will admit to it, I suggest that the relationships and contributions of partners in government are essential. I say no more.
I make one last point regarding the relationship between countries. Hearing about our Children Act 1989, the Hungarian Government invited a British social worker to help and advise them on the drafting of a children Bill in Hungary. I congratulate the social worker concerned and I congratulate the Know-how Fund which made that financially possible. The inter-relationship of countries for the well-being of families and their children must enrich the concept of the Year of the Family. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for this debate.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are talking about the International Year of the Family. We should remember that the family means different things in different societies, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said. The attitudes of husbands to wives — in the case of Moslems, they can have four— wives to husbands, parents to children and children to parents may vary enormously. Therefore, we should not worry too much that the classic family of 2.4 children with dad in work and mum tending the home has gone. We must accept that lone-parent families now make up 19 per cent. of all families with children.
The proportion of births outside marriage has increased dramatically but the proportion of those births

661
jointly registered by both parents increased from 46 per cent. in 1971 to 75 per cent. in 1991. Half are registered at the same address. That suggests that 50 per cent. of children born outside marriage were born to a cohabiting couple who were probably in a stable relationship. That is background.
I want to talk a about crime and the family; why some families produce delinquents; and what we as a society can do to ensure, as far as possible, that children are brought up to be happy and law-abiding.
The family matters. It is the quality of love, affection and care given to children which affects their future. The parents may be rich or poor, lone or together. But all the evidence— and there has been a lot— goes to prove that pre-school behavioural problems are the single best predictor of anti-social disorder in 11 year-olds and of delinquency at 15. Aggressive behaviour in primary schools has been linked to harsh early upbringing and hostile, abusive arid punitive treatment of children by parents. Can we influence the behaviour of those parents? There are steps which can be taken. First, to avert the risk of teenage pregnancies there must be proper personal, health and social development teaching in schools. We must make sure that that is not squeezed out by too rigid and prescriptive a curriculum. It was a mistake to remove teaching on abortion, contraception, HIV and AIDS from the compulsory science curriculum. Admittedly, teachers can discuss those matters in sex education lessons. But parents can withdraw their children from those lessons. They may be just the children who need them most.
We all know that poverty, bad housing and unemployment are key factors in creating problems which are difficult to overcome. More support must be given to parents, who receive a lot of blame. In this country we pay mo-e attention to the needs of cars than children, and we pay almost no attention to the needs of ordinary parents. Health visitors carry out a vitally important job giving support to mothers in the first few months of a child's life. After that, there is almost no support available for most parents. They are left to fend for themselves.
Play groups and toy libraries are a lifeline for many mothers but they do not exist in all parts of the country, and struggle to survive from one jumble sale to another. Some local authorities offer support to parents. I shall give a few examples. Parent Link is a course run by and for parents which enables them to improve their skills in communicating with children, dealing with difficult behaviour, resolving conflicts and preventing minor issues turning into major problems. Parents say that that has changed their lives.
The City Lit Adult Education Centre works with parents at several local schools, developing skills and confidence which will help their children learn. Some go on to gain qualifications which improve their own career prospects as well as those of their children. Thousands of primary schools now have schemes to encourage parents to help their children with reading, maths and even science. But most teachers do not have the time or training to involve parents while many feel excluded or mystified by what goes on in school. They need specific advice and help money for a few extra teachers to cope
662
with that situation would be money well spent:. All initial teacher-training courses should include a component on working with parents.
The support and encouragement that children receive at home is by far the most important factor in education achievement at school. Active parental support for learning at home outweighs social class, family income, ethnic origin or even quality of schooling as the most common characteristic of success in later life. As children spend less than 15 per cent. of their waking time in school, the remaining 85 per cent. is spent with parents or relatives. It would seem sensible to spend rather more on helping parents to prepare and cope with that expanse of time.
Crime and the Family is a document produced by the Family Policies Study Centre. It contains many excellent examples of family preservation programmes which can help the parents with guidance in their homes on home management, money management and so on. Home Start, one scheme referred to by my noble friend Lord Joseph, uses trained volunteers to offer friendship and practical support to more than 7,000 families, including over 13,000 children under five. That includes over 1,000 children whose names appear in child protection registers.
New Pin— the New Parent Infant Network— is a voluntary agency set up in 1981 in south London in response to high local levels of child abuse. There: are now eight projects in London, Gravesend and Bristol.
There are interesting projects taking place in a other parts of the country; for example, Leeds, Manchester, North Tyneside and Rochdale— mostly Labour controlled authorities. They are fulfilling the prevention duties imposed upon them by the Children Act 1989.
The need for proper nursery schools and classes has been discussed fully in two recent debates. I hope that we can persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that 51 per cent. of three and four year-olds in nursery classes is not good enough. I congratulate the Home Office for funding four experimental nursery classes in Lewisham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne to be run by High/Scope UK.
It seems to me that the cost of providing some nursery education is trivial compared with what the Government seem determined to spend on imprisoning 12 and 14 year-olds in five centres in different regions of the country, a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred. That proposal in the Criminal Justice Bill seems disastrous. Forty juveniles are to be incarcerated in each of the five centres. Sentence will be given for two years— that is, half to be spent in custody and half in the community. Many children sent to the centres will be far from their homes and families. That will make visiting hard or impossible at a time when contact with the family is all important.
We know that reconviction rates of those sent to custody are vastly higher (between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent.) than the rates of those dealt with in the community. The Bill estimates the cost to be in excess of £ 30 million per annum. The average cost of a secure training order is £ 1,500 a week. It will be an expensive and ineffective measure replicating the mistakes made in the 1960s and 1970s. To devote such large sums of

663
money to such a measure at a time when resources for effective programmes of supervision in the community are being pegged back is wholly unjustifiable. Can the Minister say whether it is true that those children's prisons are to be built in the grounds of adult prisons?
As it is, the cost of administering the criminal justice system was more than £ 9 billion in 1992– 93. That is a 100 per cent. increase since 1978– 79. Yet the majority of crimes are never reported to the police (they are likely to be the family ones) and a very small minority are solved. Indeed,3 per cent. result in a known perpetrator being cautioned or prosecuted.
The case for an innovative strand of social crime prevention to stop children drifting into crime and to stop minor offenders turning into persistent adult criminals is overwhelming. It is the need for such help with families from really early on that I have been trying to urge today. It would give very good value for money.
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Mon: My Lords, I, too, express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for initiating the debate. This family campaign encompasses 97 countries.
The pandemic of HIV and AIDS is spread across the world. Some countries have a worse problem than others. It seems that in Britain our numbers are not so great as those in some other comparable countries. That may well be because of the health education promoted by the Government and voluntary agencies, which seems to have paid off. However, to every family, wherever it is, the special heartbreak and desperation of knowing that there is no cure is the same. The grieving for a loved one who dies of AIDS-related conditions is a family tragedy. At a conference in Amsterdam two years ago, with about 11,000 people in attendance from across the world, the whole realisation of the magnitude of that complicated killer virus was brought home. One African doctor told of a grandmother who had buried her son, daughter-in-law and 19 of her grandchildren all from AIDS-related conditions.
The three core themes for the year— namely, relationships, poverty and work— all embrace the families who have members who are HIV or who have AIDS. Understanding and compassion are what are needed. The Mildmay Mission Hospital in Hackney, which has a Christian foundation, has built a family wing for parents and children who have AIDS. Its aim is to give much needed support to families when they are too ill to cope at home.
The Roman Catholic Church issued a statement on celebrating the 1994 United Nations International Year of the Family on 1st January. Relating to friendship, it said:
"When people are caught up in destructive and hurtful situations they need the hand of friendship, not the sting of condemnation".
This year is an opportunity to promote,
"everything that is true, everything that is honourable, everything that is upright and pure, everything that we love and admire".
We seem to have a growing number of suicides in our society. For every family that has had to cope with a member who has taken his own life it is a devastating
664
final act with which to come to terms. The family is left wondering whether there was anything more that they could have done to prevent such an act of violence happening. The people left behind need a hand of friendship. Can the Minister say what research is being carried out on the causes of suicides, in the hope that families can be helped and more suicides prevented? The Samaritans cannot do it all alone.
There is so much to do to alleviate suffering in the family. When a mother dies leaving a husband and children because she has had breast cancer, the family can be traumatised. I wonder whether noble Lords are aware that one woman dies of breast cancer every 30 minutes in Britain. Britain has the highest breast cancer death rate in the world. During today's five-hour debate 10 women will have died in Britain from breast cancer. Why is that? Do we have good enough diagnostic standards throughout the country? Do women see cancer specialists early enough? Is the research being targeted in the right direction?
A happy healthy united family without problems should surely be the best solution for every society. Unfortunately, in most parts of the world the evil trade of illegal drugs and addictions of many different kinds shatter family life. Here in the UK there is an organisation called ADFAM. It is a voluntary agency for the families and friends of drug users. It has a helpline to give parents and family members accurate information. So often, the first port of call for parents is the general practitioner. Not all of them are sympathetic and very many are not informed or able to help.
ADFAM has found that the drug use of any individual affects at least two other people— his or her parents, partner, brothers, sisters or friends. There are no statistics available for the number of people in the UK who use drugs. Therefore, no statistics are available as regards how many family members are affected. But it is clear that drugs are more affordable and accessible to people than ever before. More people have the opportunity to experiment.
Drug use within the family can be a very distressing experience for all concerned. The stress involved in coping with someone close to you who is using drugs can sometimes lead to relationship breakdown as well as health, financial and legal problems. Families and friends of drug users are a very hidden and isolated set of carers and can often feel guilty, angry, isolated, stressed, powerless, not in control of the situation, depressed and panicky. Indeed, many crack up under the strain. Sometimes the parents turn to alcohol in order to make them feel as if they are coping, or to blank out the hopeless situation. Many worried mothers contact their GPs for help and have consequently been prescribed tranquillisers, with the potential for developing a dependency of their very own.
Addictions of different sorts break up marriages and families. The use of crack and cocaine is increasing. Many of the calls to the ADFAM national helpline about those drugs also concern violence and aggression. Calls to the helpline from parents worried about drug use of 11 to 14 year-olds increased markedly during 1993. It is never too young to start drug education.

665
Families and drug users suffer particularly in rural areas where there are often no services available. A service that is confidential and appropriate is what all families who have to fight such problems need. The expense to society in fighting drug-related crime is enormous; to the individual family the anxiety is also enormous.
I should like to mention a very important matter in today's debate. I refer to the difficulties faced by many families visiting a sick child in hospital. The emotional strain can be enormous. For many families this is compounded by the financial implications of lengthy journeys and arranging child care for other children in the family. The issue has been highlighted by the "Too Dear to Visit" campaign, which was initiated by two organisations, Contact a Family and Action for Sick Children. Both organisations are concerned with the welfare of children and their families. Their campaign has received all-party support and a not unsympathetic response from the Minister in another place. Many people hope this is an issue to which the Government might respond positively as one way of marking the year of the family.
I refer in this context to a young boy from Essex who has Batten's disease and needs a bone marrow transplant. When the Westminster Children's Hospital in London closed down he was transferred to the largest unit in the country at the Bristol Royal Hospital for Sick Children. The parents incur huge costs in visiting him. An unemployed couple from Devon accumulated debts of £ 1,500 through visiting their sick son in London. In Dorset a family incurred debts of £ 1,000 visiting their two-year old daughter who required heart surgery. Many such cases came to light. When Action for Sick Children carried out research into visiting costs, it found that nearly 6 per cent. of families get into debt as a result of hospital visiting and that over 25 per cent. wished to visit their children more often. Health professionals, parents and the Government accept the importance of visiting. A Department of Health circular, Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital issued in 1991 states:
"A cardinal princip1e of hospital services for children is complete ease of access to the child by his or her parent".
This is not a luxury. It is now generally accepted that the care and comfort that parents provide is fundamental to the care and treatment of children in hospital.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the whole House, and indeed the nation, owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for her introduction to the debate. We have already heard some interesting contributions this afternoon and I am sure we shall hear some more later on. I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who raised a philosophical question. I believe he was asking, in effect, whether we wanted economic advantage or whether we wished to support the family. That raises the question of the value we place on the role of women as housewives and mothers, or whether we consider they contribute more to society by going out to work. The work of housewives and mothers is valuable.
666
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that not many men can afford to pay for two families. It is interesting to note that it appears to be assumed that men, after divorce, will remarry and start a new family whereas women will raise children on their own. What logic is there to suggest that that is a sensible way of carrying on? Why do not single mothers find a new husband to help them with their families? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also stated, I believe quite clearly, that women are better off financially when they are divorced than when they are married. Surely we must operate a fairly crazy society if that is the case and we create financial incentives for divorce and separation. That can do the family, and therefore society, no good at all.
The document which I believe we have all received on this matter states that we cannot define the family because of the different make-up of the households that exist in Britain today. However, I thought it would be useful to try to define the family and to look at the historical perspective over the past 100 years or so, and to link family stability with economic security. I wished to try to identify some of the causes of economic insecurity and to suggest what we can do to ensure a better future. I tried to find a definition of the word "family" in a dictionary. The family was defined as,
"A primary social group consisting of parents and their offspring, the principal function of which is the provision of its members".
I think that is a good definition.
As regards the historical perspective of this matter, if we look at the married population as a percentage of the adult population for England and Wales over the past 100 years, we can see that between 1945 and 1975 there was a high proportion of married people and that there was a low proportion from the 1890s up to 1945 and from 1975 onwards. These figures link the incidence of marriage with economic security, particularly of men, during the period from 1945 to 1975. That period was unparalleled in British history. It was a period when the prevailing political consensus aspired to fun employment. In that period every government of whatever hue aspired to full employment and to improving housing conditions. That process gave economic security to people and in that context men and women had the confidence to marry and have children. They had the confidence to become members of families.
Family stability is heavily dependent on economic security. Nothing damages the family more than economic insecurity, and particularly the loss of a job and consequent unemployment for the family breadwinner. Redundancy hits in two ways. It causes significant reductions in living standards, not only for the person made redundant but also for his family, and it also damages the self-respect that is so important for an individual in maintaining stable relationships with other people. What causes redundancy and unemployment? I would argue that it arises as a result of the political consensus. As I have said before, from 1945 to 1975 the political consensus aspired to achieving full employment. Since 1975– 76 that consensus has changed and

667
has broken down. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, referred to finance with regard to this subject. The concept of "sound money" has a fairly wide political hegemony.
The family will continue to be undermined as long as we do not value people. I would suggest that the best thing we as a society can do to support the family is to try to rebuild that political consensus that values everyone and that works to achieve full employment and in this way supports the family.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and I are on opposite sides politically but we share common views on some cross-party issues. I am therefore particularly pleased that it is she who has initiated this welcome debate today. I also wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, on their excellent maiden contributions.
Perhaps we should begin by reminding ourselves that children growing up in a traditional, stable, two-parent family are, on average, healthier and do better both at school and later in their careers than those who, unfortunately, do not have the benefit of that background. It is the lack of that stable home, with two parents committed to the long-term welfare of the child, that contributes to many of the problems that later befall them.
The United Nations media pack tells us that the incidence of teenage unmarried mothers fell from 39 per cent. in 1971 to 28 per cent. in 1990. But what does it compare? Is there no difference between a young woman of say 19 in a stable relationship and a 14 year-old schoolgirl? The media pack reports that, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, there were 400,000 homeless people in 1990. As those figures are not convenient for the theories of the pamphleteer, it goes on to say:
"estimates suggest that the true figure is closer to 2 million".
Where does that unsupported alternative figure come from? Let there be no mistake, one homeless family is one too many.
The media pack refers to the poverty level. In Britain a single parent on income support and other benefits receives more in a week than the average annual wage in some South American countries. Of course we are not discussing South America. In Britain we expect that our poor should have a standard of help that is consistent with that of a leading industrial country. However, it also has to be consistent with what can be afforded in the light of all the other calls on our resources.
Because those resources are not limitless, it is not wrong that we should ask people to help themselves so far as they can and so far as we can assist them to do so. It is not wrong to point out that the first place to look for a helping hand is at the end of one's own arm. It is not wrong for the Government to encourage people to help themselves. But it is also not right that obstacles should be put in the way of those who want to do so.
I refer to the so-called poverty trap, where a person is better off not working than in employment. I wonder whether the Treasury will ever understand that letting
668
someone in that situation work without the Treasury clawing back income support pound for pound for every penny earned saves it money in the long run. That point is very similar to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The recent Budget gave a child care allowance of £ 28 to those on family credit who want to go to work. It is a good start, but it is not nearly enough.
Your Lordships are constitutionally constrained from discussing taxation matters, otherwise I would ask why there is still no child care relief for mothers who are not on family credit. My former secretary returned to work a few weeks after her child was born. A large slice of her salary goes on a child minder. She receives no tax relief. The state does not have to pay her family credit, and the child minder pays income tax. The Treasury is getting not two but three bites at that cherry.
I urge the Government to speed up the provision of nursery schools. Not only would that enable more single parents to go back to work, but it is beyond argument that nursery school benefits children all the way through their education. Labour councils claim, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, also told us, that they are ahead of the Conservatives in providing nursery school places. If that is true, we must do better. But it will not surprise your Lordships to know that there is a counter statistic. Britain starts children in school earlier and keeps them there longer than any other EC country except Holland.
Apart from young families, there are others who are often overlooked and neglected. I mean the old and the chronically sick. The United Nations media pack is some 13 pages long, but just five lines are devoted to carers and none at all to the aged and infirm. One of those wry Jewish proverbs says that one mother can look after 10 children, but 10 children cannot look after one mother. Resources will have to be found for a rapidly ageing population, many of whose families, however willing, simply do not have the facilities to accommodate them or to give them the physical support they will need.
There is also the problem of the chronically sick. There is nothing more draining than caring for a parent or other close relative who has degenerated into severe mental or physical disability. The carer's own health suffers. A third of carers receive no physical help or support. Many never even have a break. Half of them suffer financial problems because they have to stay at home instead of going to work. To qualify for the £ 33.70 a week invalid care allowance, carers have to put in a 35-hour week. That works out at 96 pence an hour. Some elderly carers receive nothing.
My husband and I have had to cope with such a situation on no fewer than five occasions. Fortunately, resources were available to take care of the invalids' physical well-being and for nursing at home. However, the experience showed me how essential it is for other less fortunate carers to be given the resources to obtain nursing help at home and the chance to have an occasional break from the never-ending demands and needs of the invalid.
I wish there were enough for everything and everybody. But, as there is not a limitless amount of money available, I hope that those of your Lordships who will continue to speak about the needs of young

669
families will remember also that there are others who also have claims. I mean the elderly without families to help them, and the chronically infirm and those who look after them; those who have given a lifetime at work, who have paid taxes for 50 years or more, and who now need not our charity but simply their fair share of our concern. We should be concerned about them also.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I very much appreciated the contribution of my noble friend Lady Dean. It has led us into trying to match her skills, without always succeeding as well as she did.
I should like to begin by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister. In 1989, at the world summit on children she said:
"The well-being of children requires political action at the highest level. We make a solemn commitment to give priority to the rights of children".
I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to replace the word "children", which is mentioned twice in that statement, with "the family". We shall be more than happy if he can give that undertaking.
Children make a family. While it is true to say that there are many happy families— fortunately more than there are families with problems— there are problems in families, as many noble Lords have said. Many families need support and help. We must not dismiss that group of people as an underclass. It should be recognised that their aspirations are common to us all; but often they simply have too little money to share the activities and possessions of everyday life enjoyed by the rest of the population.
Some people call those problem families. It is much easier to blame than to find solutions. Some families face a whole range of problems. There is a whole range of agencies, groups, organisations, charities and neighbours, friends and relations which try to help such families. Some of those people are very well known to me. I shall speak about the West Midlands because I know that part of the world better than any other.
The police protection units, which often have to deal with child abuse, take up families through station officers and try to offer help over and above the legal aspects. As part of the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, the West Midlands Fire Service uses the drills and discipline of the fire service to teach young people to be fire fighters.
I am involved with the St. Basil's centre for the homeless. It is concerned with the rehabilitation of young homeless people. It is not an overnight soup kitchen. Sadly, many of the young people who come to us have suffered sexual abuse, which is a tragedy in itself. Many have also been in care. At some stage the problem has to be solved. Another charity with which I am involved, the NSPCC, is well known. There is a longstanding conference looking into the after care of children. The modern image is up to date: the man with the peaked cap known as the cruelty man has long disappeared.
Such agencies throughout the country are cooperating in the main with local authorities and with
670
social services to achieve a cohesive background. I have referred to only a few that I know. Those charities and organisations— and not simply the larger organisations — are looking to be beneficiaries of the National Lottery.
Parents are under great stress, as many noble Lords have stated today. The stress is much greater than it was five years ago. It is noticeable in children. I am informed by the NSPCC that many parents with whom they deal admit to "going over the top", as they put it. One of the most difficult tasks is to find some way to alleviate the stress faced by families, in particular those who abuse their children. Perhaps I may make some suggestions. I believe that we ought to consider respite care for families. Perhaps residential schools or camps throughout the country could be used during school holidays for small family units under supervision so that they may obtain assistance. I visited recently a GPs' health centre. Not only were there three doctors working in the centre, and the nursing sister, but two small rooms were allocated to the voluntary agencies. The probation service representative came in one day a week; the representative from social services came in on another day. Very often the GP finds that the stress of the parent causes ill health and if one helps the stress one relieves the need for medication.
I draw a final point to your Lordships' attention. Many charities are taking up 0800 numbers, which means that it is easier to make a phone call, especially if one seeks to be helpful as a family friend or neighbour. Could the Post Office have boards displaying emergency numbers of various charities which can help in times of stress, together with hospital and doctors' surgery numbers?
As we all know, healthy relationships are crucial to the well-being of all families. Many speakers today have referred to unemployment and the poverty that arises from it. One may perhaps justly argue that the prime obstacle to the elimination of poverty lies in a Government economic system which at present is dedicated to the maintenance and increase of wealth among the already affluent. Perhaps we need to change the Government.
When I was a child we used to play a card game called "Happy Families". The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has today provided an opportunity for the Government to pick up some of the points raised and to increase the number of happy families in the country.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wish to make only three short points. First, it is a tragedy that the Government's policy on the family has been so overlaid by criticism from the press and pressure groups that it appears to be losing a great deal of its momentum. In this International Year of the Family it is important that we take advantage of the opportunity to make real progress in supporting parents and in undertaking other work needed for the family. Public goodwill is not being effectively tapped by the Government at present. One of the reasons is that the Government have pinned their standard to the mast of the nuclear family. The nuclear family is not necessarily the ideal. It can be very

671
claustrophobic both for parents and for children. I believe that it was Aldous Huxley who said that all children need two families: the one in which they normally live, and another one to go to when their parents get on their wick, or vice versa.
The facts have been ably presented by a number of noble Lords. I shall mention only briefly, for example, that 6 million people lived in step-families in 1991; 19 per cent. of families with dependent children were headed by a lone parent; 171,000 divorces took place; and 31 per cent. of children were born out of wedlock. No one knows how many children are now living in extended families. I was much encouraged by the statistic given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. He stated that 32 per cent. of grandparents live less than one hour away from their families.
Those statistics indicate that the Government must acknowledge the diversity of families in our society today. I hope that that statement pleases the liberal establishment. However, I shall now say something that it will hate. We have to acknowledge also that not all those forms of family are equally good for children. I suggest that the good of the children must be the touchstone.
Secondly, the family should be regarded as a partnership. When two people agree to live together as a family, provided that they are within the law and both agree, they can do much as they like. But at the day and hour that a child is born, there is a new member of that partnership. The child is a powerless partner. Because the child is powerless and dependent, its needs and rights must have priority as regards both the physical and the emotional resources of the partnership. I make so bold as to say that parents who cannot accept that principle ought to consider seriously whether they ought to have children. A child is not a toy.
Perhaps we ought to consider the possibility of some changes in our public attitudes. For example, with more couples wishing both partners to have business careers, should we not have more respect for voluntary childlessness and regard it as a respectable alternative for those who wish to choose it? Conversely, ought not we as a society to give much more recognition to the importance of the role in society of parenting, both by men and women? Research shows that the quality of parenting substantially affects a child's happiness and future ability to contribute to society as an adult. The most powerful influence on the social behaviour of a child for good or ill is parenting.
Thirdly, because the child is a powerless and dependent partner, society has a responsibility to underpin its rights and needs. The Government have done much through the Children Act and the new dynamics in education, but there is an urgent need for a coherent and co-ordinated policy in this country for children and families. At present, children's affairs are influenced by no less than six or seven departments of state, by 135 local authorities, and by well over 150 voluntary organisations struggling to pick up the pieces and fill the gaps. They are doing their best, drowning in
672
a difficult task and subject to inadequate funding. The result is a patchwork of provision, some of it very good indeed, but with enormous gaps.
I think that we have all agreed this afternoon that in this country we have a serious deficit in parenting skills. It is a threat to our children and to our society. In passing, perhaps I may give a little plug: I urge anyone interested in the subject to join the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Parenting. In my view, we need to press for a single Minister to be responsible for, to answer at the Dispatch Box for, and to co-ordinate all policies relating to children and their families, so that, as the noble Baroness who introduced the debate said, all policies can be tested against the criterion of their effect on the family. So I call upon the Government to make a commitment to develop a clear, coherent policy for children and families, and to do so soon.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: In a debate like this, it is easy to moralise. I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Dean on her robust and, above all, concrete opening speech. I thought it would not be long before someone referred to traditional family values and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, duly obliged. But we must define our terms. For example, I do not suppose that she intended to mean Victorian family values which were based on a society in which women were hog-tied to the home by lack of property and voting rights, and in which a rising tide of venereal disease threatened the nation's health, as the Victorian husband sought relief from his marital morality with the prostitutes. No. At least let us be thankful that today we have a more open society.
I am the first to regret the break-up of any family life because I know how greatly I am indebted to the rich one that I had myself. I know how much my great-nephews and great-nieces are indebted to theirs — fine young men and women with none of the problems which plague so many families. But then, we were privileged, we had a home, we had a job, we had an income, we had good health, good food, a good education and an interesting career. What we have to do, if we really care about family values, is to try our best to create practical props to family life which will enable more families to enjoy that kind of security.
When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, my experts and I got together to try to analyse what were the causes of family instability and how we could create a framework which would strengthen the family. Of course, one of the overwhelming causes of the problems is poverty. One of the main causes of poverty, we discovered, is that the wages system is not linked to the size of the family. It is no job of an employer to say: "How many children have you? Oh well, I'll give you a bigger wage". On the contrary, he might exploit the man who is driven to take any job because of the size of his family. The outstanding requirement, if we care about family stability, is a good, solid system of child benefit. I am proud to have been able to introduce that and get it through the House of Commons.
However, that reflects principles which have always been contested by our Conservative successors. The

673
principles set out are that our duty is to fill the gap in child support which the wages system has left and, because it is necessary to give the mother a wage in her own right, by definition it must be a universal benefit. Those two principles are universal. They will not survive if they are fragmented by miserly bits of means-testing, which currently is what is under demand.
I am afraid that the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did their best to destroy child benefit, first running it down by failing to inflation-proof it. Then, when the women of this country universally protested at the undermining of their right to a mother's wage, the Government back-tracked. Now they say that they will uprate child benefit annually during the lifetime of this Parliament. But the "No Turning Back" group— I do not mean the "Back to Basics" group; it all gets very confusing and perhaps it is better not to use the word "back"— is an Adam Smith coterie of people who have said in their latest pamphlet, Who benefits? that state benefits shotid be primarily for the poor, segregate them, humiliate them. The group says, having drawn up its alternative plar of action: "Oh well, ultimately the state may have no insurance system of its own at all". That is the challenge facing us when we look at the future of the family in this country. It is a fundamental challenge which this House ought to face.
The second cause of poverty which we analysed was insecurity in old age and widowhood. Families will not only grow old but they have older members of their family for whom they feel an obligation. We expect them to help and show sympathy to them. How can they do that when they themselves are on a low wage, battling to support older members of the family, who are on derisorily low pensions?
One of the main things we did at the outset was to say: "The annual uprating of pensions in line with prices is not enough to save old people on state benefits from poverty". Indeed, Mr. Portillo, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, actually said the other day that eventually, with the system of uprating only by prices, by the end of this decade the state benefit would be nugatory. That, from a Govemment spokesman. He, of course, has a solution to that— not to bring back the links which we introduced between the pension uprating and the level of earnings in the country. Oh no, it was to make people supplement a steadily shrinking state pension by private pension schemes. The effect is terrifying to contemplate: insecurity spread wider than it is now, not removed. Indeed, actuaries have pointed out that at the rate we are going, by the end of this decade state pensions, on the prices uprating, will be 4 per cent. of earnings. Four per cent. is equivalent to £ 14.60 a week at today's prices. TL at is the first point that anyone who cares about social stability in this country must face.
At the same time, we introduced the State-Earnings Related Pension Scheme— SERPS, a redistributive scheme. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, before he reaches for his great alarmist talk about 90 per cent. on income tax: that scheme is overwhelmingly financed by the contributions of employers and employees, with only a modest Treasury supplement.
The Government did not like that either. They did not want it because it gave women equal rights with men,
674
not only in the state scheme but in occupational pension schemes. It gave widows better security than they had ever had in the lifetime of any of us. We were told that that, too, had to go. But, here again, there was a universal outcry, not only among the "cadging poor" but among the sensible middle class, at the destruction of such a sane and balanced contribution to security for everyone in old age. Therefore, instead of abolishing the scheme, the Government had to weaken it down. They have done so by taking away many of the gains for widows that we introduced. The Government's answer is: "You go private. Your security lies in personal pension schemes". The Government have already spent £ 4 billion bribing people to contract out of SERPS into a personal pension scheme. We have all seen the advertisements on television.
I have just noticed the time. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to give just one illustration, and then I shall sit down. Actuaries have worked out that in order simply to close the £ 40 gap between the present level of old age pension and what it will be by the end of the decade if we do not return to the earnings link, people would have to contribute £ 10 a week— that just to bring the state benefit back to what it is now. That is the prospect of insecurity and poverty with which so many families in this country are faced. Of course, under personal pension schemes 800,000 women would be no better off. It has been estimated that I million women would benefit to the tune of 50p a week. Let this debate be concrete. Let us stop moralising. Let us build a morally sound economy.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for initiating this debate on the family— and for doing it so bravely and so well after a nasty attack of 'flu. The noble Baroness paid tribute to her own happy family background, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, in her charming, heartfelt and long-overdue maiden speech. I should like to pay tribute to mine: to my parents; grandmothers; great-uncles and great-aunts; uncle and aunts; brother and sisters; nieces and nephews; great-nephews and great-niece; my six children; my four grandchildren; and above all, to my husband, who, being descended from a saint who was known for his happy family life, Sir Thomas More, is a great argument for heredity.
I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on his warm, moving and funny maiden speech.
This is the Chinese year of the Dog. It is also the International Year of the Family, sponsored by the United Nations. I cannot think of a more basic theme for humanity. Since the days of Adam and Eve everyone in this world has been born into a family. Things may one day change in these times of genetic engineering. But it is still true that a child is physically created by a man and a woman. Spiritually, the child is a gift from God.
It may not be a very fashionable thing to say— and sadly for some people marriages do not work— but I believe in marriage. I should like to quote from the Book of Common Prayer:

675
"holy Matrimony … is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying … the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church … and therefore is … to be enterprised … reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained".
I believe that marriage is the best formula for two people who love each other, live together and are committed to sharing their lives— though perhaps not their toothbrushes.
Last August, my husband and I and two other couples dined with my noble kinsman and clan chief and his wife on their wedding anniversary. We said that we had been married for 41 years. The second couple were able to trump us with 42. The third couple had been married for 51 years. But my noble kinsfolk were able to have the last word, with 59 years of loving. It was a very happy evening.
Like everything else in this world families change and grow. For a child there is nothing better in the whole world than to be brought up in a secure family with loving parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts. Home is, after all is said, a place for sharing jokes, for making ends meet, for discussing problems among people who are always on your side, right or wrong, and for giving and receiving support. Everyone's home and everyone's family is different because people are different— and very dull the world would be if they were not. Communist and totalitarian states have tried to cut at the roots and destroy the family. But a healthy society is healthy because it is based on secure family units.
The Year of the Family aims to get governments to help families in three distinct areas; namely, families and work, families and poverty and families and relationships. It is right that we recognise that the family is the secure basis for civilisation. We believe in that on all sides of this House.
The Conservative Party— to which I am proud to belong— having been in office for some time, has during its tenure promoted the family in many ways. It introduced the 1989 Children Act and the 1993 Education Act. It has introduced grants and tax concessions. I believe that tax concessions should continue. It should be made more profitable to be married, to look after your own children, to keep them off the streets and to care for your own elderly relatives. Those are all things which the family does, and should do, best. Keeping people in family units is the best and most economical way of running a country.
Much has been said and written lately about moral unease, about scandals and about turning over stones. I believe that there are far more happy families about than one would suppose on reading the newspapers. Never mind the "B" words; let us go for "H": a healthy, happy society is one which puts a loving family home at its heart.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, because of the time limit, I apologise to my noble friend and to the right reverend Prelate for cutting out the usual introductory pleasantries.
676
Like my noble friend Lord Monkswell, I believe that we need to look again at the definition of our subject, the family. It is in effect the domestic arrangement in which people live and within which children are nurtured and prepared for future citizenship. Technically, for the purposes of the census, the term simply refers to a group of people who share the same kitchen!
In fact, married couples with children still form the majority of families. Many would say that that is the ideal. But we have to live with reality. Some couples are not married and some are of the same sex. But they are all capable of providing loving, stable homes in which to bring up children— as I can testify from my own experience.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon reminded us that families also may contain old people; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us that there are many carers who need support from both voluntary and statutory agencies.
I should like to concentrate on the support system that is needed for families with children, and particularly those which face difficulties. If possible, of course, services should be so good that problems are nipped in the bud and subsequent unhappiness is prevented. Sadly, we are a long way from that happy state, and existing services have increasingly to deal with the dire effects of family friction and breakdown rather than helping families to survive, or at least helping them to part gracefully.
To my mind one good bit of legislation on the horizon is foreshadowed by the Government's Green Paper, Looking to the future— Mediation and the ground for divorce, in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor played a formative part. It proposes a one-year waiting period for all divorces, starting with an initial interview to receive counselling, mediation and advice on the law as it applies. The acrimony of fault-based divorces, which constitute three-quarters of the total number of divorces, will be drastically reduced. The recriminations involved in such divorces inevitably rub off on the children of the marriage and lead to future unhappiness. Far from making divorce easier, the reforms suggested will focus attention on parental responsibilities and the needs of children.
Like my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I should like to see the process of divorce dealt with by family courts. But the proposed changes are intelligent and take account of trends in society. Without trying, Canute-like, to change them, they attempt simply to improve the outcome. It is in fact very different from the hypocritical chuntering that we have been hearing recently about back to basics. Governments, if they have any influence at all on social trends, cannot change them by scolding or punitive legislation. Attempts to do so tend to backfire, as we have seen.
With regard to couples, I cannot praise too highly the work of Relate, which was formerly the Marriage Guidance Council, in helping them to be reconciled or at least to part with dignity. Many volunteers throughout the country are doing excellent work. I should like to hand them a compliment. I have worked with them frequently in my practice as a doctor.

677
I turn now briefly to the services available for parents and children in difficulties. A good primary health care team can often be very helpful. Sometimes the advice of an interested and sympathetic general practitioner is enough. More often than not, a well trained health visitor may act as the eyes and ears of the general practitioner, picking up trouble and intervening at an early stage. She may thus be able to prevent trouble in the future. In fact it is preventive mental health care in action. True primary prevention will come when prospective parents learn how to behave when taking the responsible steps of marriage and parenthood. Perhaps that will take place at school, as was suggested by many noble Lords, and obviously it comes from within happy and contented families. Unfortunately, we do not have that ideal in this country.
I am seriously concerned about the state of the Child, Family and Adolescent Psychiatric Services which, when working well, can play an enormous part in helping families to function better and can reduce later depression, anxiety or, even worse, mental ill health, drug and alcohol abuse and crime. A good child guidance centre consists of a multi-disciplinary team of child psychotherapists, psychiatric social workers, child psychiatrists and teachers. They should be available for referrals from other professions— general practitioners, health visitors, paediatricians and social workers or schools— and also be available for self-referral by families.
Earlier this month, on 3rd February, talking to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, Professor John Pearce, who is professor of child psychiatry at Nottingham, said:
"There has … been a recent shift in emphasis: now the priority is trouble-shooting and crisis-intervention. The perception is of child protection, but this is all to do with picking up the pieces when disaster occurs rather than preventing it, and with identifying the risk but often leaving the child in the same place … In general there is a lack of knowledge about child mental health problems. Evidence exists that around 10% have significant mental health problems in adolescence. This figure is not significantly different from adults".
At the same meeting Dr. Peter Wilson, director of Young Minds, amplified that statement by saying:
"John Pearce has given the figure of 10 per cent. Young Minds would broaden this to 20– 25 per cent. to take in the numbers of young people who need help beyond the capabilities of their families and the community. It is a very big problem".
He went on to describe as a centre of excellence the Camberwell Child Guidance Centre, where Virginia Bottomley herself worked for six years as a psychiatric social worker. He said that in two months' time that well-known and highly respected practice would be decimated and half the staff would be withdrawn. He added that if Mrs Bottomley worked there now she would be made redundant in two months' time. I am sad to say that many workers in the National Health Service would like that to happen to her in her present job.
In this case, the withdrawal of staff is directly due to the Local Management Scheme for schools, which has meant that Southwark Local Education Authority cannot afford the necessary £ 180,000 to pay its share of the costs of the clinic. Sadly that is not an isolated case. Professor Pearce from Nottingham and other contacts that I have in other parts of the country say that that is
678
happening all over the place. It is not as though the service were adequate, even when it functioned at full strength.
In conclusion, as many noble Lords pointed out, part-time working and family poverty give rise to family troubles. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out very clearly that contented families produce contented children. They need tolerance, understanding and humour. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, made the same point. That is not easy when the family's finances and the very roof over the family's head are insecure. Surely this is the time to consolidate and increase the services which support families. To allow them to disintegrate, as is happening now, is to allow disillusion, unhappiness and crime to increase.
6.18 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is to be commended for having chosen the International Year of the Family for today's debate. No doubt "the family" will have a different meaning and form for different people, depending on their religious beliefs, ethnic origins and local customs. The International Year of the Family does not define the family in any rigid sense but believes that it goes beyond the economic unit.
When my husband and I were living in Ghana in West Africa, we had some Ghanaian friends living next door to us. The father was one of three brothers. One brother died and the two remaining brothers between them took the children into their own homes and brought them up with their own children. The children were required to help with the family chores but were fed, housed, clothed and educated. That would seem to be a form of social security that worked very well and is also an example of the extended family.
In the United Kingdom, according to the Employment Gazette, 28 per cent. of Caribbean British mothers are in full-time work compared with 18 per cent of white British mothers. That is among lone mothers. The most important source of child care for those mothers is that obtained from the family or friends, which shows the value of the extended family network. Perhaps that should be encouraged as it must surely help to keep families together.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in an interesting and exhilarating maiden speech, spoke of the importance of parenting education. Research evidence shows that the quality of parenting substantially affects the child's future ability to contribute to society as an adult. Over the past 10 years there has been a gradual growth in the provision of parenting education and support programmes, much of which is undertaken by voluntary organisations. Those programmes reach only a few thousand parents a year. Perhaps one way to reach more parents would be to encourage schools to provide free classroom facilities for parenting education groups to be run in the evenings or at weekends. Many grandparents can and do offer valuable support and help, especially if the parent is not in a stable relationship. If they live near enough they could perhaps babysit so that both parents could attend the parenting education groups.

679
One matter for deep concern is the extent of child sexual abuse which breaks up families. There are two matters which need consideration. First, it is often children who are removed from their homes; thus they suffer a double hurt. Secondly, strangely enough, men who have been found guilty of child sexual abuse are often devoted to their wives and children and they to him. They need much more therapeutic help than they are receiving at present. I congratulate the Faithful' Foundation which is tackling that area of need.
The National Deaf-Blind & Rubella Association, known as Sense, finds that the Government's well-intentioned legislation since the early 1980s, to reduce the role of the state in people's lives and to give greater choice and responsibility to individuals for their actions and decisions, is causing greater pressures for families with a disabled member. To a family, its sense of isolation and helplessness when a child is first identified as having a disability, is overpowering. When it learns that the child has multiple disabilities and is deaf-blind, normally only partial loss of sight and hearing, the parents are concerned about how, as a family, they will manage and how they will be supported.
Deaf-blind children need an intensive level of support over a long period of time in order to surmount the difficulties which loss of hearing and sight present. But when they reach 19 their statutory education stops and there is little provision for deaf-blind young adults. Very often the result is that deaf-blind and multiple disabled adults go back to their family homes. That places a great burden on their families. While many parents accept their responsibilities as a part of parenthood, they still need help in receiving respite care.
Local authorities provide a certain amount of respite care. It is not only important for a family to have a rest from caring, but also for the disabled member to meet other people outside the family. In the case of deaf-blind, their needs are extremely intense and require a great deal of care from the carers. Therefore, respite support is all the more necessary. Some local authorities show imagination. They pay Sense to take deaf-blind children away on holiday. That is a great help to families who can then have a respite from caring and can enjoy a break without worry. The child or young adult is given a holiday which is tailored to its abilities. Voluntary carers who help with those holidays are given a tough training, including communication skills which are so important when caring for deaf-blind people.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to address himself to some of those points which are so important in keeping families together.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Dean for allowing us to debate this important issue. In listening to many of your Lordships' speeches I sometimes feel, when thinking of my own family in a general sense, that we have been subjected to virtually every evil about which every other
680
Peer spoke today. Yet in the round I come from an ordinary, happy, resilient family. I suspect also that many of us have skeletons in our cupboards.
We heard of the importance of the family. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and my noble friend Lady David about the importance of education. We heard the interesting speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the legal aspects of the status of the family. I was particularly interested in the speech of my noble friend Lord Desai in regard to the fiscal system in which the family operate. We heard also about the disruptive pressures to which family life is being subjected. My noble friend Lady David again spoke of the increasing rate of crime and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of increasing rates of drug use.
As this is a timed debate I want to concentrate on one specific aspect that has not yet been touched upon; that is, housing and how the standards of housing affect family life. As many noble Lords will be aware, I am a councillor in the London Borough of Wandsworth. I can say that a good 80 per cent. of my casework is related to housing matters. The vast majority of that casework is related to matters connected with the family. It is related to issues of overcrowding and generally inadequate housing.
One example of an ordinary family, not an extreme family, perhaps illustrates what we have come to accept as an acceptable standard of housing in Britain generally. In the family I have in mind both the mother and father work, but in extremely low paid jobs in central Battersea. They have two teenage children— a daughter and son— both of whom are well behaved and regularly attend school. They live in a very small two-bedroomed flat. Not unnaturally the parents now wish the children to sleep in separate bedrooms so it is quite normal, every night, for the mother to sleep in the same bedroom as the daughter and the father in the same bedroom as the son. There are no opportunities for privacy, for intimacy between the mother and the father and the flat is never quiet, so there is little opportunity for study.
My point is that that is not an extreme case. It is a completely ordinary case and that family have absolutely no chance of obtaining a transfer under the council waiting list scheme because so many more families live in more extreme conditions, some of which were spoken about by other noble Lords. I believe that it is largely the responsibility of the party opposite that there seems to be a lack of ambition in trying to solve those sorts of overcrowding problems. We constantly hear of the extreme problems, but the experience of a large number of our population is not being addressed by the policies of the party opposite.
We recently saw a report by the district auditor, Mr. Magill, regarding the practices of Westminster City Council. In his report he questioned the statutory duty to house the homeless versus the discretionary desire of an elected council to pursue a sales programme to sell off its council property. I am delighted that that is finally being questioned in the courts of law and also in the media. It is something about which I have campaigned for as long as I have been a member of the Labour Party.

681
This evening, however, I do not want to discuss the extremes of homelessness or drug dependency. I want to talk about the ordinary experience of families. As I said, there seems to be a complete lack of ambition by the party opposite to solve those sorts of problems.
When I was initially asked to speak in this debate I feared it would be a thoroughly sanctimonious discussion. My fears have been partially allayed and it has been an extremely well-informed debate. We heard, most notably from my noble friend Lady Castle, of concrete examples for solutions to the problems that the previous Labour Party had put forward. It is a sorry spectacle to hear from the Government, as we have on previous occasions, about the constant ratcheting down of support for families and other social services. The only certainty that seems to come from the party opposite is that it is not responsible for any of the social ills about which we heard from many noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will not give us platitudes about the importance of the family but will address some of the real problems laced by the family. I also hope that he will not be unduly sanctimonious.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for bringing about this debate and for the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Nowadays, there are many ways to define the different types of family. I leave to others the analysis of figures that arise from research on the different types of family need both here and in other parts of the world. It appears that for some on the poverty line things are improving. For example, according to research that I have received the purchasing power of commodities by those in need is improving.
What does any family need besides the necessary finance? First, I suggest words that are relevant to any type of family. The words are "care", "love", "concern", "patience" and "understanding". Those form the foundation of the family. Naturally, it must start with the mother and father and then go to the child. One hopes that it will go back from the child to the mother and father. Can a woman or a man on her or his own fulfil that basic task, except in rare exceptions where the mother or father has died?
Is there not a way in which the natural instincts given to women and men— I say given by God— can be used nobly and honourably? Are they not noble and honourable instincts that are basically beautiful to be used in a beautiful way; that is, involving the spirit and mind besides the purely physical? Is not a family in which a man and woman give themselves to each other wholeheartedly with the words, "care", "love", "concern", "patience", and "understanding" the fulfilment of those natural instincts? Does that not give greater strength to those words? Surely, each has his or her own strength for the other. On the whole, the human make-up is such that the need is for the other sex, except for the very rare occasions when men and women, who live a godly and good life giving to the community, wish to stay single.
682
The knowledge acquired from science with spiritual and moral wisdom should be able to overcome any genetic faults or early influences that cause what is natural to become unnatural. Often, today, it seems that for some of us that has happened and is happening.
A father living up to the words that I mentioned can help his daughter to have trust and respect for a man whom she senses is a good man. In the same way, a mother can help her son to have trust in and respect for a woman whom he senses to be a good woman. Naturally, a father can give to a son and a mother to a daughter. Each needs the other— a man needs a woman and a woman needs a man— but in a healthy, beautiful and noble commitment to life.
May all individuals, charities, voluntary organisations and Her Majesty's Government help the family by having in mind the words, "care", "love", "concern", "patience" and "understanding". Surely, those are the words to have in mind as we try to help the family today. May one-parent families or any other families come to know the joy of the family of a man and woman who give themselves to each other and bring up and care for children who may confide in their parents, even when they have— as the phrase goes— flown the nest.
Can this year of the family be blessed, especially where the family needs help? I talk about the rekindling of love, patience, care and understanding that somehow has become lost. Many marriages need not break up. There may be many more people who can have a true or — dare I say— basic marriage.
Let us go forward in this year with those words in mind. If we work together in that way with hope and trust, I believe that family life will be strengthened and rekindled. It may be that the great treasure in which some of us believe— the Christian concept of marriage and family life— will again sweep this country and the world.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
6.38 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on his maiden speech and say how delighted I am to find that he really exists and is not just a. voice on the radio. I also welcome this opportunity provided by my noble friend Baroness Dean to debate some issues surrounding the family at the beginning of the United Nations International Year of the Family.
I wish to focus on families in work and suggest how fundamental changes in the nature of work have put pressure on families and rendered part of our benefits system obsolete and how families may in future be called upon to pay for today's low wages. Ten years ago learned papers were written about how we would cope with all the leisure time that we would have. The realities have turned out to be somewhat different. Because of the need to become more competitive, business has re-engineered itself. This is a root and branch review and reorganisation of how companies produce goods and services. As a result of that reorganisation the nature of work has completely changed. Regular nine-to-five jobs are disappearing. It

683
is said that only about one-third of British workers now work a traditional nine-to-five day. The remainder— the vast majority— do shift work, weekend work, job shares, short-term contracts and so on. Nearly one-quarter of the workforce are in part-time jobs. More than a million people have two or more jobs. One in every 20 employees is contracted on a temporary basis. Further, more than one in every eight are self employed.
There are other changes. A growing number of jobs involve long periods away from home or are done at home. People now change jobs more frequently. In retailing, because of long opening hours and employment regulations, firms put many of their staff on a part-time basis and effectively create job shares. Perhaps that is the new way in which labour is casualised. In no way does that mean that people will have more leisure. Competitive pressures demand a much greater intensity at work. At a Levi's plant which I know, it used to take five days to process a pair of jeans; today it takes just one day and this with improved quality and less middle management. These are the profound changes in the organisation of work which directly result from what industry calls "re-engineering". Coping with these changes and the periods of unemployment in between, invariably brings pressures on the family.
There are also vital changes in the nature of work itself. Because work is becoming less physical more women are employed. Indeed, eight out of nine jobs created since the end of the recession have gone to women. Another fundamental change needs to be highlighted. Society is turning into work-rich and work-poor families. In 1992 60 per cent. of women with an employed husband were in work, whereas only 24 per cent. of women with an unemployed husband were in work. So the strains on family life are not only that more women are at work, but the trend seems to be that either both partners are at work or neither. Changing employment patterns are substantially increasing inequalities in the distribution of paid work across families.
The rights and wrongs of all this are for another debate, but I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that what is certain is that these changes are permanent. These changes in the organisation and nature of work will disrupt family life. Although the hours worked can be shorter, they are often unsocial and at much more intense pressure. The pressures to perform at work can lead to tiredness and frustration at home. The uncertainty of temporary work and self-employment can create financial pressure and family conflict. Prolonged absence from home or the discipline of working at home, can disrupt family life. Frequent changing of jobs and bouts of unemployment only add to these pressures.
How should we and the Government respond to these changes in order to help families? First and foremost, we need to bring these changes out into the open and discuss the implications more honestly. Let families know that there are fundamental structural changes
684
taking place in our patterns of employment. That will at least help families to cope and not feel that they are the only ones feeling these pressures.
Secondly, we must "re-engineer" our benefits system and bring it into line with these new forms of work. Targeting and helping people to help themselves is not enough. In practice targeting is little more than governmentspeak for saving money. Anyway, a walk through any city centre will demonstrate its failure. The changes taking place are too fundamental for a piecemeal, do-it-yourself solution. The benefits system needs fundamental change. That is why my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely right in setting up the Social Justice Commission to find a root and branch solution instead of just tinkering with the problem.
The new benefits system must tackle the excessive clawback rate faced by those accepting part-time work which means that people are too often no better off— and frequently worse off— in work than on benefits. My noble friend Lord Desai has dealt with the way the tax regulations mitigate against families.
Thirdly, our pension legislation needs to be brought into line with the changes in work. The provision in many occupational pension schemes that the pension is based on the last few years of a person's working-life, assumes that people enjoy their highest pay shortly before they retire. That needs re-thinking. It is wasteful because it forces people into unnecessary early retirement.
The pension position of those in part-time work also needs looking at. Industry is certainly more competitive by employing many part-time workers who have no pension provision. Will that not mean that the family and the taxpayer will eventually pay for this cheap labour by having to provide for them in the future?
This new kind of working environment will be with us for some time to come so we must help families adapt by showing approval. Until they catch up with the changes, the present benefits rules give out strong signals that this kind of work is not approved of. We need to send out clear signals that it is valued. The Government's emphasis on a low-wage economy tells people that they are expendable. Best practice in industry has shown that if people's work is valued, they work better and are happier at home.
Let us use this Year of the Family as an occasion to bring out into the open all these changes in work and help the family make adjustments. They will cope with the inconvenience and pressures far better if their contribution is recognised and valued and not equated with a form of cheap labour that enables us to compete with the Far East. Let us acknowledge that people (particularly men) can scale down their working lives instead of being cut off in their prime as the pension rules encourage. Let us also make sure that our children do not have to pay for today's cheap labour. All this will help the family.
Most important; the family will be better able to respond to these pressures if they understand what is happening and are supported by an appropriate benefits system.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I join those many Members of your Lordships' House — 24, to be recise— who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for this opportunity to reflect on the family. Social historians in 50 years time could do worse than publish for our great great grandchildren the collected speeches from today's debate as a record of what we felt about the family in the last years of the 20th century. Those great great grandchildren may look back with wonder to some of the things we take for granted today, like the perpetual reorganisation of most of the services that support the family. I trust this means that they will not need a history teacher to explain what a family means.
One hundred and twenty years ago Sir Francis Burnand, who clearly knew his "Twelfth Night", wrote:
"Some achieve families and some have families thrust upon them"
That seems to strike a cynical note for a celebration of the family, but it illustrates rather well a point I want to make about disabled people and their families.
We look askance, and rightly so, at the social mores of societies in which the stigma of learning disability is such that disabled children are disowned by their families and herded, together in so-called orphanages, or are indeed killed, by neglect or by even more brutal means. We forget that, in the memory of many of us who are still parents, less than 50 years ago the choice on offer to parents of a disabled child in this country was to give that child up to an institution, which might be many miles away and did not welcome parents anyway, or to soldier on as a family indefinitely and with little or no help. In short, families had the option of immediate destruction as a family, or long-term self-destruction by having an unsustainable and unending task of caring thrust upon them.
Times were not easy for many families just after the Second World War, but the parents of a non-disabled child could reasonably think in terms of school, and work, and an independent home, in due course. For the parents with a severely disabled child there was no school, no prospect of employment, no likelihood of a residential home, and no end to the indefinitely extended family life that had been thrust upon them and left with them. Many a mother experienced the nurse standing beside her bed holding the long-awaited baby, and saying,"Do you want to take it home or will you leave it here?", or "Just put it away, forget it, and start again."
Those are the negatives. Then, as now, there were positives too. What destroyed some families strengthened others. For some families a very special bonding was developed which stood the test of time. These families were spared the growing apart and the letting go; and, for good as well as ill, retained the parent-child relationship long after the child had become— perhaps not wholly noticed— an adult, and the parents had become old.
We have come a long way. We have education for our children now, as a right, and some of it is very good. Beyond school there are college possibilities. For all our grumbles about the 3hortcomings of social security, we have seen enormous advances in such support for disabled people and for families with disabled children.
686
There is now some prospect of people with learning disabilities eventually having a home of their own, and hence the prospect of a more normal parent-son or parent-daughter relationship when the one-time children have grown up. There is some prospect, though a rather poor one, of people with a learning disability actually getting a job.
Attitudes too have changed. My own father— a kind and gentle man— shared with the rest of us the shock of our first child, a daughter, being born as a mentally handicapped child; but thereafter he never shared her with us again, maintaining a resolute silence about her very existence until his dying day.
Today's society is more accepting, though some of the expressed attitudes to mixing with children and adults with disabilities in play group, nursery class, secondary school, workplace, or when they move on to a substitute family home in the community, suggest that we still have a long way to go before disabled people and their families are fully accepted.
Indeed, in many parts of the world in this International Year of the Family there has been little or no advance from the changeling theory: the theory once popular in Europe that an evil force had taken away the real child and substituted this non-person. With this theory, the father could disclaim all responsibility and even the mother could distance herself from an uncomfortable situation.
My reason for joining the lengthy queue for the soap box today was not simply to share with your Lordships a little history, though history is always with us, and is worth recalling. I want to go on to make the point that the National Health Service and Community Care Act and the Children Act are essentially about partnership with families and that the evidence since 1991 has not been of a dramatically successful implementation of those legislative requirements. The Social Services Inspectorate report on services to disabled children and their families (published this week in a highly commendable variety of formats, including braille and tape) says that authorities still have much to do in terms of consulting and involving parents. The most recent audit of community care implies that, despite the lip service paid to carers, families still seem to be regarded as rather irrelevant to the main business of professionals and service managers doing, or failing to do, things for would-be service users.
The professional judgment that families are a problem seems to sit rather ill with the political judgment that families are a convenient solution. Perhaps in this year of the family we can get a little nearer to a real partnership in which the strengths of the family as a support for disabled people are themselves supported, but not exploited. We have heard a little about respite care from my noble friend Lady Kinloss. A father at a recent MENCAP gathering of carers reported that he and his wife had spent only three days away together— and that with us then in Blackpool! — in the 35 years since their handicapped son was born. More than 20,000 families have no day services place for their son or daughter. Only a minority of even the most

687
severely handicapped adults and children have any respite care. William Congreve in Love for Love wrote of the antediluvian family which not even the
"waters of the flood could wash away."
But even Congreve could be wrong. Sometimes we ask so much of families that we threaten them with drowning.
The institutional solution of former years caricatured families as absentees who turned up when someone they had not seen for 30 years died in case there was a legacy to be claimed, despite all the evidence that in reality many families overcame distance and hostility to stay around for 30 years as the only consistent element in the life of someone moved between wards and treatment regimes at the apparent whim of staff. Even so, there were good partnerships. Now that we can lay claim to a system based, albeit rather precariously, on assessment of individual needs and family needs, and a system which proclaims choice, I hope we shall have many more people achieving the sort of family life that they want; and many fewer having thrust upon them the sort of family life that none of us wants.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the House is, I know, grateful to my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde for raising this issue in debate and for reminding us that this is the International Year of the Family. I am sure that we are all grateful to her also for the robust and excellent way in which she introduced the debate. We have had a very good discussion of this subject. Like other noble Lords, I particularly commend the maiden contributions of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre.
We have heard a lot about traditional family values recently — the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised that issue earlier — and we shall be having another debate on the family on the basis of the Unstarred Question which has been tabled by another of my noble friends. I do not want to pre-empt that debate, but I think that we should be cautious about viewing the past and so-called "traditions" through rose-tinted spectacles.
The Prime Minister has been talking in recent months about traditional values. If newspapers are to be believed, he has been relying on a well-known essay by George Orwell, who was, of course, a socialist. In addition to the essay to which I have referred, Orwell also wrote Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier.
It is as well to remind ourselves that the slum conditions which so revolted Orwell were also greatly the concern of those responsible for the post-war consensus, now so often derided, but referred to this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. He was absolutely right. The first Labour Administration following the war had as a priority the creation of full employment and the establishment and improvement of public services. The Conservative Administrations that followed did not seek to undermine what had been
688
established. Indeed, the term "Butskellism" was devised to describe the fact that there was a continuity of social policy.
Of course, those politicians made mistakes. We now know— indeed, it is conceded on all sides— that tower blocks were not the best way of rehousing people from the bombed out slums, but the intention was to provide a better environment in which people could live and bring up their families. Similarly, with social provision, there was general agreement that a civilised society should provide a safety net through which people and their families simply could not fall.
Those reforms, which enjoyed very wide support, arose largely because the politicians of the time had grim recollections of the state of affairs so graphically described by George Orwell in the two essays to which I have referred, plus the shaming knowledge of the appalling condition of many of the children who had been evacuated from the inner cities to the more prosperous areas of the countryside to escape the wartime bombing. We should recall these things when we are urged to return to traditions.
There is, however, another and worthy tradition— a tradition of public service which supports the idea of good social provision. I believe that that worthy tradition was broken in 1979 when a Conservative Administration was returned, the leadership of which had turned its back on that tradition in favour of a more individualistic, entirely market-oriented philosophy. We are now seeing the results of that change.
I say these things because it is not possible simply to discuss the family in isolation. As a number of noble Lords have said, the family exists in society. Its shape will change as society changes. Nowadays there are many more single parent families. This point has arisen several times in the debate. One in three marriages ends in divorce. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew our attention to that statistic. There are more people, mostly women, bringing up children on income support as a result. It has been decided that spouses who leave families must be compelled to support the children in those families. Few would disagree with that, but we all know now that the operations of the Child Support Agency have resulted in some injustices to second families and have not always succeeded in lifting the first family off the poverty line. There have been some much needed modifications but I have no doubt that we have not heard the last of that. There may well be further debates and perhaps further modifications. However, nothing justifies the reports in the press at the weekend about attacks made on CSA staff and its premises.
Furthermore, the position of women within society has changed radically in the past 50 years. My noble friend Lady Lockwood referred to that. In my view, the change has been very much for the better. It is true that many of the jobs available for women are in low paid, low skilled areas. There is an absence of protection since the wages councils were disposed of, with the result that wages in some of those occupations are lower than ever.
But there is at least a general acceptance of the fact that a woman does not have to stay in an unsatisfactory relationship because there is no other choice. Years ago, some marriages lasted for a lifetime because there was

689
no other alternative. There were men in all classes who treated their wives as little more than serfs. There was little recourse against a violent and brutal husband. I do not believe that the children of such marriages can have had a very happy childhood— indeed, I know that they did not. There is little merit in extolling such marriage stability, founded as it was in many cases on the total submission of the woman, who in many instances was economically dependent. Single parent families, therefore, are not necessarily a "bad thing" and worse than a family with two parents. It depends very much on the kind of parenting the child receives. The quality of parenting is very important, as mentioned at length by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
But, whatever the shape of the family, there are certain basic requirements without which it is not possible for a fulfilled family life to occur. First, of course, there is housing. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby, out of his great experience, referred to that in detail. I have spoken of the mistakes made in regard to tower blocks but it does not seem to me that we are doing very much better now. The "right to buy" has no doubt benefited some people but it has severely diminished the stock of housing available for let at reasonable rentals.
Meantime, according to the London Research Centre, one child in every three in local authority or housing association accommodation is living in overcrowded conditions. The situation is worse for black and Asian children, where the figure is one in two. Overcrowding is said to affect 150,000 children in London, which is a 25 per cent. increase on the number six years ago. The situation in other major cities does not appear to be much better.
There is clearly a need for housing of a decent standard to be provided for rent. Local authorities were once regarded as having this responsibility. However, as we have seen, in recent years the Government have been intent on removing that responsibility and, indeed, their hostility to local government is manifest. Yet only the public service sector can realistically meet the evident need
Secondly, there is a need for the parents to be in employment. Unemployment continues to be a massive problem, and in particular male unemployment. This is largely due to the rundown of much of the UK manufacturing industry and the growth of service sector employment. Mud. of that is undertaken by women, including women 'working part-time. It is clear that unemployment, and in particular long-term unemployment, has a devastating effect on family life. Indeed, it has been identified as a major cause of family breakdown. It is particularly injurious so far as young males are concerned.
We have often discussed training in this House and the Government are I think quite genuinely concerned to improve training opportunities for young people. But, if the young person can see no job at the end of the training period, he or she is unlikely to be very enthusiastic about taking it up in the first place. Moreover, we still tend to define ourselves by the jobs we do and therefore a young man without a job may feel that he has no identity at all. It will have a severe effect upon his pride
690
in himself and thus will affect his relations with other people, in particular those close to him in the family. He may feel unwilling to take on the long-term commitment involved in marriage and a family.
Moreover, the new flexibility in the labour market which the Government find so attractive is not attractive in human terms. I have sympathy with the point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel. It means more part-time work, more short-term contracts and more young people having to leave home to find jobs elsewhere; in other words, much less stability. All these conditions militate against the establishment and maintenance of a good and traditional family life.
The other areas that are important are, of course, education and health. Both have been the subject of so-called "radical" reforms in recent years. In neither area does there seem to be a greater degree of stability or security as a result. I have spoken about the environment in which families are expected to develop and, indeed, to provide a basis of sound citizenship for the next generation. As has been said by my noble friends, in the past 14 years we have seen a widening of the gulf between the very rich and the very poor. I know that that is sometimes disputed but it seems to be a fact. Those who are deprived are regaled incessantly by the media and television with a view of the way in which the very well off are able to live. It is not surprising that in such circumstances some young people turn to petty crime and are then drawn into committing greater offences. Of course, there are many who are not. But many with experience of working with such young people believe that the deprivation of a section of society in the past decade, plus the more obvious affluence of others, has had an effect. The breakdown of family life in such circumstances is therefore not all that surprising.
Nor do I think that the so-called decline in religious belief has much to do with it. I do not think that the British have ever been a religious race. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not take exception to that remark, but I believe it to be true. However, the majority still have a respect for the law, as they had when Orwell wrote The Lion and the Unicorn. I believe that if we have a concern for families, as indeed we all should have, we must ensure that the changing circumstances in which we live provide families with sufficient support.
I am not happy that the Government do not support the EC directives on matters such as parental leave, for example. At the end of November the Secretary of State for employment blocked a move by the EC Social Affairs Council to establish legal rights to parental leave to be taken for three months by either parent for the care of children under two years old. The usual argument was advanced that this will impose unreasonable burdens on employers and thereby damage job opportunities. But sooner or later we have to come to terms with the changing needs of families in which both parents are working. The Government are to be commended, therefore, for their decision to adopt the EC childcare recommendation, which calls for the active commitment of government, employers, trade

691
unions and parents to promote a more equal sharing of responsibilities for children between men and women as well as improving the provision of childcare services.
In 1978 the Equal Opportunities Commission declared that:
"women cannot enjoy genuine equality of opportunity unless they have access to day care facilities for their children. The complete inadequacy of current provision for both the under-fives and dependent school-age children is now probably one of the most important factors restricting many women's opportunities".
The EOC states that that is as true today as it was in 1978. It further states that childcare provision in the UK has never been developed to keep pace with the demand and falls behind that in many other EC member states. The EOC also states that the debate has gone on for decades, as we heard this afternoon, about whether mothers of young children should go out to work. But the reality is that more and more are doing so and the trend is likely to continue. There is therefore an urgent need to give support to young mothers with children who would benefit from easily accessible and cheap nursery and crèche facilities.
We should, as the Social Security Advisory Committee recommends, ensure the maintenance of an adequate social security system. As it states, social security is everyone's business since almost everyone without exception will be a recipient as well as a contributor at some point in their lives. I agree with the contribution made by my noble friend Lady Castle in her reference to child benefit. We fought very hard in this House to maintain and improve the value of child benefit and, as I recall, we had some success in that regard. Furthermore, I agree absolutely with what my noble friend said about SERPS— the state earnings-related pension scheme. That has been eroded by successive Conservative Administrations. For people in less well-paid employment, it held out the promise of a reasonable pension in their retirement. It is a great pity that has been undermined in favour of quite inappropriate personal private pension provision.
We cannot expect there to be well-adjusted, stable families unless the conditions are provided to enable that to happen. I have endeavoured to give some idea of what I think those conditions should be. Again, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate this extremely important subject and I await with interest the response of the Minister.
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate this very important subject. I too congratulate the two maiden speakers. The UN's designation of 1994 as the International Year of the Family provides us with an opportunity to take stock of the issues facing today's families in this country.
Although society is changing, and the family is also changing, our basic values cannot change. What cannot change is the overriding need to ensure the welfare of children, and to assert the continuing responsibility of parents for their children. Concerns such as these must be central to our policy.
692
Because the family is central in society, it is also central in policy making. It is not something that is picked up or put down according to the timetables of UN international years but has always been central to this Government's policies. A number of very important initiatives relating to family life came to fruition in 1993: the implementation of the Child Support Act; my noble and learned friend's Green Paper on mediation and divorce; and the White Paper on adoption.
This year we are supporting the work of the UK Association for the International Year of the Family, which will be organising and overseeing a number of activities within this country. I understand that the UK association intends to concentrate, through various regional and local events, on celebrating the positive aspects of family life. There will be particular activities on Sunday,15th May, designated by the UN as the International Day of the Family.
Any consideration of the family in 1994 has to recognise the needs which have arisen out of changes in family structure over the years. There is no role for the state to dictate a particular family structure or how many children a family should have, or to pronounce on the role of the mother or father. We must take families as they are and not as we should like them to be.
The extended family, though still very important, is fragmenting. People are more mobile. Young families move away from parents and grandparents, and often cannot get the support of an established family structure. Elderly people may have no relations living nearby on whom to call.
Although two parent families are still the norm, there have been marked changes over recent years. There has been an increase in divorce. More than one in three marriages now end in divorce, sometimes involving a toll of human suffering that must be of concern to us all. There has also been an increase in living together outside marriage. Between 1979 and 1991, the proportion of non-married women who were cohabiting more than doubled from 11 per cent. to 23 per cent. There has also been a growth in lone parent families and a vast increase in the number of lone parents. Twenty years ago there were 570,000 lone parents bringing up children. Today, there are nearly 1.5 million, bringing up over 2 million children. As a result of those changes, other relationships exist in much greater numbers than before— in particular, families with stepchildren.
The social changes which have brought this about are complex and it is not in the power of government to reverse them. What the Government can do is to seek to ensure that the family unit, whatever its composition, provides a stable environment in which to bring up children. It becomes more important, not less, to assert the commitment that both parents have to their child. It is wrong to bring a child into the world if we are not willing to provide a stable, loving environment for its upbringing.
We believe that the most suitable family unit in which to raise children is that of a mother and father living together, caring and being responsible for their children. Where that structure breaks down, the state's role is to provide a facilitating framework of law which

693
allows people to resolve differences amicably and to make their own choices while maintaining their responsibility towards their children.
The Government also have a key role to play in providing the economic framework within which the family can prosper. We believe that the best way to improve the well-being and living standards of families is to make it more worthwhile for those who can, and want to, to take up employment and be able to provide for themselves. Improving incentives is more than just a matter of reducing the burden on the state.
It is an essential element of human nature and human dignity to want, wherever possible, to live an independent life, to want to stand on one's own two feet and to want to provide for one's own family. Our fiscal and economic policies are designed to create that foundation for individual endeavour. But we also need to support and encourage those families who are currently not able to maintain themselves.
The Government see the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a significant advance for all children and young people. The convention sets out in one document the rights which every child in the world should have. Most importantly, it provides a universally agreed standard by which individual countries can measure their treatment and care of children. The UK's perception of children's rights and needs is closely aligned to the philosophy of the convention. The UK accepts that, because they are vulnerable, children are entitled to special consideration and protection. As they become older and more mature they must increasingly be allowed to make decisions about matters concerning themselves.
It is now just over two years since the convention came into force in this country. Each government department has examined its own area of responsibility and has submitted its account of progress. All these separate contributions have been drawn together to form the UK's first report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which will be published in March. The report is a comprehensive study— over 100 pages long. It is positive about our achievements while recognising that there are areas where there is room for improvement. It will be sent forward to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child next month and the Government will appear before the committee to discuss the report. The next report will be due in five years' time and will report on our progress in implementing the convention.
The Government will be supporting the work of the UK Association for the International Year of the Family, which will be launching the Family Challenge as part of a nationwide campaign in March 1994. Although only Sunday 15th May has been designated World Family day by the UN, we shall be extending that, and the association will be organising and overseeing a number of other activities within the UK during 1994 which will provide a welcome opportunity to highlight issues facing today's families and reassert importance of basic family values.
The programme started on 21st February with a conference organised by the Family Welfare Association, and will culminate in December with a
694
conference entitled Agenda For Action which will bring together the themes and views that have developed during the year.
In the social security benefits reforms of 1988, the family figured prominently. The cornerstone of the reforms was the creation of a benefit system that would enable us to do more for those in greatest need— above all, for the most vulnerable members of society, which includes those families on low incomes.
The benefit system recognises the changing social and economic structure of family. Income Support now directs even more resources through a system of personal allowances and premiums reflecting the needs of groups such as families with children and lone parents. The benefit system gives priority to helping the less well off families with children. Extra help— worth around £ 1 billion a year in the current financial year — has been provided since the 1988 benefit reforms.
The vast majority are much better off as a result of the Government's policies. Average incomes have risen by 35 per cent. between 1979 and 1990–1991 and those rises are not confined to the rich. There have been increases for all economic status groups and family types. Those thought of as being especially poor have also seen their income increase. For example, a typical unemployed couple with two children and receiving income support are now £ 17 per week better off in real terms than they were in 1979. Government policies have continued to increase the prosperity of the population as a whole while also protecting the most vulnerable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, accused the Government of destroying the security in old age afforded by the pension system established by the Labour Government. I believe that the noble Baroness was rewriting history in her speech. She must surely remember that, under this Administration, pensioners' average total net incomes have risen by 42 per cent. in real terms, which is faster than that of the population as a whole. That compares with the devastation wreaked upon pensioners' total incomes by the raging inflation under the last Labour Administration. The conquest of inflation is particularly important for those on fixed incomes. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. However, when he talks about the increase in pensions under the Conservatives, is it not a fact that that increase is due to additions under the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS), which we introduced and which his Government tried to destroy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the point that am trying to make is that, by keeping inflation under control, we have actually managed to produce real increases for pensioners as opposed to the situation which arose when the noble Baroness's party was in power, where inflation was so great that, in real terms, pensioners received less money.
While on the subject of pensions, our White Paper on the pension age addresses the issue of part-time working and pensions. We shall be introducing changes to treat family credit and disability working allowance as

695
earnings for pension purposes. That will mean that people who have children and who are working 16 hours a week or more can receive additional pension in later life. The value of that reform for an average family credit claimant will raise pensions by almost 75 per cent. above what would otherwise accrue for such a year of work.
As my noble friend Lord Joseph said, it would be disastrous to return to the incredibly high taxation rates of the Labour Government in the late 1970s. It is important to remember that take-home pay has risen by 40 per cent. since 1979 and that it is projected to rise by about £ 30 a week in the coming two years. Interest rates are now half their October 1990 level, thus providing the average mortgage payer with an extra £ 17 a week. The incomes of the most vulnerable will be protected by increasing income-related benefits by 3.9 per cent. from April, including a generous package of help towards the extra cost of VAT on fuel bills.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said that ours was the only country in Europe without a guaranteed minimum wage. However, this country is the only country with a benefit system like family credit, which is much more effective than a minimum wage in helping low income working families. Those working part time would not be helped significantly by a minimum wage, whereas family credit assists those working 16 hours a week or more by reference to their family responsibilities. Indeed, over 500,000 people now take advantage of it.
The Government have been very concerned to ensure that, while providing help to those most in need, the incentive to work has been maintained and, wherever possible, improved. We have made a number of changes to the tax and national insurance systems and to the structure of the income-related benefits to ensure that people are much better off in work than unemployed. Those and other measures have also ensured that, once in work, the combined effect of the tax and national insurance system and the withdrawal of income-related benefits does not place people in a poverty trap. Recent research by the Policies Study Institute shows that couples in work and receiving family credit were on average £ 18 per week better off than when out of work, and that lone parents were an average of £ 30 per week better off.
Perhaps I may now turn to child care. The Government's policy on child care is to encourage the private and voluntary sectors and individuals to provide a variety of services which give parents choice. Over the past five years we have seen rapid growth in the amount of child care — an increase of over 150 per cent. in the number of nursery places and over 40 per cent. in the number of registered child minders. There are now 91,000 places for children under five and over 108,000 child minders with 250,000 places for children under the age of eight.
We recognise the difficulties faced by parents in balancing work and financial responsibilities. Although we feel that employers and employees are best placed to decide which arrangements suit their individual needs and circumstances, the Government can and do actively
696
encourage employers to consider introducing flexible working arrangements in a wide range of different jobs. My noble friend Lady Young explained that very clearly in her speech.
Your Lordships particularly welcomed the help with child care costs for low income working families which will be introduced in October this year and will assist 150,000 families, including the 50,000 likely to be able to take up work as a result of the change announced in the Budget. We have stuck to our pledge to maintain child benefit. It is still paid for all families and uprated each year in line with prices. From next April, a typical family with two children will receive £ 18.45 per week tax free. We are also the only EC country which uprates its child benefit both annually and in line with prices.
Our community care reforms are designed to help the carers of people with physical disabilities. The first two key objectives of our community care reforms are to promote the development of care services to enable people to live in their own homes wherever feasible and sensible; and to ensure that service providers make practical support for relatives and friends who care for dependent people a high priority.
The reforms give local authorities an increased incentive to ensure that sufficient services of this kind are available. Caring for a physically disabled person is often demanding, and the emphasis on care services for people at home is intended to relieve the physical burden on carers. The ring-fenced funding for community care which the Government are providing as a special transitional grant will enable local authorities to expand the provision of such services.
The total funds made available to authorities through that grant in the current financial year are £ 565 million. In October of last year, the Minister for Health announced that the special transitional grant would be increased by £ 20 million in 1994–95 and £ 30 million in the following year.
Many speakers expressed concern about education. An indication of the importance that the Government attach to education and the family can be found in the first section of the Education Reform Act 1988, which introduced the national curriculum. The Act requires the curriculum to promote spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development and should prepare young people for the opportunities and responsibilities of adult life. Adult relationships, marriage and parenthood naturally feature in any discussion on the responsibilities of and preparation for adult life.
My noble friend Lord Joseph referred to the need to educate parents in the skills of bringing up children, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his interesting and wide-ranging speech. I agree. I also agree that voluntary organisations play an important role; for example, Homestart, which helps about 21,000 children every year at a cost of £ 182 per child per year. The Government support Homestart with a £ 115,000 grant. That money is well spent as a contribution towards preventing later problems.
I turn now to pre-school provision. The Government recognise the benefits which can be derived from good provision for the under-fives, and especially for those who have special educational needs or who are socially

697
disadvantaged. The various needs of children and their families call for a range of provision— day nurseries, nursery classes and playgroups, with different modes of attendance: sessional, part-time and full-time. Thus, we encourage the present diversity of provision, in which the state, voluntary and private sectors all play an important part. We have made it clear that we would like to see a widening of nursery and pre-school provision as resources become available. Our longer-term ambition is availability for all those who want it.
Much has already been achieved. Over half of our three and four year-olds now attend maintained nursery and primary schools, and over 90 per cent. receive some form of pre-school provision. That figure compares well with most other countries, particularly when one also takes into account that this country is almost alone in providing universal free education from the age of five; in many other countries compulsory schooling starts at six or seven.
I now return to the subjects of marriage and family. The Government are committed to marriage and family. We recognise that many marriages break down. It is clear that when a marriage breaks down and there are children of the marriage, they are very vulnerable to consequent upset and damage.
After a divorce it is important that both parents continue to take responsibility for their children, and that those children are looked after well on a daily basis by at least one parent, who is loving and capable of giving emotional support and supervision. They must ensure that the children are healthy and that they attend school. A child's development is greatly influenced by the relationship with and also between his parents. In a recently published Consultation Paper the Government focus the debate on the need for a divorce process which would be better at identifying marriages which can be saved and would emphasise the importance of taking all practicable steps to prevent irretrievable breakdown.
Where, regrettably, divorce is inevitable then the Government believe that the system should ensure that people are made to realise the consequences of this for themselves and their children before they are committed to it. The Government believe that the system should seek to eliminate unnecessary distress for all the family and so help a continuation of family life post divorce, even though perhaps both parents are not living together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, said in her maiden speech that she would like to see divorce made harder to come by. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, talked about children being affected badly by divorce. Divorce is never easy. It is a difficult time for the couple and their children. At the moment three-quarters of all divorces are obtained on the grounds of adultery or unacceptable behaviour, neither of which require any waiting period, unlike the two-year ground for separation. One of the proposals in the Government's Green Paper is for divorce after a waiting period of perhaps twelve months. If this proposal were to be adopted, divorce would be harder for the majority of those seeking it in the sense that they could not obtain a decree as quickly as they can at present.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, how long does the noble Viscount think a divorce takes in any event, even if it is on the grounds of adultery or unpardonable conduct?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the point I wished to make was that there could be a longer waiting period which could be used to try to save a marriage if possible and, where divorce is inevitable, to sort out the issues which inevitably arise in divorce cases. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has published a paper and I am sure that he will consider all the responses that he receives. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is also conducting a wide-ranging review of the family justice system with the objective of creating, in stages, a single family justice system applying a single body of substantive law. 'The aims are to ensure that the interests of children are given priority, that the personal responsibility of parents for their families is emphasised and that the system for hearing and deciding family cases is improved and rationalised, making the most effective use of existing court and judicial resources. The aim is to match cases to the most appropriate level of court and to remove from the courts functions which could be more effectively dealt with elsewhere.
The Children Act is probably the most comprehensive legislation in the world. It asserts both parents' continuing responsibility towards children arid the right of children to be cared for and heard. It was described by Labour's Commission for Social Justice as an outstanding piece of legislation. Many noble Lords who are here today took part in the debates in this House during the Bill's passage. The Children Act seeks to achieve a fair balance between promoting the welfare and safety of children and respecting the rights and responsibilities of parents to bring up their children as they wish. It has recast the law on protecting children at risk to ensure that, where necessary, effective protective action can be taken within a framework of proper safeguards of parents' rights.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Minister is very kind to allow me to intervene. He dealt most helpfully with the question of the unitary system of dealing with families, especially in regard to matrimonial problems. He talked of the family court. In the presence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I hope I may ask,"How long Oh Lord, how long"?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that we establish a family court. I must remind the noble Lord that the Children Act provides in effect a single jurisdiction. It allows flexibility for allocating cases to the appropriate level of court. More importantly, all cases involving children are now dealt with by specially trained members of the judiciary at all levels. However, I take note of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made.
We have had a number of debates in your Lordships' House on the Child Support Act. I do not intend to go over any of the same ground today. However, I should say that we believe it is right that those who have

699
fathered children should be expected to face up to the responsibilities involved. We are not going back on that principle. I am glad that, in the debates we have had in this House, noble Lords opposite have supported the Government on that point.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me about the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which provides for a new sentence comprising secure training orders to deal with persistent 12 to 14 year-old offenders. Under the order the juvenile will be detained in secure accommodation, and after release put under supervision in the community. These places are to be provided for only 200 of the most troublesome and troubled juveniles in the country. Decisions on the location of the units are still to be made.
We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate and all noble Lords have agreed that we all believe in the importance of the family as the bedrock of our society. We want to promote and strengthen the family; to encourage families to fulfil their responsibilities and to provide a sound framework in which they can do so. We recognise that the family unit faces new difficulties because of increased mobility and increasing demands at work. As society becomes more complex and more sophisticated, there are new pressures apart from parents' and children's increasing expectations of each other and of the life that they wish to live in the future.
However, it is not all bad news. For example, much improved transport and communication helps keep separated families in touch. But the family, in whatever form it takes, needs our continuing support. The Government's commitment to the family is shown by our policies, and the effects of those policies show the current general well-being of families in this country. I believe that is the case. Some noble Lords have mentioned that. In many areas the family is strong in this country. Currently families are healthier and financially more secure than in the past. They have more choices. They have more choice in where they live and in the local services they receive. They have more choice in how they spend their money, more choice in the type of health care they receive and in the type of education their children receive. We do not claim to have all the answers but we are clear about the importance of the family. During the International Year of the Family and beyond we will continue to strengthen our commitment to the family.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is the noble Viscount going to sit down without saying anything about the outstanding recommendation of the Law Commission to improve the rights of the married woman in the matrimonial home, particularly as they stand in striking contrast to the superior rights vouchsafed on divorce?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must admit that the noble and learned Lord has asked me a question for which I am not entirely prepared. I will study carefully what he has said in Hansard and, if he will allow me, write to him shortly.
700
Lord Rix: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, will be tell me whether I am to take away no comfort at all in this International Year of the Family for parents and families who have a disabled member of their family, in regard to respite care, day services and the services provided for those with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities? I regret to say that I heard no reference to any of those points in the noble Viscount's reply.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I tried to cover the majority of the points made by your Lordships this afternoon. It is not possible to cover every single point. I answered the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with a general answer about the amounts of money that the Government have committed to the social security budget, to the budget of the Department of Health and to our many programmes. I hope that he will accept that the question he asked is a detailed one. We have discussed the matter on occasions in the past and I am sure that we shall discuss it again in more detail in the future.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, it is not my intention to trespass upon the courtesy of the House for too long, but I should like to make one or two points. First, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacre, on their maiden speeches. They added considerably to our wide-ranging debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, seemed sensitive to one or two of the points I made about poverty in families. That is understandable as he was one of the architects of the economic policy at the beginning of the 1980s which resulted in many of the examples of poverty I gave. The noble Lord advised the Government that they should not flinch from taking economic decisions. I accept that. I shall certainly not flinch from continuing to press the point that economic success must be linked with social justice.
I did not press for a return to a penal tax system. Indeed, it is not on this side of the House that there is talk of going backwards. We want to go forwards. For us the recent period has been something of a nightmare. We want to see progress in this country. What I said in that respect was misunderstood.
Perhaps I may address a couple of points which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised. He talked about the UK having family credit as if it were a justification for the elimination of wages councils. That is very interesting. Do the Government advocate, and do they have a policy in place to the effect, that employers can pay the lowest poverty wages they wish because we have a system whereby the state subsidises employers who choose to exploit their employees without the underpinning of minimum wages?
A few weeks ago the UN emergency fund issued a report which, much to our shame, stated that the position of children in poverty in Britain was worse today than it was 20 years ago. That is linked with poverty in the family.

701
Finally, I turn to the issue of childcare. I accept that the noble Viscount tried to answer the question by giving important and useful information. I am grateful to him for that. However, that does not get away from the fact that childcare provision in Britain is close to the bottom of the league in Europe. When one sets that against the fact that we have the highest number of working mothers apart from Denmark it is not good enough.
The debate has been interesting and wide ranging. I thank noble Lords for participating. Families in Britain will be watching what we do in this next year to assist them to face the pressures confronting them. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Traditional Family Values
7.43 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they interpret the phrase "traditional family values".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, after the last Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister appeared to have emerged with a rallying cry to the nation. In fact, there were two rallying cries in one. There was "back to basics". Everyone knows that that is total nonsense. No one can make head or tail of it. So we can disregard it in a serious discussion. The other rallying cry placed the emphasis on traditional family values, which is the subject of my Question tonight.
In that regard I am anxious to form a good opinion of the Government. However, I do not believe that that will be easy, particularly after the speech delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in his charming manner only moments ago. He seemed to imply that there are sonic awful tendencies in society and that there is nothing that the Government can do about it. However, I should like to form the best opinion possible of this Government of ours.
Of course, the Prime Minister soon began to run away from the phrase "traditional family values" when confronted with same awkward peccadillos or worse among his Ministers. He began to say that it had nothing to do with personal morality.
My theme tonight is very simple. It is one with which I am sure everyone, Christian, Jewish— a notable speech was delivered by a Jewish friend of mine earlier— or humanist, would agree; namely, that personal morality lies at the heart of traditional family values. Otherwise the concept of traditional family values is as silly and as meaningless as the concept of back to basics. The noble Viscount has had notice of what I shall ask him. Will he be able to make any sense of the concept?
In addition to being used by the Prime Minister, the phrase has been used still more by a gentleman called Sir Norman Fowler. His message was summed up by the Sun newspaper as:
"Carry on bonking— Fowler tells Tories".
That was the mess age as understood by that staunchly Tory paper, the Sun. I am sure that many noble Lords besides myself read the Sun. I am a regular reader of the
702
Sun, but I rarely agree with it. However, I agreed entirely with its rebuke of Sir Norman Fowler. Incidentally, I notice that he voted in favour of hanging a day or two ago, so he is obviously a very tough gentleman. But that does not help us to understand what the Prime Minister could have meant by traditional family values or what we ourselves mean by it.
About a fortnight ago I took part in a debate at the Oxford Union on this subject. We won the motion in favour of traditional family values, no doubt due more to the exertions of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and that brilliant journalist and writer, Mary Kenny, than to anything I said or did. I was originally asked to speak against traditional family values. There may be Members of the House who have been married longer than I have, but I should not like to bet on such a matter. I have been married for 62 years. I have had eight children,26 grandchildren and five great grandchildren. To ask me to speak against traditional family values seemed to represent a poor view of my intellect. If the charming president of the union reads these words I hope that she will not think that my admiration for her is diminished. She agreed to allow me to speak in favour of traditional family values and, as I said, mainly through the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Mary Kenny and others, we triumphed.
Why did the president of the Oxford Union think that I would speak against family values? She may have heard that I am a feminist. As I have said in the House, I am an unreconstructed feminist, except in the case of abortion. In this House I was the only Roman Catholic who took part in the debate on the ordination of women in the Church of England. I spoke up for the ordination of women in the Church of England and indicated my support for it in my own Church. I predicted that it would not be very long before we Roman Catholics also had women priests. The president may have heard about that and thought that as a feminist I would be against traditional family values.
When I say that I am a feminist I mean that I consider that men and women are created equal in the sight of God and must be treated as such both in public life and in the home. Many feminists might draw strange conclusions from that statement. However, I believe that feminism goes hand in hand with good family life.
The president may also have thought that since I have been a member of the Labour Party for more than half a century, I would be against any traditions. I am not in favour of all traditions but only of some. Perhaps you might ask whether, in the course of my over-lengthy existence, I have noticed any great improvements or declines. I would answer that there has been a great improvement in the condition of the poor. Certainly 50 years ago the poor were far worse off than now. That is not unique in Britain. It has occurred with the advance of technology and such skills in all Western countries. Certainly the poor are much better off. However, what was significant until 14 years ago, before the introduction of the Thatcher regime, was that there was a steady redistribution of wealth in favour of the poorer section. That occurred under Conservative and Labour ministries until 1979.
In the golden years described so glowingly and misleadingly by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the position has been reversed: there has been a steady redistribution in favour of the rich. There is no getting away from that fact. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years there has undoubtedly been great social progress and all parties have contributed in their own way. I believe that my party contributed the most but that is no doubt a partisan view. That is a great improvement.
On the other hand, crime has increased enormously. When I became a prison visitor in Oxford in the late 1930s there were 10,000 people in prison. Now the number is about 50,000. No one can regard that as other than an extremely unhappy phenomenon. Divorces have multiplied by roughly 20 times in the same period. Again, I do not believe that anyone can be proud of that fact. I certainly see it as a step downhill. No pseudo-statistician will convince me that there is no connection between the great increase in crime and the enormous increase in divorce. It is one of those factors that one can never prove; but it is fairly obvious in my eyes that there is some connection somewhere. Some people say— I am not among them— that the increase is due to the liberalisation of the divorce laws. Here I am on rather shaky ground in the sight of the Almighty. I was an election agent for A. P. Herbert when he was elected for Oxford. The first thing that he did— I should have foreseen it; I was not a candidate at the time— was to introduce a Bill which started the movement for freer divorce.
Leaving aside that personal detail, I believe that the enormous increase in divorce is an unhappy aspect of British life. I do not believe that it is due to the liberalisation of laws, but to some deeper reason: the decline in sexual morality. It is very odd that in such discussions no one likes to mention sex. Perhaps it is a good sign of healthy reticence.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Earl really believe that people do not like to talk about sexual matters? On reading the press and listening to controversy, one's impression is that people talk of very little else. It seems an extraordinary statement to make.
While I am on my feet— I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl— will he comment on this point? He states that there is a great increase in divorce. That, of course, is true. However, we do not know how many marriages broke up, yet there could not be a formal divorce because women were not able to earn enough money to keep themselves if they left their husbands.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not think much of that last point, if I may say so. Everyone knows that there has been a large increase in the number of divorces. It is a 20-fold increase. Perhaps in some marriages that have broken up, the people involved fare better for having done so. I admit that more than one of my children are divorced and have made happy second marriages. Therefore I do not say that every divorce is disastrous. I simply say that, taking the figures as a whole, that 20-fold increase, along with the great increase in crime, is a deplorable phenomenon.
704
What do I mean when I refer to a great sexual decline? Some people might regard it as a great sexual advance. These are matters of opinion. What is morality? No one doubts that sex before marriage, in particular among the young, is more common than it was many years ago. That is a fact. Some people might say, "Good show. It's a more liberal regime. If they like it, they get on with it", and so on. Presumably that was the message of Sir Norman Fowler to the Tory Party. However, I regard the decline in sexual morals as a disastrous feature of life. That is my opinion. Others will have to speak for themselves.
How do I link all those factors together? I say that sex before marriage makes it more likely that there will be adultery afterwards. Adultery afterwards makes it more likely that there will be a broken home. A broken home makes it more likely that there will be crime. Many years ago, with much expert advice, I wrote a book on the causes of crime. The broken home was then picked up as the main, obvious factor for the increase in crime. That is my submission. I believe that there has been a decline in sexual morals. If we are to stand for traditional family values, we must try to reverse that decline.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, stated that there was no question of the Government trying to reverse the trends. He did not speak of them with approbation or disapprobation. He described certain trends which seem to me to be quite disastrous. They do not fit with the speech that the Prime Minister made at the Conservative Party conference. There is no possible coherence between the measure delivered today by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and what the Prime Minister said last October.
However, we must take life as we find it and ask ourselves what are the main essential elements in traditional family values. I believe that we can all agree — perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will agree— that fidelity and love can be regarded as acceptable to all. I agree that they do not always occur together, but by and large if they occur together it is more likely to be a happy home. It is more likely that the marriage will last and that the children will be brought up in an atmosphere of security and love. I do not say that it is inevitable; I say that it is much more likely.
We therefore have to ask ourselves whether there is any way of promoting those elements. The Government seemed anxious last year to promote traditional family values; they have run away from that issue since. But I hope that they will return to it through the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I hope that he may have different advisers for this speech. That perhaps is too much to hope for but it could happen. I admire his gallantry in standing there on the burning deck. He has to face this problem. How on earth can he justify any statement that traditional family values do not involve personal morality?
I shall conclude by telling a story to show that I am not as bigoted as one or two people might begin to believe. I know that I have been fortunate in my marriage. It is a rather dangerous position to be in because I might be seen to be treating myself as wiser or kinder than others. In no way is that so. Perhaps I may

705
give an example of family values in a very different context. Not long ago, I visited two prisoners. One was serving 14 years in prison and the other has been in and out of prison for the past 15 years, since he was a boy of 15. The man serving the 14 years has a wife; the other has a partner 'who is not married to him. They both have children. The wife and the partner are sticking by the men through thick and thin. So is their mother who is a woman in appalling health.
It is a completely tragic scene. The father committed suicide when the, elder son received the 14-year sentence. That is a family with fidelity and love but in an unconventional setting. I am not saying that fidelity and love can only be found in marriage, I merely express the hope that everyone here, their children and their grandchildren, will have long and happy marriages. That said, I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to find some words with which to recognise that personal morality is involved, there is no doubt about it; otherwise the concept is nonsensical and it ought never to have been raised.
8 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this important subject this evening. One of the important traditional family values is a rather obvious one which seems to have been somewhat neglected by a large number of people during the past 30 years. It is simply the duty of a husband and wife to stay together and to fulfil their responsibility to their children. We hear many parents talking today about their rights, but much more important is the right of the children to be brought up properly by both parents living together, committed to a lasting relationship.
It became fashionable in the 1960s to believe that it was better for children if their parents separated and divorced if they were not getting on. That view was propagated by people who appeared on the surface to be clever, but there was never any good evidence at all for it. In fact, a recent survey at Exeter University by Dr. Monica Cockett and Dr. John Tripp showed that children whose families are subject to a series of disruptions are much more likely to have social, educational and health problems than those whose families remain together. In this careful study, which had a sound statistical basis, the main conclusions were as follows: children whose families had been "re-ordered"— that is the new phrase but I think it is better to say children whose families had been "disrupted" — by separation or divorce were more likely than children from intact families to have health problems, more likely to need extra help at school and much more likely 0 suffer from low self-esteem. Where children had experienced three or more different family structures, the outcomes were generally worse than for those living with a lone parent or in a step-family.
Although severe marital conflict and financial hardship were associated with poor outcomes for children, family disruptions, divorces and separations appeared to be the main adverse factor in children's lives. Less than half the children in the disrupted families had regular contact with the non-resident parent
706
and many did not even know where their non-resident parent was living. So it seems that the evidence is pretty good.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we have had this argument before. How did the study assess normal families? Did the investigators look at families who had awful trouble in the home but who stayed together, or did they simply take normal families who were staying together because they liked it?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords,1: thank the noble Lord for asking that question. It gives me the opportunity to expand a little. What the members of the study did was to take a series of children from disrupted homes and match them in six ways with children from intact families. They compared them by interviewing them in depth. They were surprised at the amount of co-operation that they received. In fact, it transpired that children brought up in intact families were four times more likely to have successful outcomes than those from disrupted families. If we compare them with children in families where the parents did not get on well but who stayed together, the children in intact families were twice as likely to have a good outcome. That is how it was done.
I think the work was fairly sound and it was supported by the Rowntree Foundation. It was carried out by reputable people. It was a pilot study which needs to be expanded.
The family is an institution that societies in general have abandoned at their peril, indeed, it is an institution that has outlasted many of those societies themselves. The values that we learn from our family life are those that we should take into the community as a whole. They are values such as honesty, integrity, courtesy, decency, a respect for other people, respect for their property and a commitment to them: do unto others as you would they should do unto you.
I know that noble Lords will share my concerns about the way in which Members of this House and another place have been pilloried and attacked by the national media and others for difficulties which they have had in their own family life. A witch-hunt is not the appropriate way to help those people. Incidentally, those who point the finger at other people would do well to look at the hand that is pointing; while there is one finger pointing at the accused, there are three fingers pointing back at the accuser. Such hypocrisy was roundly condemned by our Lord, who was presented with a lady taken in adultery. People wanted to carry, out the usual treatment, stoning her to death— treatment that is still prescribed today in some places. Noble Lords will remember that for a time our Lord wrote in the sand and at first refused to give them an answer. I have often wondered what He was writing in the sand; there are many theological suggestions. I myself feel that, as He must have been an immensely attractive person with a great sense of humour, He was writing in the sand the names of former girlfriends of those self-righteous accusers. As they came round to look at what He was writing, they must have been acutely embarrassed to see names from the past like Miriam, Mary or even Jezebel.

707
One of the areas in which much has been done to further the development of traditional family values is that of sex education. The kind of sex education that I think should be taught would be done within a framework of moral values which stresses the importance of personal responsibility. I commend to the House a recent video that has been produced and which was launched on St. Valentine's Day. It was called "Make Love Last" and encourages children to consider the possibility that having sex is a choice. They can choose either way, they do not have to be driven by the pressure of society. That is a valid choice and the young must be presented with the option and not feel pressurised into it. The video is made for today's audience and is fairly hard-hitting. I very much hope that the Department for Education will make every effort to endorse this excellent production. It is making a valid contribution to the subject.
I believe, with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the answer to many of our problems in society as a whole lies in individuals returning to traditional family values. If we do not return to them, we shall be in danger of our society sliding into a much more unpleasant and chaotic state.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for asking this important Question. I must say that I do not envy my old friend the noble Viscount having to answer two such similar debates on the same day. I personally fear that, sadly, traditional family values are in this country a thing of the past.
As we have heard and others have mentioned, particularly in the earlier debate this afternoon, for every two marriages there is now one divorce. One in three children is born out of wedlock. The crime rate is soaring and in 1981 there were just over 3 million identifiable crimes. Ten years on, that figure has jumped to an horrific 6.25 million crimes.
Why do I believe that traditional family values are a thing of the past? It is, I fear, because standards everywhere have fallen. We only have to look around outside to see the appalling standard of dress, to listen to the terrible language everywhere. Only last week I walked behind two workmen on my way to the tube on leaving your Lordships' House. I am not exaggerating when I say that every other word began with an "f" or a "b".
I totally fail to understand why there is such an outcry that Members of another place did not lower the age of consent between consenting gays. There is as a result a belief that the age for those indulging in heterosexual sex ought to be increased to 18. Surely we ought to encourage young people to realise that sex is not a game. Surely its rightful place is in marriage. Whatever age you get married, that presumably is the time to contemplate sex. When I was 16 and was at school with the noble Viscount I honestly do not think that we probably knew what sex was all about. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Long, shaking his head. Perhaps times were different in his day. I remember so well being told
708
that sex before marriage was similar in principle— and I emphasise "in principle"— to opening one's Christmas presents before Christmas.
Your Lordships' House is perhaps the last bastion of courtesy and good manners which prevails in society today. I even have to hasten to add, "when tempers are high". I have often been quick to blame the Government but I do not think that it is their fault that traditional family values no longer exist. But, with encouragement from those involved in education and the Church, and with encouragement from parents, I think that standards can and must be raised. So many of us have forgotten what is right and what is wrong. That, I think, is tremendously due to the pressure that we are all under from all aspects of the media. I appreciate that it is difficult to explain to a family which might well be of third generation unemployment.
By raising standards everywhere throughout society I feel that we ought to be able to restore traditional family values. St. Luke wrote in his Gospel, Chapter 6:
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them".
If more of us followed that line, I cannot help but believe that we would be living in a much more caring and respectable society. Does the noble Viscount agree that his Government ought to encourage such an attitude?
8.13 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for putting down his Unstarred Question this evening and giving us the opportunity to debate these crucial issues. The noble Earl asks Her Majesty's Government how they interpret the phrase "traditional family values". And well he might. When the Prime Minister announced his "back to basics" crusade at the party conference, he not only succeeded in uniting his party; he inspired the whole nation with a new rallying point. His call for the restoration of "old core values", for self discipline, for respect for the family and for what he called "back to basics right across the board" was acclaimed and widely interpreted as a timely call for higher moral standards both in private and public life. It was a vision which drew a response from the whole nation: 1994 would be the year of revival. It was a god-given opportunity to speak the word of God to the nation, to seek a return to more godly ways in family matters, in education, in entertainment, in TV and on video, in business and in medical practice.
There is a great need today for leaders to speak out fearlessly in church and in Parliament, in school and on TV, in the press and in the home, and to say, "We have had enough. We've gone far enough, some would say too far, from God's word and his ways. We need to go back".
It seemed that that was what the Prime Minister was saying at the party conference. But, as the heat in the kitchen began to rise, to our dismay he said that that was not what he meant at all; that he meant something different. By that time the country was confused, Parliament was confused, the Government were confused and even the Cabinet was confused. One could

709
tell that because there were mighty pronouncements from different members of the Cabinet, all saying different things, all giving their interpretations of what the Prime Minister might or might not have meant.
The dictionary defines an orphan as, "a child bereft of either father or mother". If that is so, then Britain is becoming a nation of orphans. The Bible makes it clear that God holds the father responsible for the teaching and discipline of the children. Children feel unloved and abandoned when the father is not there. Boys need fathers to teach them how to be men and how to take responsibility for their own children. The evidence is overwhelming that the absence of a responsible father figure has a profound effect on young males.
A further deception has been in the field of AIDS. In 1988 AIDS was described as "the greatest threat to public health this century", with 100,000 new cases each year forecast by the mid-1990s. Dr. Gordon Stewart, Professor Emeritus of Public Health in Glasgow and a former World Health Organisation adviser on AIDS now tells us that in the past decade £ 700 million has been spent on AIDS research in Britain; and he feels that much of that has been misspent on misleading propaganda and on misdirected research. He advises,
"We should take the sentimentality out of AIDS and recognise that the disease is, with a few exceptional cases, directly caused by the behaviour of the victim. If we do that, it would be better for all concerned".
It seemed to me that, if the Government were set on going back to basics, they missed a wonderful opportunity to show the country that they meant what they said. In my judgment what they should have done was advise the people of this country that if they really wanted to avoid AIDS and meant business then they should be chaste before marriage and faithful within it. That was a pronouncement that they could have made. I have no doubt that it would have had the full support of the Church. It is medically correct, and I was greatly disappointed that the Government did not have the moral courage to make a statement of that order.
In his book The Decay of Marriage, George Brown points out that,
"A healthy national economy and a healthy family life are complementary. The family is the mortar which holds the fabric of society together. If it crumbles, then society collapses".
Both the family and the economy are fragile today and might not be far from collapse.
That children should be brought up in a family was ordained by God from the beginning. A healthy national family life is central to the social, economic and moral well-being of any nation. Yet we continue to adopt policies which strike at the very heart of our national family life. Since the 1960s, righteous laws, once based upon the law given to Moses for our protection, have been disappearing from British law. An urgent review of all legislation and administrative practices which have a bearing on the structure of the family is needed. Those which threaten the family need to be reversed; those which strengthen it need to be reinforced and extended. In short, a new legal system is needed which favours marriage and family life. There is indeed a need to get "back to basics".
8.20 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I join in the thanks that have been widely expressed to the noble Earl for giving us this opportunity to debate traditional family values. I have no idea how Her Majesty's Government interpret that phrase and therefore will listen with all the more interest to the reply.
I agree with many of the sentiments and ideas expressed by the two previous speakers, but I cannot quite share either their optimism or the pessimism. What I can try to do tonight is to explain the family values in which I grew up and in which I continue to believe. Such values may well be by now those of a minority, but I believe that their existence and survival is a positive contribution to the common good of society.
Such values go beyond individualism and are deeply rooted in the intangible and spiritual values which help to distinguish humanity from even the highest of animals. It seems to me that values of the kind that I hope to describe go beyond utilitarianism and may, by incorporating age-old wisdom, in the long run provide greater general well-being than the philosophy just mentioned.
Let me start with two values that relate to sexuality. The first is chastity before marriage and the second is life-long fidelity within marriage. Many will argue that neither of those things is possible. Some will say that no one should be expected to keep to such standards. Certainly they are not easy. All I can say from my own experience is that they are possible. I was 34 at the time of my marriage and had not had a previous sexual relationship. While I cannot in any way rival or compete with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in longevity, numbers of family and such things, I can say that my wife and I have been married for nearly 28 years in mutual faithfulness.
I come to what is probably a less controversial family value; namely, the responsibility of parents for their children, at least from birth until adulthood. That is still generally accepted even though it is perhaps beginning to be eroded by overmuch stress on children's rights. Nevertheless, a distressingly large number of children have to be taken into care each year by local authorities. Many need adoption or long or short-term fostering. I am sure that we are all aware that serious problems often occur when young people come out of care aged 16 or more and have to cope with an unfriendly and lonely world without the support of family members.
Respect for elders can be seen as the opposite side of the coin of parental responsibility. That traditional value is clearly threatened at a time when we hear almost daily of granny-bashing, the rape of elderly women and theft and robbery from pensioners. Following the European Year of Older People I very much hope that arrangements will be made to enable the older generation from their experience and wisdom to contribute to society in general. Their contribution could be particularly valuable by passing on manual, musical, cultural and other skills to a generation largely reared on television. Such know-how could provide an

711
important antidote to boredom, which all too often leads to crime. Such increased interaction between the generations will tend to improve respect for elders.
Family solidarity was and still is a natural extension of the values of parental responsibility and respect for elders. It was most noticeable in old-fashioned extended families but it has not completely disappeared among the cousins and kinsfolk of more modern nuclear families. Your Lordships, many being heads of families, may wish to see the principle of family solidarity encouraged and extended as widely as possible. However, it is necessary to be aware that today's society includes many quite untraditional families. It has been mentioned already in the debate that there are many split or one-parent families. There are numerous second and third marriages with children who may be described as "his", "hers" or "theirs". Social policy has to take account of the existence of such families.
In that context I do not feel that it is helpful to have a government agency attempting to revise in a major way the decisions of courts concerning divorce, custody and maintenance. I suggest that it would be better for the initiative to lie with the courts themselves and for their decisions to be properly enforced.
There is one other kind of would-be family on which I should like to comment briefly and that is the stable homosexual couple. I disagree most strongly with the recent resolution of the European Parliament asking that homosexual couples should have all the legal rights of married heterosexual couples. The parliament is asking too much; for example, particularly in relation to adoption. One can understand the desire of homosexual couples to perpetuate themselves by adopting. However, such a procedure would be manifestly unjust to the child, which is entitled to nurture from a father and a mother if that can in any way be provided. The interest of the child, as British law now lays down very clearly, must be allowed to prevail.
I have no doubt that many of the values to which I am attached are unpopular, at any rate outside the circle of those who have spoken tonight. Very often they go against the spirit of the age and some of the trends of society. I believe that the values outlined are interlocking and support each other. Therefore they deserve careful study and examination. I am most grateful to have had the opportunity and the freedom to state them quite openly.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. Indeed, it has been an unusual day. For five hours we have talked more about people and values than we have spoken about money. That is both agreeable and bracing.
Tonight, my noble friend Lord Longford championed the virtues of fidelity and love. They are words not heard daily in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, stressed the importance of parents staying together to bring up their children as a moral duty. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, spoke of the need to raise our moral standards. He mentioned the Church and education. He used words such as "right" and "wrong".
712
Those are strong words, which have no monetary value in them. The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, talked of a revival and a return to godliness. I wish the right reverend prelates had stayed to hear what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, reminded us of the values of chastity, fidelity, respect for elders and family solidarity.
However, in my submission there is one serious and central omission. In our society and time there is one dominating figure who, more than any other, represents and epitomises the traditional family values. That person is known and loved by millions of our countrymen. Her moral standards are admired, her principles are respected, and her devotion to her nuclear and extended family is an example to us all. I refer, of course, to Nellie Boswell.
If any noble Lords have momentarily forgotten who Nellie Boswell is, perhaps I may remind them that she is the central character in Carla Lane's long-running television comedy series entitled "Bread". Played by the actress Jean Boht, she is the mother in a Roman Catholic Liverpool family, who rules them with an iron rod. Grandpa lives next door, intolerant, senile and greedy. She feeds him, looks after him and rescues him when he wanders off. One of her sons is normally in gaol for some criminal offence; another is incapable of holding down a job running a sandwich round; a third makes a living exploiting every possibility of the social security system; and a fourth believes himself a major poet and cannot stain his artistic integrity with any vulgar toil. Her husband is an adulterer, conducting a permanent sexual liaison with Lilo Lil, in a shed on his allotment. Worst of all, for a Catholic mother, her only daughter, a failed fashion model, marries an Anglican vicar.
The family is characterised by a rich variety of crime, sin, and anti-social behaviour. Yet, with a sharp and witty tongue, a dominant personality, and an abundance of "tough love", she holds it together and chastises the sinners as they come for their dinner around the kitchen table. Carla Lane's scripts make "Bread" one of the funniest series in British television. But Nellie Boswell epitomises the one fundamental defining characteristic of the family worldwide: unity. She raises it to the status of a moral virtue. She would probably not know the opening of Psalm 133 in the Hebrew Scriptures,
"Behold, how good and joyful a thing it is: brethren, to dwell together in unity",
but she and her family are a perfect illustration of it.
Unity, and loyalty to the unit, is the basic— if that word is not over-used— family virtue because it is rooted in the basic instinct for survival. The group is more likely to survive than the individual in a hostile world. The concept of loyalty to the unit is complex in the case of human society because humanity transcends animal instincts and includes moral judgments. One can, for example, identify certain behaviour patterns in a wolf pack and call them loyalties, but the pack itself is only following a leader out of an instinctive fear, greed, or self-interest. The concept of loyalty to an authority in a human family is less simple. To some extent a father is often the "pack leader" and loyalty is to him as the largest and strongest and to whatever he defines as the

713
family unit. Conversely, it is women who create and sustain family groups, and sometime the mother's psychological dominance is the unifying feature of the group.
I mention all that simply to illustrate that we on these Benches do now take, and have always taken, family values seriously aid have based our political opinions upon them. The Labour Party is sometimes mocked and derided because at party conferences and the like we sometimes call each other "brother" or "sister" and address our remarks to "Brother Chair". I am not ashamed of that. It reminds us in a symbolic way that our party was founded on the ideal of brotherhood of all mankind, and for some of us at least, the idea of the fatherhood of God as well.
In the multicultural United Kingdom we can learn a great deal about family values from the other religions among us. The Jewish tradition has always reminded us,
"Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee".
Shrewd advice! But— remembering that there are now more Moslems than Methodists in this country— we may add the words of the Holy Koran on the same subject. Chapter 4 states:
"Show kindness to both your parents and to your family, orphans and the needy".
Chapter 16 states,
"God commands justice, kindness and giving to one's family".
I cannot forbear to add that the Holy Koran also procoses:
"The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years'
which some ladies might find tiresome, and painful, and which would not be to the taste of the manufacturers of baby foods.
As recently as this morning on BBC Radio's "Thought for the Day" Indarjit Singh emphasised the importance of family life, the equality of women and the significance of welding rituals in Sikkhism. We need those examples all the more when the Church of England is busy jettisoning its own wonderful words in the Book of Common Prayer, which speak of marriage as,
"ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity".
A marriage rooted in a religious faith is an obvious basic structure for the establishment of family values. But let us not forget that there are happy families where there is neither faith nor marriage. If your Lordships will pardon a personal example, my daughter is a health visitor on a huge estate in Sheffield. She tells me of one-parent families where there may be several children by as many fathers, all of whom have vanished like mist on the mountain, who are as happy as the day is long and are reared with love and care. There are others where the lone parent is helpless, hopeless, incapable of coping or caring, where the health service is the vital lifeline. The Secretary of State for Wales, who recently pontificated on this subject, seems not to know, and should be told, that there are no simple generalisations and no easy answers about contemporary family structures and that a one-parent family is not a matter for a blanket stigma.
My Lords, of your charity pray pardon this cross between a lecture and a sermon. It has been said that the
714
Government must not get tangled up with matters of personal morality. And there is some truth in that. But government have a role and it has not yet been admitted and explained. In one of his novels P. G. Wodehouse describes afternoon tea on the lawn at Blandings Castle. There is a procession. At its head comes James, the first footman, carrying sandwiches; then comes John, the second footman, carrying cakes; next follows Jane, the maid, carrying the teapot on a tray. Finally, at the rear, comes Beach, the butler, who carries nothing, but simply lends tone. The Government have an indefinable but crucial duty to set the moral tone for the nation; to provide Nellie Boswell's kind of leadership for the citizens of this country; to set the example they wish us to follow. The family is not a no-go area for politicians, and politics is not above, beneath or beyond morality. Any government, of whatever party, must look to the future, and if our children ask bread, shall we give them a stone?
8.38 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that at his party conference they start their speeches with "brothers" or occasionally "sisters", but I suspect that that is now a rather politically incorrect term and so I shall just start with the other safe opening, "your Lordships".
"Traditional family values" is a most appropriate subject for debate in your Lordships' House and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating it. The noble Earl declared his interest and told us of his own large family. I cannot quite compare with him, with his many children and grandchildren, but I do have a wife, three children, two stepchildren, three sisters, a brother, a mother, a stepmother and, of course, not forgetting the three dogs. I hope that that is nearly enough to establish my credentials for the noble Earl.
The two debates today have provided us with an opportunity to talk about the changing role of the family and to consider family values in a very wide context. The word "traditional" is perhaps more difficult to pin down. I am told that there is an inscription on a Mesopotamian tablet which regrets that the world will degenerate because children no longer obey their parents. Nearly 4,000 years later we still hear the same tune.
The very nature of the family is under the microscope in the rapidly-changing work and social patterns that now confront us. Opinions may vary about what "family" means, but what we can all agree is that more than every before families matter. They are a powerful and unifying force that holds the fabric of our society together. We receive love and care from our families and offer in return support to those closest to us. And, of course, there are nearly seven million people in Great Britain who provide care for others who cannot manage at home without help because of old age, disability or chronic illness. Most of this care is provided by members of the dependent person's family. A key objective of the Government's recent community care reforms is to ensure that practical support for carers is a high priority. Above all, families care for children. In Great Britain, nearly seven million families with 12

715
million adults care for some 12 million children. All children need to be brought up with compassion and commonsense. They need a family structure to provide for their emotional, physical and spiritual development. The family's sense of security and identity enables them to develop into responsible and confident adults, ready to pass the same values on to their own children.
In this country families and citizens make their own family relationships. It is not for the Government to tell them how to go about it. We live in a diverse and multi-cultural society, with a consequent richness of family values. Government decisions on public services, taxation and benefits can influence the conditions under which family relationships grow and prosper. We believe strongly in the family, in the role and responsibilities of parents and their duties towards their children. Many of our most important decisions of recent years have reflected these basic values.
I make no apology for repeating that the Children Act 1989 is part of an important programme of family law reform. It is the most comprehensive legislation in the world for the protection of children. What it asserts is not just their right to be heard but their need for parents and the continuing responsibility of their parents towards them. This is based on love and care. It includes instilling respect, responsibility and knowing right from wrong. It seeks to balance the rights of parents to bring up their children in their own way and culture, while ensuring the protection and welfare of their children.
No one suggests that bringing up children is an easy business. Parents, particularly young ones, often need help from friends, relatives, neighbours, teachers and sometimes professionals. When such help is lacking — for example, if parents have moved away from where they grew up— the voluntary sector can and does take on this important role. The stresses and strains of family life can be great. They are faced by mothers— even those in prosperous suburbs— who can often feel lonely and isolated, and there are added difficulties for those in inner cities, those in poor housing and those with limited incomes.
I do not accept the premise that the poor are now worse off than under a Labour government. For example, a typical unemployed couple with two children receiving income support are £ 17 per week better off in real terms than in 1979. Since 1979 all incomes have risen across the board.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in his last Budget important and widely-welcomed new financial help for parents, including lone parents, on low incomes who needed childcare in order to work. We set up the Child Support Agency to underline the financial responsibility of parents for their children even after separation or divorce. We have had two recent debates in this House on the Child Support Act, so I do not intend to go into these issues again in detail this evening.
It is right that the Government should pay attention to the growth in the numbers of lone parents. We have to take this seriously, particularly the growth in the numbers of young lone parents. I make it quite clear that the Government do not believe in censuring lone
716
parents. We are fully committed to providing continuing support for lone parents and their children. Most lone parents would rather not be on their own. There are many reasons why lone parents find themselves in that situation. For the vast majority it is the result of death or marriage break-up, or a considered judgment that separation or divorce may be better for them. Most do a remarkable job of bringing up their children. But it must be better for children to be brought up in a loving relationship with both parents contributing to the task if that is possible. All of us who are parents know that bringing up children is a demanding task. It is also immensely rewarding. It is that much more demanding if your are on your own and there is no one with whom to share the responsibility and the joys. That is where local communities and voluntary groups can again be such a support.
The Government are determined to renew the framework of law which safeguards family life and empowers families to determine their own destinies. We recognise that there is a link between the role of parents and children's later delinquency. The Government have always regarded the family as having a crucial influence on young people's moral standards.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down will he say something about a question raised repeatedly throughout the debate; that is, fidelity in marriage as an essential factor in traditional family values? He has dealt with economics and social provision. While those are excellent subjects, he has not dealt with the debate at all.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was just about to come to the point raised by the noble Earl.
We have just debated the United Nations International Year of the Family and our support for the family in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, laid great stress in his speech on the sanctity of marriage and sexual morals. He said that sex before marriage increased the risk of adultery afterwards. I am not sure that there is any evidence to support that statement. There may be evidence to support the suggestion that couples who live together before they are married are more likely to break up. But the opinions of the noble Earl are a subjective moral judgment based on his own views on morality. However, I very much agree with him on his ideals of fidelity and love within marriage and the family.
Our attitudes are formed in different ways; by our upbringing, religious beliefs and to some degree through education. Education begins in the home and within the family and schools have to build on that. The Government believe that schools must take account of the culture and community in which they are set and must have their ethos underpinned by a set of values. Sex education, for example, is not exempt. It should deal with the values that pupils will need to develop if they are to enter adulthood equipped to handle personal relationships responsibly and morally. We must encourage the young to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life.
It is right that we should reassert basic family values. It is also right that the Government should show an

717
understanding arid humane attitude towards social change; in particular to the aspirations of women. In a powerful speech few months ago the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly said that some societies which displayed admirably stable patterns of family life might exact a heavy price from their women.
The noble Earl said that back to basics could be disregarded. I do not believe that. It is too important.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain what possible meaning can be attached to it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Earl had allowed me I would have done exactly that. Back to basics is intended to ensure that government policies are based firmly on the commonsense values of the British people and, in particular, that they encourage individual responsibility. The back to basics policy is especially important in such areas as education, law and order, and the provision of public services, but it also applies across a range of other government policies. I can do no better than quote from an article written by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the Daily Express on 17th February:
"Like a good family, a great nation blends the wisdom and experience of the old with the vigour and challenge of the new.
So don't let anyone tell you we cannot hold on to the essential values we care about. We can and we must. That is what 'back to basics' is about. It is not a moral crusade on personal morals in private. But it does have a moral dimension. It is concerned about responsibility for others and obligations to others.
At the heart of this initiative is a fresh look at key areas of social policy— crime, education, social work and housing".
If the noble Earl, Lord Longford, can read the Sun, I am sure that he can read the Daily Express. I am sure that he would benefit from reading the whole article in that newspaper, as of course would the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ashbourne that the Prime Minister's call at the
718
Party Conference was well received. It was important then and it is still important now. The Government are clear about what we mean.
Each of us has our own and individual interpretation of traditional family values, based on our own traditions and culture, our own families and our own values. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that it s a pity there is no right reverend Prelate on the Bishop's Bench to participate in this debate. Here we have a debate on moral values and they are not here. That is a pity.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in fairness to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, he had put down his name to speak in my debate, but as it was his maiden speech I believe that he was correctly advised that it would be better to make his speech in the earlier debate. I believe that to be an entirely reasonable decision on his part.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Earl had been here and had listened to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate, he would have seen that the Bishop's Bench was actually overflowing with bishops today. It is a pity that one of them was unable to stay, but perhaps they had more important things to do.
We do not believe that it is for the Government to lay down and prescribe what these values should be. The Government's role is to empower families to help themselves. This Government's policy is to give back to families and people their schools, their health care, their houses, their opportunities and their responsibilities.
We are all agreed that families matter, They are responsible for bringing up our children and providing the essential and loving care for the sick and the elderly. We know that when people are encouraged to manage their own lives and make their own family arrangements, they gain self respect, pride in their achievements and thus family values are strengthened, communities are strengthened and the country is strengthened.
House adjourned at eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  DEVELOPMENT WORK BY NGOs: ADDITIONAL FUNDING
  DEVELOPMENT WORK BY NGOs: ADDITIONAL FUNDING
  AFGHANISTAN: ADDITIONAL AID
  AFGHANISTAN: ADDITIONAL AID
  HONG KONG: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  HONG KONG: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  PLANNING POLICY AND HOUSE PRICES
  PLANNING POLICY AND HOUSE PRICES
  No.2 MARSHAM STREET
  No.2 MARSHAM STREET
  PATIENT CARE IN NHS TRUST HOSPITALS
  PATIENT CARE IN NHS TRUST HOSPITALS
  TRADE VEHICLES: PARKING CONTROLS
  TRADE VEHICLES: PARKING CONTROLS
  POLICE AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT MEMBERS
  POLICE AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT MEMBERS
  IMMIGRATION: EXERCISE OF HOME SECRETARY'S DISCRETION
  IMMIGRATION: EXERCISE OF HOME SECRETARY'S DISCRETION
  POLITICAL ASYLUM
  POLITICAL ASYLUM