Sitting of 8 March 1994

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

    BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Committee on the British Waterways Bill [Lords] have leave, for the purpose of its consideration of the powers sought by the British Waterways Board in the Bill, to visit and inspect sites on the Grand Union Canal, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or representative.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  BILL PRESENTED

    BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to British Railways (to be presented under section 8 of the Act): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 16 March and to be printed [Bill 64].
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Object.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the presentation of the Provisional Order Bill. I am sorry, but I cannot take an objection in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the objectives of the British military contribution to the United Nations force covering Iraq.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The objective of British military involvement in Iraq is to secure the Iraqi Government's compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given the Department notice? From the pictures that have been taken by the RAF, is there any hard evidence of wanton destruction in the heart of the marshes in the area around Querna, where the Tigris meets the Euphrates?
    Mr. Hanley: The answer is yes. We are constantly gathering information on the southern marshes. Where it is suitable for public release, we shall consider doing so from time to time to raise the level of public awareness and to inform debate in the House. We have already released a video film showing villages destroyed by the Iraqi military. Since then, there has been growing evidence of drying out and flooding in the area. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the notice that he gave; if he would like to see the video film I can arrange for that.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the RAF Harrier force is doing a first-class job from Turkey over northern Iraq, that last year about one third of Harrier crews were deployed overseas and that about half its crews are likely to be deployed overseas this year? Are not Her Majesty's forces being asked to do more with fewer resources? When will that process stop?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject of the RAF Harriers based at Incirlick. There are eight GR7 Harriers based there on Op Warden and they fly an average of four reconnaissance sorties each days in support of the northern no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel. We should also pay tribute to the six Tornado GR1s which also fly on average four sorties in support of the southern no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel. My hon. Friend will be aware that the RAF takes on those tasks willingly.

    Military Operations
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of existing arrangements for the chartering of merchant tonnage in support of military operations; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department's arrangements for chartering merchant vessels are kept under constant review. Last August, we placed a one-year ship broking

    133
    services contract with the Baltic Exchange to cover most of our requirements. We shall revisit this contract in the coming months.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend think that there are any lessons to be drawn from the fact that during the Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations, only five out of 110 vessels utilised by British forces were British flagged, whereas 96 per cent. of those used in equivalent operations by the French forces were French flagged?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he should be aware that the charter contracts were offered on the open market and it was quite possible for British shipping companies to take them up. As they made clear to us, they did not do so largely because they had contractual obligations, which they were honouring at that time. There is no great significance in the percentage figures to which my hon. Friend drew attention.
    Dr. David Clark: The Minister will be aware of the heroic role that the merchant seamen played in the Normandy landings. Will he give the House an assurance that that contribution will be properly recognised in the D-day celebrations?
    Mr. Aitken: Yes. I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The role of our merchant seamen was heroic in that conflict and it will be suitably recognised in the D-day celebrations.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my hon. Friend recall the importance of Atlantic Conveyor during the Falklands conflict and the serious consequences that flowed from the loss of that vessel? Will he assure the House that, in the event of any similar conflict in other parts of world, the Department will have access to suitable merchant vessels capable of carrying helicopters and other similar equipment?
    Mr. Aitken: We certainly have taken careful heed of the lessons of the Falklands war, including the sad destruction of Atlantic Conveyor. Some 52 British ships were either requisitioned or chartered during the Falklands war. As I told the House in a debate on 9 July, despite a diminution of the number of British-flagged ships, we still believe that there are sufficient ships on the UK and dependent territories register for our defence needs.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current British deployment in Bosnia.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The current Army battalion group—1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards and its support units—will be relieved in April and May by the 2nd Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment. At the request of the United Nations, we have also deployed a Cymbeline mortar-locating troop and a number of additional observers and monitors.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is not it clear that General Rose has transformed the situation in Bosnia in the past month, building up for the first time a genuine momentum for a just peace in that country? Therefore, is not it shameful that the Government are still refusing, according to the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, to respond to
    134
    General Rose's request for extra forces of a high calibre and instead have been handing out redundancy notices to troops already there? Should not the message from the Government to General Rose be, "You are doing a magnificent job. Keep it up. Regardless of what other countries do, we will not let you down"?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should at least do the House the courtesy of checking his facts before he makes rather foolish and ill-informed accusations. An elementary perusal of this morning's newspapers would have informed him that, yesterday, a meeting was convened at the United Nations—it was a British initiative—to discuss additional troops being sent to Bosnia. The United Kingdom has already made it clear that it believes that there is such a case for sending additional troops and that we look to other countries to join us in carrying out that initiative.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for what he has just said and, indeed, for anything that can be done to assist a brilliant British general in charge of United Nations forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: I happily pay tribute to the remarkable work that General Sir Michael Rose is doing in Bosnia. A number of important initiatives have been making healthy progress in the past few weeks, including the success of the operation involving the removal of heavy artillery from Sarajevo and the Croat-Muslim ceasefire. I understand today that there may be substantial progress with regard to the handing over of Tuzla airport to the United Nations. Against that background, we are all anxious to do what we can to build on that important window of opportunity because, clearly, a gradual implementation of a ceasefire throughout Bosnia will not only be of enormous relief to the people of Bosnia but will provide the best opportunity of bringing back United Nations troops to their own countries at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Hardy: Earlier this afternoon, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces informed the House of the contribution made by the Royal Air Force in restraining Iraq. In addition to telling the House of the military contribution in Bosnia, will the Secretary of State tell us what contribution is currently made, or has recently been made, by the RAF and by naval aircraft?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to remind us that the contribution in the Adriatic is being provided by all three services. The RAF has Tornado and Jaguar aircraft while the Royal Navy has not only ships in the Adriatic but Sea Harriers based on the carrier. That is a formidable tri-service operation, which illustrates that, even for a United Nations operation, sophisticated modern equipment is needed to ensure that the United Nations tasks can be fully carried out with the high degree of professionalism that we rightly expect.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the wisdom of the ages—that it is all too easy to commit troops to battle and all too hard to get them out again afterwards? Some of us remember that when British troops were first deployed in Northern Ireland, it was not expected that they would have to stay for more than a few years. Now we have over 17,000 there.

    135
    Does not he feel that extra commitments bring into question the whole Government policy of cutting back on our armed forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am very conscious of the points that my hon. Friend made in the earlier part of his question. Of course we are all anxious to ensure that the strategy pursued is that which has the best prospect not only of bringing peace to Bosnia but of allowing the early return home of British and other United Nations forces.
    As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he should remember that although we have 2,500 troops in Bosnia, we are also in the process of reducing our presence in Germany by some 40,000 compared with what was required during the cold war. The comparison illustrates why it is reasonable to plan for a smaller Army than was necessary during that period.
    Dr. David Clark: A battalion of the Duke of Wellington regiment, with its Saxon armed cars already painted white, has been on standby for nearly three weeks. Why have we had to wait to be able to respond to General Rose's request for an attempt to keep the peace? When will the Government stop vacillating, and when will we dispatch those extra troops?
    Mr. Rifkind: I know that the hon. Gentleman is motivated more by a daily search for sound bites than by the need to develop a sound and coherent policy. I must remind him, however, that the operation in Bosnia is not a purely British operation; it is a United Nations operation. As the hon. Gentleman likes to pride himself on being a great admirer of the UN, he should welcome the lead that the United Kingdom is giving to try to ensure a co-ordinated and united UN resolve and response to the request for additional forces.

    Trident
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme.
    Mr. Aitken: The Trident programme continues to make good progress, with HMS Vanguard due to enter service on time around the turn of the year.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be welcomed by all who are anxious for the freedom of this country and the defence of freedom worldwide. Does he agree that that progress would not have been made if we had listened to the Labour party in 1987, and would not be made if we were to listen to the unofficial leader of the Opposition today?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the important role that the Trident force will play in safeguarding our freedoms. He is also right—although not quite up to date—in his criticisms of the Labour party. He may be unaware that at its last conference Labour passed, by an overwhelming majority, composite motion No. 48, which demanded the immediate scrapping of the Trident programme—a policy which would leave British workers unemployed and Britain undefended.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister try to explain how a system that has been developed to produce massive and unthinkable damage—especially in the Soviet Union, to
    136
    prevent it from making a first strike—will deter any small state from developing its own nuclear weapons or threatening to use those weapons?
    Mr. Aitken: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman begins to understand the whole principle of deterrence. In regard to Russia, he may not have noted the important announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin that no countries would target their missiles on each other any longer; his references to Russia are out of date. As for any conceivable involvement of a bandit state or an evil dictator, I think that both would probably be deterred by the threat of Trident missiles, which are likely to be sub-strategic as well as strategic.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people in the west country will be employed in the early years of the 21st century in maintaining the Trident submarine? Can he confirm that the Government remain committed to the fourth submarine, unlike the Labour party?
    Mr. Aitken: Yes, I can indeed confirm that we remain committed to a fourth Trident submarine, for a very good reason: experience has shown us that the only way in which to be absolutely certain that we can maintain continuous patrolling of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent in our submarines is by having four boats available.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: When will the Government take the danger of nuclear proliferation seriously? Last November, when the Government had a chance to reduce the number of nuclear warheads, they failed to do so; they reduced only the firepower on our nuclear submarines. Did not that send a negative signal to the countries in unstable parts of the world that have started, or are tempted to start, along the road to a nuclear capacity?
    Mr. Aitken: The Government are firmly committed to non-proliferation and to encouraging that in all possible ways. As for signals, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that no Trident submarine will deploy with more than a maximum of 96 warheads and that, if our present plans continue, the total explosive firepower on a Trident submarine will be much the same as that deployed on Polaris submarines. Moreover, by the time that Trident is fully deployed, we expect that our whole operational nuclear arsenal will be some 25 per cent. less than our entire operational nuclear arsenal in 1990, so there is a reduction.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us are deeply concerned that we might be confined to a sea-launched nuclear capability because nuclear proliferation means that in the long run we may face nuclear enemies in the third world for which we shall need an air-launched capability to provide effective deterrence?
    Mr. Aitken: It is important to recognise that the announcement that we have made about the sub-strategic role of Trident means that our nuclear strike capability could reach almost anywhere from a Trident submarine with a targeted sub-strategic missile. We shall have the capability, although it is not an air-launched capability. We shall of course retain an air-launched capability until approximately 2007 as a result of retaining the WE177 bomb.

    Training
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries for which his Department provides or has provided training in this country or elsewhere in defence-related matters in the last 10 years.
    Mr. Rifkind: Since 1984, students from some 116 countries have attend training courses in British military establishments. Also, I am pleased to announce to the House that today I have formally agreed that the United Kingdom will contribute to the training of a Baltic joint peacekeeping battalion composed of contingents from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as part of a phased multinational programme of assistance. The United Kingdom's contribution will be led by the Royal Marines who will provide individual and company-level training.
    Mr. Ainger: May I assure the House that that was not a planted question? Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the Government are not providing military training to any country that is in breach of any UN resolution, in particular to Indonesia which, as the Secretary of State will I am sure know from seeing the documentary "Death of a Nation", has carried out a policy of genocide against the people of East Timor?
    Mr. Rifkind: There have been times when we have provided training to Indonesia, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we take into account the human rights record and other activities of any Government in determining whether military training would be appropriate.
    Mr. Devlin: Is not it the case that many countries in the third world and the Caribbean, and especially some in Asia such as Nepal, have close links with this country because of the long-standing co-operation in military matters that we have undertaken with them? Will not the fact that many of their senior officers have been trained at British military academies provide a good basis for a relationship for us in the future?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case. Some of the most impressive training that we have provided has been to the new Governments in Zimbabwe and Namibia and it has enabled the integration of the various elements of their armed forces. We are, of course, currently providing a similar service in South Africa at the request of the South African Government and the African National Congress.

    Menwith Hill
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he has refused permission for a group of Labour hon. Members from Yorkshire to visit Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire.
    Mr. Hanley: For operational and security reasons, such visits are not in general allowed.
    Mr. Madden: Is not it extraordinary that British Ministers should refuse elected Members of the British Parliament the opportunity to visit bases on British soil? Were British Ministers afraid of the information that American personnel might give us or did they feel that we could not be trusted with the mess silver?
    Mr. Hanley: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few years ago, when I was a little younger and when I was chairman of the North Yorkshire Freedom Association, I organised a rather successful anti-CND demonstration at Menwith Hill? Is he further aware that, at that time, the station authorities refused access to the CND squatters camping outside? Does not it make perfect sense for the authorities now to refuse access to mischief-making Labour Members of Parliament with CND sympathies?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right but I can tell him one thing: were a group of Conservative Members of Parliament to apply to visit Menwith Hill, it would receive the same response as the group of Labour Members.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not one of the outrageous truths about Menwith Hill that it has never received any authority from Parliament and that it is operated by a foreign power, whether or not that foreign power is sympathetic? Therefore, it should be accountable to the House. Is not the Minister denying democratic accountability through the House by refusing to allow Members of Parliament to go to what is a secret eavesdropper on telecommunications from the United Kingdom, which operates without any implied or expressed authority from the House of Commons?
    Mr. Hanley: It is a Ministry of Defence-owned property and it is Ministry of Defence controlled. Therefore—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have you been there?
    Mr. Hanley: I spent a day there on 27 January. There is no lack of democratic accountability. There have been 40 questions in two years on that subject—four tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). If he were to request something such as an Adjournment debate, the matter may be discussed further. Opposition Members have not taken the democratic opportunities available to them.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Menwith Hill base is an extremely important communications centre for the North Atlantic alliance and that we should be grateful for the security that we obtain from the presence of the United States service men and our own RAF service men at that base? Is he aware of the number of jobs that emanate from the workings of the base and that excellent relationships exist between United States servicemen and the people of Harrogate?
    Mr. Hanley: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Menwith Hill is vital to the security of the United Kingdom and to the United States and nothing is done there that is not consistent with the security of the United Kingdom. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the jobs because there are 600 United Kingdom nationals and 1,200 United States nationals and therefore there is a considerable community. Relations in the area are absolutely excellent.

    Nuclear Arms Reductions
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contributions the Government are making towards the process of strategic nuclear arms reductions.
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom maintains only the minimum deterrent required for our security needs. If in the future there were further substantial reductions in United States and former Soviet strategic stockpiles and if defensive capabilities had not significantly enhanced, we would consider what further contributions we might make to nuclear arms control.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but earlier he announced that the firepower of Trident is about equal to that of the Polaris system that it replaces. However, the Trident system has more warheads, it is more accurate and those warheads can be independently targeted. What sort of message does the Secretary of State think that that sends out to other nations as we approach the non-proliferation treaty extension conference in 1995?
    Mr. Rifkind: Trident certainly has a substantial capability, but we have made it clear that the warheads that will be carried by Trident will have a destructive yield approximately the same as that of Polaris. It is precisely because of the self-restraint that we are exercising that we are able to send the kind of signal to the international community that the hon. Gentleman ought to be supporting.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the world is full of military turbulence and uncertainty at the moment and that, while we have the Trident submarine lurking beneath the oceans of the world ready to deliver an unacceptable response to anyone who may attack the United Kingdom or our allies, we are safe?
    Mr. Rifkind: Not only is that correct, but the reality is that even Russia and the United States, when they have fully implemented all their commitments under START, will each have 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which illustrates the need for the United Kingdom to maintain its own national deterrent.

    United States Forces
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet the United States Defence Secretary to discuss deployment of United States forces in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: I spoke to Dr. Perry earlier this week. We discussed a range of issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that 29 American bases and facilities have closed over the past five years, with disastrous effects on local economies, adding to the existing effects of the loss of British defence jobs? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks to the United States Secretary of State, will he obtain details of the ․1.5 billion that the Americans spend on defence conversion, and learn something from them?
    Mr. Rifkind: When the hon. Gentleman complains about the effects of American base closures he should remember that he belongs to a party which calls for far more serious reductions in British defence. He should also
    140
    be aware that our resettlement policies for people who leave the armed forces are the most generous in the world —considerably more so than those in the United States.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind people that in 1945 the United States forces went home, and that it was only the Berlin airlift of 1948 that brought them back to the United Kingdom? We should never repeat that mistake. While the world is unstable, we require the presence of the United States and other NATO allies in order to deter.
    Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, the United States has sent its forces to help in the defence of Europe three times this century. Once it was because of a threat from communism, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. On the two other occasions, the threats to Europe were of a different order. That suggests that the links and the mutual interest between north America and western Europe antedated the cold war, and will continue to have relevance in the years ahead, although communism is no longer in Europe. Europe's security is of great importance to the United States, which justifies the continuation of the Atlantic alliance.
    Dr. Godman: The Secretary of State knows that the United States navy has departed from Holy Loch, but that occasionally its submarines come back into United Kingdom waters. Is he satisfied that when United States nuclear submarines are sailing in our waters their officers stick rigidly at all times to the code of practice for the safety of our fishing vessels?
    Mr. Rifkind: We expect all submarines to take into account the crucial importance of protecting the fishermen operating in those areas, and I have no reason to believe that the United States is anything other than conscientious with regard to those obligations.

    Tracker Radar
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer on 11 January, Official Report, column 8, if he is yet in a position to place the order for the conversion of type 911 tracker radars.
    Mr. Aitken: I am pleased to announce that formal contractual discussions with Marconi Radar and Control Systems of Chelmsford have commenced. Contract placement with the company will depend on the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, which I hope will not take much longer to finalise.
    Mr. Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely reassuring answer for my constituents. May I urge him to ensure that there are no subsequent hiccups, and that the contract is wrapped up, signed, sealed and delivered as quickly as possible? Can my hon. Friend say how large he expects the contract to be, as it is crucially important for job security and for the safeguarding of employment in Chelmsford and elsewhere?
    Mr. Aitken: In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, which he is right to raise—he has been vocal on behalf of his constituents in support of the contract—although obviously the value will depend on price negotiations, I expect it to be about £20 million. I share his hopes about getting the contract signed, sealed

    141
    and delivered as soon as possible, but I must add that the ball is rather in the company's court and that it takes two to tango.

    Minehunters
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends to take to ensure value for money in tendering for new minehunters.
    Mr. Aitken: To secure best value for money, competitive tenders have been invited from all United Kingdom warship builders for a core batch of four Sandown class single-role minehunters, with options for three more.
    Mr. Denham: The Minister will be aware that Vosper Thornycroft of Southampton will be anxious to submit a competitive bid for those orders. Will he also acknowledge that investment both by the Government and by Vosper Thornycroft has given that shipyard a world lead in many areas of naval technology, benefiting both the Royal Navy and British export orders? In the light of recent press speculation, will the Minister take great care before allocating any naval orders to foreign-owned shipyards which could possibly undercut Vosper Thornycroft's position in world export markets?
    Mr. Aitken: First, I share the hon. Gentleman's understandable pride as a constituency Member of Parliament in the achievements of Vosper Thornycroft. I visited the company, and I regard it as not only a British leader in its field but a world leader. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can assure him that, so far as I know, we have no intention of contemplating awarding British warship orders to foreign yards. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may take some comfort from the fact that we have excluded foreign hulls from this particular competition. It will be a British built contract for Sandown class minehunters.

    Infantry Battalions
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average emergency tour plot interval for an infantry battalion.
    Mr. Hanley: The average emergency tour interval for infantry battalions in 1993–94 is 17 months. On the basis of current commitments, we expect this to rise to 20 months in 1994–95, and to 30 months thereafter.
    Mr. Clarke: Can the Minister confirm that 24 months minimum to allow the battalions to do their training is the figure for which we should aim?
    Mr. Hanley: Certainly, 24 months is the target when we have completed the draw-down in 1995–96.
    Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large number of applications for voluntary redundancies reveals how low morale is currently in the armed forces, and that this is caused by overstretch and the number of emergency tours because there are insufficient troops currently in our Army?
    Mr. Hanley: The large number of voluntary redundancies is, first, a measure of the generosity of the voluntary redundancy terms and, secondly, the sign of an improved economy outside.
    Dr. Reid: At a time when there is chronic overstretch among our infantry battalions and when our young men in Bosnia have their patriotism rewarded by being sacked while under fire, is it not deplorable that Ministers have sanctioned the spending of more than £1 million on four houses to be refurbished for the top brass of the RAF? Is that what they mean by putting the front line first?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the redundancies which were announced were the third phase of the Army redundancies as part of the "Options for Change" programme. They were an orderly reduction of the forces that we have at our command. We need to recruit more as well to keep the flow through and the talent coming in. As for the latter question, I refuse to answer.

    Hydographic Service
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to acquire ships and equipment for the Hydrographic Service.
    Mr. Aitken: We recognise the importance to the Royal Navy of a continuing specialist hydrographic capability. We therefore plan to replace our current specialist hydrographic vessels and equipment as this becomes necessary.
    Mr. Luff: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient resources available to the Hydrographic Service to meet its current survey requirements, never mind the new requirements that will be imposed on Britain if we ratify the United Nations law of the sea convention, as I hope that we shall?
    Mr. Aitken: Yes, I am satisfied that the hydrographic squadron is able to meet our established defence hydrography requirement. It may also be possible to divert Royal Navy hydrography vessels from defence tasks to contribute to other hydrographic work. Our current review of the excellent Hydrographic Service is also considering further possibilities such as bare-boat chartering with Royal Navy crews.
    Issues relating to the United Nations law of the sea convention are the responsibility of the Foreign Office, but I have noted my hon. Friend's point and will pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total number of military personnel in Bosnia in each of the last 12 months.
    Mr. Rifkind: The number of personnel deployed in support of operations in Bosnia fluctuates, of course, but on average over the last year there have been some 2,300 personnel on the ground. This has recently been increased to 2,450.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are the Government resisting the use or increased use in Bosnia of forces from Russia, the Ukraine or Turkey?
    Mr. Rifkind: Both Russia and the Ukraine are currently in Bosnia. We believe that they carry out a valuable role and are making a useful contribution to meeting the United Nations requirements. Until now, Turkey has not been

    143
    invited to send forces to Bosnia. This partly reflects Turkey's historical involvement in the region, but it is, of course, a matter for the United Nations to decide.
    Mr. Budgen: If the number of our forces in Bosnia rises to 3,500, what will be the extra cost to the British taxpayer of stationing those troops?
    Mr. Rifkind: If we find it appropriate to announce any increase in the British contribution in Bosnia, we shall be happy at that time to comment on the financial implications.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: In the circumstances, how can the Secretary of State justify sending redundancy notices to soldiers on active service in Bosnia, such as my constituent Alistair Charntler, who was given no reason for the redundancy notice that he received on 24 February and no indication as to why he had been selected for compulsory redundancy?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Lady consults the Army, she will find that it believes that it would be intolerable for liability for redundancy to depend on whether a soldier was serving at any given moment in Bosnia, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or elsewhere. It is appropriate that these matters be considered in relation to the needs of the armed forces and the personal qualifications and ability of the individual soldier. I believe that the Army's view is entirely correct and justified in that respect.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that one sixth of our armed forces are tied up in Northern Ireland and that there are disturbances elsewhere in the world which may require a response, if my right hon. and learned Friend authorises more troops to go to Bosnia, will be bear in mind that there is already considerable fear of overstretch in the British armed forces? Is there not a particular need to make sure that our armed forces have full supplies and logistic support?
    Mr. Rifkind: Our commitments in Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom, will always take precedence over our commitments elsewhere, and Northern Ireland must have first call upon Her Majesty's forces if necessary. With regard to any further deployment of forces to Bosnia, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will bear in mind the importance of maintaining the objective of ensuring that there is a 24-month interval between emergency tours, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces suggested a few moments ago.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to states that are currently non-nuclear.
    Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we play a full part in encouraging those countries that have not yet acceded to the treaty to do so.
    Mr. McAllion: Can the Minister not understand that threatening the peoples of other countries with mass destruction serves only to ensure that those countries develop their own weapons of mass destruction to respond to that threat? When will the Government take the only
    144
    step that matters in reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons and announce their intention to scrap the costly, wasteful and useless Trident system?
    Mr. Hanley: I hear the authentic voice of the Labour party. The United Kingdom plays an active part in defusing regional tensions that might encourage proliferation. Along with other non-proliferation treaty co-depositaries such as the United States and Russia, and in concert with G7 countries, NATO allies and our European Community partners, we are seeking an unconditional and indefinite extension to the non-proliferation treaty.
    Mr. Salmond: How can the United Kingdom keep a straight face in international negotiations on the proliferation of nuclear weapons while the Government, ably supported by the Labour Front Bench, hang on to the expensive and useless military plaything that is the Trident missile system?
    Mr. Hanley: That useless military plaything not only defends the United Kingdom and far further, but gives thousands of jobs to the country that the hon. Gentleman is meant to be trying to support.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest position as regards both the EF2000 project and the Hercules large aircraft replacement.
    Mr. Aitken: Both projects are making satisfactory progress.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is well aware that a large number of my constituents work at British Aerospace in Warton on the EF2000. Will he say how many jobs in the north-east depend on that project and on any involvement that British Aerospace may have in future large aircraft?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the project to employment in the north-west and in his constituency. Some 300 British companies are involved in the Eurofighter project as sub-contractors. That means that there are some 9,000 jobs in the development phase of EF2000. At peak production, we estimate that some 28,000 people will be employed on the project in Britain and some 60,000 in Europe.
    Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that the delay of more than two years in the Eurofighter 2000 project will mean not only that there could be a loss of valuable exports of that product, but that the Royal Air Force will have to continue to maintain aging aircraft until Eurofighter comes into service? [Interruption.] How many millions of pounds extra will we have to spend on maintaining those aging aircraft because of the delay with Eurofighter?
    Mr. Aitken: The cheers for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were so loud that I missed part of the question. The delays that the hon. Gentleman criticises are to allow us make absolutely sure that all the lessons are learnt from the technological difficulties with similar projects, such as the Gripen. The manufacturers are simply taking care that the flight control software is in perfect condition for the first flight, which is now expected in

    145
    April. Neither the manufacturers nor the Governments concerned should be criticised in any way for taking care to ensure that everything is perfect before the first flight.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Department of Health examines carefully the Audit Commission report published today, which shows that £425 million could be saved on the national health service drugs bill if doctors reassessed their prescribing requirements?
    The Prime Minister: We spend something over £15 billion a year on drugs in the primary care sector, so it is in everyone's interests to have cost-effective prescribing. As the report shows, our general practitioners are among the most cost-effective prescribers in the world, although I believe that there is still room for improvement.
    Mr. John Smith: At a time when, regrettably, there are so many innocent victims of crime, why are the Government intent on pushing through, in less than four weeks from now, a major weakening of the criminal injuries compensation scheme by substituting a crude tariff system for the proper assessment of damages suffered by victims?
    Is the Prime Minister aware that a police officer who was seriously injured in a criminal attack was awarded £121,000 last year under the existing scheme, but would be entitled to only £7,500 under the new scheme? What justification can there be for that?
    The Prime Minister: I do not have those precise figures in front of me, but we are seeking to change and make more efficient and effective the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It has met with many delays, while the amount of compensation was determined. We are seeking to produce a better, more effective and more efficient scheme that provides for speedier compensation.
    Mr. John Smith: I notice that the Prime Minister did not attempt to justify the change that will result. May I ask him directly why future loss of earnings and future costs of medical care are to be excluded completely from damages when, in the case of badly injured people, those are perhaps the most important losses? Is it not bad enough that crime has doubled under the Government without making the victims pay for it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the actions that we have taken against crime have been effective and efficient and have often been opposed by him and his party. I need no lectures from him about crime. What we are seeking to do is to make a more effective and efficient system fairer between both the recipient of assistance and the taxpayer.
    Mr. John Smith: So that the Prime Minister understands the issue involved, may I remind him of the case of Mrs. Slater, a young wife with two children who saw her husband murdered at her front door? She was awarded £137,000 under the existing scheme. Under the Prime Minister's proposals that lady would get £17,000. Why should she lose £120,000 in a Government cost-cutting exercise? We hear constantly from the right hon. Gentleman about the victims of crime. Unless he withdraws the scheme he will be guilty of hypocritical humbug.
    The Prime Minister: We have one of the most generous systems of assistance in the world in terms of criminal injuries compensation, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. We are seeking to make sure that it is more efficient and more effective and that the compensation is paid more speedily than at any stage in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor were saying recently that they would enter into no more spending commitments until they knew how those commitments could be met. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman broken his own edict yet again?
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one sure way of improving performance in our schools is to publish examination results? Is he aware that at the weekend the Labour party pledged that it would scrap such performance tables, depriving parents in Worcestershire and the rest of the country of information that they need and deserve when taking important decisions about their children's future'?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that publishing that information acts as a spur to higher standards. It also throws the spotlight on the quality of teaching in many schools. I regret very much that Labour Members wish to remove this right, that they do not trust parents with the information and therefore wish to keep them in the dark. But it is not a question just of performance tables. In the same speech, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) promised to scrap grant-maintained schools, thereby removing from hundreds of thousands of parents the right that the Government have given them. And it is not just the Labour party: the Liberals would join in the introduction of that repressive legislation.
    Mr. Ashdown: There will be a warm welcome for the Government's decision this morning to respond to General Rose's request for reinforcements in Bosnia and, indeed, for the fact that this afternoon the United Nations has taken control of Tuzla airport. As the job in Bosnia is not to reinforce failure but to strengthen success, is it not now vital that other nations follow Britain's lead and would it not be helpful if the United States were to do so?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have been leading diplomatic efforts to help the United Nations to secure reinforcements. As I told the House a few days ago, we are prepared to provide more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort. The right hon. Gentleman is right about Tuzla

    147
    airport: an important objective has been met. This will assist the aid operation, and we shall provide an aircraft specially to take aid into Tuzla.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Commonwealth as a whole has a great contribution to make to the causes of peace, democracy and stability, especially in southern Africa at this very sensitive time? As we approach Commonwealth day, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the United Kingdom's commitment to the Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do so. At both the last two Commonwealth conferences we proposed reforms to make the Commonwealth a good deal more relevant and bring it up to date. Relationships within the Commonwealth are better than they have been for many years. As my hon. Friend referred to South Africa, let me say that many of us look forward to that country's first democratic elections which will be held in April and, I hope, to South Africa's wishing to return to the Commonwealth in due course.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the Prime Minister explain why, in 1994, it is necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) to introduce a private Member's Bill to provide basic civil rights for the disabled? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider backing that humane Bill so that it may become part of the law of the land?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated on other occasions, the Government have done a great deal for disabled people—rightly so—and we certainly intend to do more. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes on access, on social security, on education—[ Interruption.] If Opposition Members will wait, they will get an answer. The hon. Gentleman will be aware also of the changes in relation to employment. It is a rolling programme. We share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have put in place a number of measures to do this. Of course we shall examine carefully the Bill of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry). There will be a debate on Friday, after which I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions, what it would achieve, what it would mean, what it would cost and those parts of it that are appropriate.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that during the 1960s and 1970s the Labour party spent a great deal of taxpayers' money on overseas aid, but achieved very little benefit for the people of this country in return? Will he take pride in the fact that nowadays, under a Conservative Government, we make sure that the British taxpayer and work force benefit from our policy of linking trade with aid?
    The Prime Minister: We have a very high-quality aid programme, a small portion of which is linked, under the aid and trade provisions, with trade with appropriate countries. Aid and trade provision has existed since the late
    148
    1970s. It is appropriate, it works well both for the recipient countries and for British exporting prospects, and I look to see it continue.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Yeltsin about United Nations action in Iraq.
    The Prime Minister: I did not specifically raise this subject with President Yeltsin during my recent visit, but Russian policy is in line with our own on this subject. We are in contact on a day-to-day basis with Russia and with our other G7 colleagues on this particular matter.
    Mr. Dalyell: May I thank the Prime Minister for making time to see me in his room last Thursday about the appalling malnutrition and infant mortality problem in the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates? Since disease knows no boundaries and since there is the likelihood of a sweltering summer, can he do anything about the urgently needed water filtering and pumping equipment and the list of much-needed pharmaceuticals that I handed to him on that occasion?
    The Prime Minister: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern for the people of Iraq, which he sees as quite distinct from the present leadership of the Government of Iraq. I share his concern about the people there. Since April 1991, we have spent more than £60 million on aid for Iraqi citizens, including food, essential medicines, heating supplies and help with agricultural projects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue with our aid programme and with the exemptions for food and medicines from the embargo, and that I will look at the specific point that he raised with me.

    Engagements
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Spring: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that manufacturing output rose by some 1.1 per cent. in January, well above expectations, and that in difficult world trading conditions it is the policies of low inflation, low interest rates and low corporate taxation that has made Britain a beacon of success in the world? [HON. MEMBERS: "That's a hard one, John."]
    The Prime Minister: Just relax. My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no doubt that the manufacturing figures today show that manufacturing output is sharply up. That is very encouraging, and it was considerably above expectations. We have seen a strong export performance particularly to non-Community countries in recent months, but equally to many European Community countries, despite the fact that their markets are in recession and are reducing in overall size. I am delighted that we are making more and selling more at home and selling more abroad.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the answer that I was given on 1 March, which showed that during the past three years some 13 rescue operations have been carried out by Royal Navy and Royal Air Force aircraft in the territorial waters of the Irish Republic? Will he impress on Mr. Reynolds the importance of extending such co-operation to save the lives of innocent people, especially from terrorism, as the forces co-operate with the Crown forces?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We are constantly reviewing the co-operation with the Garda and with other elements of the security forces in the Republic of Ireland. Co-operation today is better than it has been at any stage in the past and I will continue to seek further improvement. There is a regular and good liaison specifically between the United Kingdom search and rescue authorities and the Irish marine emergency services which specifically includes a regular
    150
    exchange of information and participation in the appropriate joint committees, so I believe that the liaison is extremely good at present. Of course, I will seek to ensure that that remains good and is improved wherever possible.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend remind his G7 colleagues that there are really only three ways in which Governments can help to foster jobs—the promotion of sound finances, the deregulation of national economies and the encouragement of maximum flexibility in labour markets?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. If we wish to have jobs that last rather than temporary jobs, we need free trade, competitive industries and a flexible labour market. That is what we have now attained and that is, I believe, the principal reason why we are the only country in the European Union where unemployment is falling and seems to be on a firm downward trend.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising out of Question Time. You will have heard that on question 12, in accordance with your strictures, I asked one simple question concerning the justification for the expenditure of more than £1 million on the refurbishment of four houses for four members of the top brass of the armed forces at a time when there were infantry cutbacks. The response that I received from the Minister was, "I refuse to answer," in spite of the fact that his own officials are already answering questions on the same subject from Sunday newspapers, including The Mail on Sunday. Is it in order for Ministers to refuse to answer limited and legitimate questions which do not affect national security while their own officials are doing so?
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not ask one specific question; he asked two specific questions. I answered the first half. He did not give me notice that he was going to ask the second half, and it was not relevant to the first. May I say, Madam Speaker— [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hanley: There has been some very unfair press speculation, but the matter is being considered by legal experts and no doubt we will report to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
Madam Speaker: We will leave the matter there.
Mr. John Garrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the first time that I have raised a point of order in a career of 20 years in the House because—
Madam Speaker: I have never raised one in 21 years.
Mr. Garrett: —because I regard most of them as spurious, but I think that for the one that I am about to raise you, Madam Speaker, are the only possible point of reference.
This morning, in a hearing of the Treasury Select Committee, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to allow the Treasury Select Committee to undertake a direct survey of civil servants. He quoted in evidence, as his authority, a civil service management code which has no force of law, which has never been approved by the House and which was simply written by his civil servants. I think that that is an affront to the House, and that the distinguished Treasury Select Committee should be allowed to inquire into the opinion and attitudes of civil servants. I think that you, Madam Speaker, should rule against that abuse of power by the Chancellor of the Duchy.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not know, but it is in fact an internal matter for the Committee, and it is for that Committee, if it wishes to do so, to make a report to the House. The Chair does not intervene in Committee proceedings. It is for the Committee, if it is not satisfied with those proceedings, to report the matter to the House and we then take it from there. Those are the procedures.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not the first point of order that I have ever raised, but it is important.
It may not be immediately apparent to you, Madam Speaker, that on a regular basis throughout Prime Minister's Question Time, to your right and behind you, alongside the civil servants' Box, a number of people, usually Government Whips, are stationed standing and operating as professional hecklers. I do not complain about hecklers in the House as it raises the atmosphere, but, apart from the rudeness of blocking the civil servants' view, is it not totally out of order to heckle from a standing position? Is it not time that the Government got a grip on their Whips?
Madam Speaker: There are occasions on which I do have eyes in the back of my head. I am perfectly aware of what is happening behind me. Professional people may be standing there, but you also have a professional Speaker in the Chair. I have dealt with them from time to time and I shall continue to do so whenever necessary.
Dr. Reid: Further to my earlier point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of what the Minister said—[Interruption.] It is a genuine point of order. The first answer which the Minister gave was a blocking order, which means that, when we attempt to table questions at the Table Office, they will not be accepted because the Minister had told the House that he would not answer questions. He said, "I have nothing to add. I will not answer that." However, he has subsequently come to the Dispatch Box and given an explanation in exchanges on a point of order.
Will you, Madam Speaker, rule on whether questions on the expenditure of £1 million to refurbish four houses, legitimately placed at the Table Office, will be blocked or unblocked in the light of what the Minister has said?
Mr. Hanley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I remind you, with great respect, that the main question was,
"What is the current average emergency tour plot interval for an infantry battalion?"
The hon. Gentleman abused our procedures by referring to RAF accommodation, and it was on those grounds that I refused to answer.
Madam Speaker: Order. We must end the matter there. All those matters are and will be taken into account by the Table Office when questions are tabled. I cannot allow an extension of Question Time at this stage.

Energy Conservation (Lighting)
3.36 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote more efficient lighting and the consequent beneficial effects on the environment.
Over the past six years, concern for the environment has resulted in many different measures being taken by the Government and others to encourage a more responsible attitude by both business and individuals towards the damage which their actions may cause the natural world. Over the same period, I have introduced four Bills that have concentrated on the environment, particularly on how individuals can contribute towards better environmental practices.
The Bill follows on from those earlier Bills. It is simply designed to encourage people to use less energy when they light their homes. After heating, lighting is the main consumer of electricity in Britain. If we could use a more energy-efficient means of lighting our homes, we would considerably reduce our emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That would make it much easier for this country to meet its international targets for emissions, particularly those associated with carbon dioxide, which will be particularly hard to meet in present circumstances.
Energy-efficient lighting has been with us for some time in many public buildings. Only in the past few years, however, has it been available in any variety to the domestic market. The Bill is designed to encourage its further use in the following ways: first, building regulations administered by local authorities would include a requirement for all new domestic buildings and extensions to existing ones to be fitted with energy-efficient lighting where practical; secondly, it would allow local authorities to extend the use of the home energy efficiency scheme to include the purchase of such lighting; thirdly, it would encourage loans from the social fund available to people on income support to be used for such lighting as well.
The positive effect on the environment if energy-efficient lighting is used in people's homes is dramatic. If one energy-efficient light were fitted per household in the United Kingdom, the total number of lights would be 22 million. We could save 1,320 MW of electricity, which is
154
the equivalent of the output of one large coal-fired or oil-fired power station. If such a station were shut down, our CO2 emissions would be reduced by 1.3 million tonnes per year. There would also be substantial reductions in the emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.
The effect on people's pockets of energy-efficient lighting being used in their homes is even more dramatic. While an energy-efficient light costs between £6 and £14, compared with 50p for an ordinary light, it lasts eight times longer than an ordinary bulb and is five times more efficient. That would mean a saving in running costs of more than £10 a year if a 100 watt light were replaced by its energy-efficient equivalent. Even taking into account the difference in cost of the two lights, there is still a saving of more than £4 per bulb in the first year. That means that, for an average single person's electricity bill of £200, the purchase of four energy-efficient lights more than offsets the extra cost of VAT on electricity and, over a period of five years, saves such a person £100.
The message behind the Bill is simple. I want the Government to recognise the advantages to their energy-efficiency programme and their wider environmental objectives of encouraging and promoting the increased use of energy-efficient lighting.
I also want individuals to recognise that, regardless of any persuading by the Government, it is in their own interests to use energy-efficient lighting. Indeed, rather than paying large sums up front to electricity companies to avoid paying VAT, people can pay less on energy-efficient lighting, pay the VAT and still show an appreciable saving in their energy costs. At the very least, when an ordinary light next fails in people's houses, they should seriously consider buying an energy-efficient one.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. A.J. Beith, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Roy Thomason, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Harold Elletson.

ENERGY CONSERVATION (LIGHTING)
Mr. Keith Mans accordingly presented a Bill to promote more efficient lighting and the consequent beneficial effects on the environment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
Orders of the Day
  Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New clause 1

  POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION TO THE NEW TEST OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transition to the test of incapacity for work provided for by sections 5 and 6 above.
  Nothing in the following provisions of this section shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power.
  (2) In this section—

  "commencement" means the commencement of those sections; and

  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.

  (3) Regulations under this section may provide—

  (a) that days of incapacity for work before commencement, and such other days as may be prescribed, shall be taken into account for the purposes of section 171B(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (period after which the all work test applies);

  (b) that a person's continued enjoyment after commencement of any allowance or other advantage under any provision for the purposes of which Part XIIA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 applies shall, except as may be prescribed, be subject to satisfying the test of incapacity for work under that Part; and

  (c) for the determination in accordance with that Part of the question whether the person is incapable of work.

  (4) Section 175(2) to (4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (general provisions as to regulations and orders) apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations.
  (5) For the period of three years from Royal Assent a statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
  (6) A statutory instrument—

  (a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions)
  any regulations made under this section, and

  (b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

  shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Burt.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
  Mr. Burt: This afternoon and this evening we should complete the Commons stage of the Bill, which has been considered in Committee. I think that all parties accepted that it was a good Committee, which was speedily completed. We had good debates, and we have a range of issues to discuss today. In Committee there was a certain amount of give and take on both sides, which I am sure will be reflected in our discussions today.
  The new clause and the two amendments grouped with
  156
  it relate to the regulation-making powers for transitional arrangements. There are a number of complex sectors in the Bill that we propose to deal with in regulations, including the new test of incapacity and the transitional arrangements. As a result of new clause 1, there are now three clauses covering the transitional arrangements arising from the Bill. It may be helpful if I explain why.
  Essentially, clause 4 continues to make provision for the main body of regulations concerning the transition from existing sickness and invalidity benefit to the new incapacity benefit. The following provisions introduce the new benefit.
  As currently drafted, clause 11 provides general powers to deal with the preparation for or the coming into force of the Bill. The intention was that subsection (2) would deal with the introduction of the new medical test in areas of social security other than incapacity benefit.
  However, new clause 1 will now deal with the transition from the existing test of incapacity to the new test of incapacity for all benefits other than incapacity benefit. It is intended that it will follow clauses 5 and 6, which introduce the new test of incapacity for work. Regulations under both clause 4 and the new clause will be affirmative resolutions procedure for three years after Royal Assent.
  It is our intention that the powers in the new clause should be capable of being exercised long after the Bill comes into force. The wording in subsection (1) mirrors that of clause 4(1). While, of course, the Government aim to cover every aspect of the transfer to the new test in the first set of regulations, experience has shown that we do not always anticipate every eventuality. We therefore need a power that does not restrict its exercise to the coming into force of the Bill.
  Clause 11, as amended by amendments 15 and 16, comes towards the end of the Bill and provides a general power to make transition regulations which will be negative procedure—for example, amending existing regulations on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit.
  In Committee, hon. Members expressed concern about the breadth of the powers in the Bill to make regulations. As I have already explained, the purpose of new clause 1 is to restrict the power to make regulations for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work in other benefits, separating this power from the general power to make regulations in clause 11.
  Although clause 11 will still contain general powers, amendment 15 prevents its application where regulations should properly have been drafted under the specific powers contained in clause 4 and new clause 1.
  New subsection (5) gives effect to the main difference between the powers set out in clause 11(2) and that in new clause 1; it sets out that the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution for three years from the date of Royal Assent. That provision mirrors my commitment in Committee to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and brings the power into line with other regulation-making powers which are the subject of later Government amendments.
  Transitional arrangements are often complex. We need to ensure that powers are drawn widely enough so that the regulations deal adequately and fairly with the wide variety of individual circumstances. However, the Government recognise the legitimate concern of Parliament that powers should not be too broadly drawn. Therefore, the purpose of

  157
  new clause 1 is to separate it from the general power in clause 11 and to make its exercise subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: It is ironic that Government new clause 1 deals with yet more powers to bring in yet more regulations. We have complained bitterly throughout the progress of the Bill —from Second Reading, through Committee Stage and now on Report and Third Reading. It is about time that the Government introduced primary legislation properly amendable by the House, instead of sneaking in new legislation through the back door by regulation.
  We are confronted again with the Government's failure properly to consider the matters before us. This afternoon, they are seeking extra powers to introduce regulations, which, it should be stressed, are unamendable.
  Mr. Burt: You asked for them.
  Mr. Bradley: No, we did not. We asked that the Government introduce the Bill by primary legislation, enabling to us amend it, and for proper and thorough-going debate and proper recognition by the House about its effects. Yet again, they have failed. I believe that the way they are introducing the legislation is an abuse of Parliament.
  As I stressed, and as the Minister said, the new clause covers transitional arrangements. He has admitted that transitional arrangements between the current arrangements for invalidity benefit and the new incapacity benefit are particularly complicated.
  When we were debating transitional arrangements in Committee, we flagged up potential problems with the transitional arrangements. The Government agreed that they were complicated, but we expected them to give due consideration to the issues we would raise, and table proper amendments on Report so that the House could be clear on how the transitional arrangements would work in practise.
  Instead, they are using the device of regulation, because they have not thoroughly thought through the implications, and they hope that, by the time they introduce the regulations, they will have sorted out the problems. But I warn the Minister that we have bitter experience of a recent piece of legislation—as does the Minister; I hate to mention the Child Support Agency so soon—where ill thought out legislation means that the Government must table hurried amendments and changes to regulations. They still do not understand their full implications.
  The Minister introduced changes in the arrangements for collection of maintenance by the CSA. It has now been realised that, because of those changes, many mothers will lose on their family credit, because family credit is not reassessed for six months. Under the current arrangements, there will be a delay before their family credit is reassessed. Many mothers could lose up to £50 a week because of the phasing in of the maintenance payments and the reassessment of family credit not flowing from that new arrangement.
  The Government have not thought through the implication of the welcome change of phasing in of maintenance, and have not recognised the implications of that elsewhere in the system—for example, on family credit. I hope that the Minister will quickly introduce new
  158
  changes to the proposals to ensure that family credit is reassessed immediately, so that mothers do not lose and are not further penalised by the phasing in of maintenance.
  I see that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, and I welcome that. I hope that he will carefully consider that point on the CSA. I do not wish to pursue it, because that is not the business before us: I merely use it as an example to show that, if one introduces regulations that are hurriedly conceived and ill thought out, one stores up future difficulties for the Government in the implementation of the legislation.
  The new clause is welcome, because the Government have introduced the concession they promised in Committee—that the affirmative resolution will apply for these new regulations. That is clearly to be welcomed, but it seems to be one of the few concessions to have been introduced on Report.
  I believe that the way in which the Bill has been handled, and the speed with which it has been brought out of Committee, has not allowed proper scrutiny of our deliberations in Committee or an opportunity for the Opposition fully to appreciate the implications of some of the concessions that were made. The Government's failure to table any amendments until late on Friday afternoon allows only limited time for the Opposition to consider our position and table our own amendments.
  In Committee, the Government made a series of concessions, and we shall question the Government on them. There are difficulties because of the nature of the proposed legislation. There is little on the face of the Bill —for example, the medical test, the definition of incapacity, and the whole way in which the medical test in relationship to key groups of people will operate in practice are not there. There are difficulties anyway, but it is equally awkward when the Government are not prepared to table specific amendments to the proposed legislation to set out clearly the intentions in some of the concessions that have been made.
  Let me ask the Government a specific question. I hope that they will not suggest the use of alternative regulations, but will consider the matter in the spirit of the regulatory nature of the legislation.
  In Committee, when we discussed amendments Nos. 17 and 18 to clause 1, we had an interesting debate about the fast-tracking of people with terminal illnesses or prescribed conditions, and those in receipt of the higher rate of the care component of disability living allowance, to the higher rate of incapacity benefit—without their having to wait a whole year for full payment. In a sense, we are talking about transitional arrangements in those proposals and in the regulations.
  On 8 February, in Committee, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said:
  "I will indicate the cost of the two amendments, although in this particular case I shall not argue that the costs are such that they should be a compelling factor in deciding the outcome of this debate … I shall certainly give careful consideration to the points that were made this morning".—[Official Report,Standing Committee E, 8 February 1994; c. 71–3.]
  Will the Minister give us some idea of how the terminally ill and those with prescribed conditions can be fast-tracked through to the higher rate of incapacity benefit?
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. I am sure that all hon. Members have come across cases that should have been dealt with by that fast track system but have not, and which have not

  159
  been resolved before the tragic deaths of the individuals concerned. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Government have done enough research to be sure that they understand the problems? Can we now be certain that those problems will not arise in future?
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a key issue. He has raised it before, as have many more of my hon. Friends in regard to constituency cases: they have felt that the Government have not addressed the issue properly.
  In Committee, we were encouraged by the fact that the Government clearly understood the issue. We were led to believe that they would present specific proposals on Report to deal with the problems, and we are disappointed that they have not. They may intend to include such arrangements in the regulations. As I keep saying, without having the regulations before us, we find it difficult to make a judgment about the extent of the Government's commitment.
  I hope that the Minister will give particular consideration to this issue, which is causing so much anxiety to my hon. Friends' constituents and others throughout the country. We are dealing with a specific group of people. The Minister was sympathetic in Committee; I hope that, although the Government have failed to table an appropriate amendment at this stage, they will now give us some comfort by recognising the problem that has been raised. I hope that they will not renege on the concession they made in Committee, when we were told that that problem would be specifically addressed.
  I do not wish to delay the House. As the new clause and amendments give the Government yet more powers to introduce more amendments later by means of regulations, we shall have to wait for those regulations, and in the best way possible—by means of the parliamentary process—debate them at that stage. Let me stress again that we are greatly disappointed that the Government are to act in this way, and that the new clause and amendments do not contain the substance that we would expect at this stage of our deliberations.
  After the Bill completes its passage tonight, the other place may well take up the points that we have made, and may want to ask some serious questions about the way in which the Government choose to introduce measures through the back door by means of regulation rather than through primary legislation. Primary legislation is the traditional method; it is much more sensible and satisfactory, and, I suggest, is of much more benefit to the public, because it allows a clear understanding of the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill is important because it has no precedent—I challenge anyone to produce one. There is no precedent in the history of the British social security system for abolishing a long-term contributory benefit. Many benefits have been amended or changed, but this is the first time in the century-long history of the British social security system that a contributory benefit has been abolished.
  4 pm
  Let us consider the arrogant detail of the new clause that we are being asked to accept. It amounts to a dictator's charter. It states:
  160
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to him to be necessary"—
  not as appears to Parliament or to the nation but as appears to him to be necessary—
  "or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transition to the test of incapacity for work provided for by sections 5 and 6 above."
  The new clause would give the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State absolute powers. It continues:
  "Nothing in the … provisions of this section shall be construed as restricting the generality of that power."
  There can be few examples in legislation of a Government seeking total power in such a way.
  The Government have presented the new clause as a concession. The fact that the affirmative resolution procedure is to be used is something of a concession, but we are greatly worried and, about a fortnight ago, I took up with the Leader of the House in an oral question the way in which an unelected state is developing. The Government are elected once every five years and this Government happened to persuade the majority of people in England —only in England—that they are popular on a specific day, but then things changed.
  There was a test of public opinion in Wales at the weekend. The Conservative party is for a little while the second party in Wales while the Labour party has 60 per cent. of the support. That is an extraordinary position. The rest of the support is scattered among the other four main parties. A similar situation exists in Scotland where the Government are at their lowest ebb but still have the barefaced cheek to introduce legislation that damages all the people, including those in Scotland and Wales who have not elected them.
  Dyw hi ddim yn bosib i mi siarad fy iaith fy hun yn y senedd dyna un o'r problemau sydd gennyf yn y Tg—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me and let me know what that means.
  Mr. Flynn: I was pointing out, Madam Speaker, that it is not possible for me to speak in both the languages of Wales in this House in spite of the fact that this is the only Parliament that Wales has at the moment. We have just celebrated St. David's day, but the debate on Welsh affairs was held on St. Winwaloe's day—we could not have even that small concession.
  As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I can say that anger about the elective dictatorship that is running Wales is growing by the day. There was a magnificent rally at the weekend in which the people of Wales—people of many parties—spoke with one voice to demand our own Parliament. The reason why they did so is specifically Bills such as this. We have a Government we did not elect but who rule us by quango. We have a Secretary of State who is an alien in Welsh society.
  The only justification for the clause and for the Bill that the Government have offered is that some people are receiving invalidity benefit although they are not genuinely incapable of work. We know the reasons for that belief and for the present situation. Just before the general election in 1987, all of us noticed that there was a sudden relaxation of the rules that are generally applied to the availability of invalidity benefit. It appeared that larger numbers of people were receiving it.
  That was for reasons not unconnected with the general election, which was fast approaching. There was desperation among Conservatives that they would be rejected because of the enormous unemployment and it

  161
  was far better for them to turn a blind eye to the growing numbers of people on invalidity benefit than have them classified as unemployed. The unemployment figures were already mushrooming out of control, so that there were 30 fiddles of the unemployment statistics and almost as many of the employment statistics.
  One of the main industries in my constituency produces Government figures in the Central Statistical Office. The work of those people is important. Their only function in life is to produce statistics that are objective and are of value and they feel great resentment when they see the results of their professional work being prostituted by the Government and presented in a wholly dishonest way. The figures are presented in such a way that they are not meant to provide information on which the Government and others can make decisions but which can only serve the interests of the majority party.
  Even with all the groups that are taken off the unemployment register to keep down those figures, we still have the nonsense of the employment figures. People are counted several times. If someone is working as a part-time cleaner in the House—the number is about to be reduced from 89 to 56—has another job in the afternoon, such as the many who work at St. Thomas's, and has a job at the weekend, that person is counted three times. She is three people according to the employment figures. We know that 750,000 people are counted twice in the employment figures. The position is entirely misleading and wildly inaccurate.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, by the same token, there are a number of people who are working but who are still on the unemployment register?
  Mr. Flynn: I am sure that that occurs. Of course there is abuse in any system, but the Government have had 15 years in which to put the system right. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that figure is as high as 750,000, he is entirely wrong. There is a black economy, which is fuelled at the moment by the Government's stupidity—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) led the hon. Gentleman down the wrong path with his question. I am sure that we can return to the Government new clause.
  Mr. Flynn: I am sorry that I was diverted by the blandishments of the hon. Gentleman—and not for the first time. I shall not stray again.
  The other reason for the increase in the potential number of people on incapacity benefit was the large number of people who were at retirement and who decided to continue on invalidity benefit, rather than claim the state pension, because of the advantage that it was not taxable. The Government have turned their back on that for a long time.
  It is hard to understand how that situation justifies a Bill in which the Government are trying to take away the entitlement to benefit from people who are incapable of work. The Bill does that in a number of ways. It extends from six to 12 months the period for which short-term benefit is paid, resulting in a massive loss of income during the second six months. It abolishes the earnings-related
  162
  additional benefit for which people paid contributions between 1978 and 1991, and it introduces new tests of incapacity which will deny benefit to people who, in some cases, have rightly been treated as incapable of work for many years.
  The new clause shows us what is happening in the Government's mind—if "mind" is not too large and all-embracing a word for the irrational ideological trash that comes from them. The Government are a group of ideologues introducing a series of what could be regarded as Treasury support measures—measures that have nothing whatever to do with social security.
  The Child Support Agency has rightly been dubbed the Treasury support agency. It is ill thought out and has caused enormous damage. People have even lost their lives, as suicides have been attributed to the nonsense and excesses of the legislation. In a parliamentary answer I was told that 90 per cent. of the money that the agency will receive is likely to end up in the Treasury, not with custodial parents.
  I do not wish to detain the House too long on the new clause, but it is indicative of the spirit of the whole Bill, and of a Government who wish to get out of a financial hole that they have dug for themselves, and who are doing so at the expense of the weakest in society.
  Mr. Pike: I shall make a few brief comments, one of which arises from my earlier intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) rightly referred to the problem of fast tracking. We have reached Report, yet we are still not really sure whether the Government will deliver because, as so often happens, we are debating a Bill that does not include the regulations that will go with it.
  We are being asked to take in good faith something that was said in Committee, so I hope that the Minister will be able to say positively that the Government recognise that there is still a problem regarding fast tracking and still the need to expedite the resolution of any benefit entitlement that people who are terminally ill may have. I hope that the Minister will spell out clearly the fact that although there is no solution in the provisions before us today, one will be included in the regulations.
  With regard to the new clause, the tests and the transitional arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, and as we all know, the principal objective of the Bill is to save money and to reduce the number of people eligible for invalidity benefit. Even the Government have not tried to hide that fact. We all know that decisions on invalidity benefit involve deciding whether people are capable of performing their own work and if not, whether they are incapable of all work or only of certain types of work. That causes tremendous difficulty for people who have specific jobs in which they may have worked for a long time, but who have become incapable of performing that work.
  A skilled engineer came to my advice bureau on Saturday. His hand had been seriously injured at work and he was no longer able to perform the work of a skilled engineer, so he has been on invalidity benefit. First, he had been found to be capable of work, although incapable of working in his own job, but then his case went for review and he has now been told that he is capable of any work. We think that the provisions for the new tests will involve that type of move regarding present entitlement to invalidity benefit.

  163
  The Minister was trying to make it look as though the Government would protect people by saying that if there were any mistakes that could not be dealt with, the transitional arrangements would mean that they could be altered within three years by regulation and statutory instrument, as specified in the new clause. The Minister made it sound as though the Government would try to do that in the interests of the public at large, but my hon. Friend the Member for Withington was nearer the mark.
  He fears, as I do, that the transitional arrangements are the Government's attempt not to improve the situation but to tie it up because they may not have yet cut out everything that they want to cut out. Therefore, they are giving themselves draconian powers within the transitional arrangements further to turn the screws during the next three years with minimal debate, thereby saving more money for the Treasury and disqualifying more people.
  Mr. Burt indicated dissent.
  Mr. Pike: I see that the Under-Secretary is shaking his head. I hope that he will also say that my comments are totally unjustified. If that is what he says, I hope that when he comes to an election in two or three years' time, he is able to stand up and say that I was wrong and he was right. I fear that I will be right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Withington and I will be able to tell the Government that we were right to fear what they were doing. The Government have tightened the screws and screwed more people out of their ability to get this new benefit.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) opened with a breathtaking argument. We freely gave a concession in Committee by changing the regulations from negative to affirmative—a change that he welcomed at the time—but he then returned to his attack on the regulations altogether. I simply want him to know that I found it breathtaking.
  Mr. Bradley: Can I clarify the position? We welcomed the concession that they should be affirmative, not negative, regulations. We certainly did not welcome the fact that the Government are introducing even more regulations that need affirmative resolution.
  Mr. Burt: That was an argument that we had consistently throughout the Committee, and I should reiterate the point that I made then. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was right in the first part of his remarks, which he directed at the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that we are putting the regulations through to give us the flexibility that we need to deal with such a complex matter, recognising that we might not include everything for the sake of people covered by the first set of regulations. We are giving ourselves that room and flexibility.
  There has been an argument about whether we overuse that power. We do not believe that we overuse it—that is the reason why we are doing it this way. The hon. Member for Burnley was right to ask what I would be saying in three years' time. At that time, I firmly believed that I should be able to reiterate the assurance that I am giving today. I hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Withington about the regulations will be satisfied by that time.
  We spent a total of 34 hours in Committee, with 13
  164
  sittings. We had some good scrutiny there. We do not believe that we have sought additional power. As I said, the arrangements are to give effect to the agreement to make the regulations affirmative for three years. Transitional arrangements are usually dealt with in regulations for the ease of the House and to give us flexibility.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West made an interesting contribution. He raised a number of matters relating to Second Reading and Third Reading but touched marginally on the amendment before us now. As always, I enjoyed his contribution. I am only sorry that I did not understand all the Welsh—I wish that I had.
  The hon. Members for Withington and for Burnley both made a substantial point about linking rules and treatment of the terminally ill. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to consider a number of specific issues such as those. He warned the Committee that some of the issues were complex and would take time to explore. Hon. Members may be disappointed but that consideration is not yet complete. I can, however, reiterate my right hon. Friend's commitment to continue to give
  Mr. Bradley: May I clarify the range of the Government's thinking on this point? In Committee, we talked about the terminally ill, people with prescribed conditions and people on the higher rate of component for DLA. Can the Minister give an assurance that each of those areas is being addressed and not only the terminally ill, although clearly they are crucial within that grouping?
  Mr. Burt: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I also remind the House that, should amendments to the Bill be required, there will be a suitable opportunity to move them during the debate in another place. This House would then have the opportunity to examine the issues again at consideration.
  I hope that I have been helpful in answer to the short debate on the new clause, which I hope will now be able to form part of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  REPORT TO PARLIAMENT: MEDICAL TEST
  'The Secretary of State shall, before 30th September 1996, lay before each House of Parliament a report on the operation of the test of incapacity for work under Part XIIA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, which shall (among such other information as he may think fit) include—

  (a) an account of the number of people who attended a medical examination under that part of that Act and a description of the type of such examination;

  (b) an account of the number of people who, having attended such an examination were determined as incapable of work;

  (c) an account of the number of people who having attended such an examination were determined as capable of work;

  (d) an account of the reasons for determinations of capacity for work;

  (e) an assessment of the medical test by such persons whom the Secretary of State may choose'.—[Mr. Bradley.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Bradley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 4—Annual Report by Secretary of State: appeals—

  165
  'The Secretary of State shall, before 1st April each year after the commencement of this Act, lay before Parliament a report concerning appeals against determinations that a person is capable of work, which shall, among such other matters as he may think fit, for each area of the Benefits Agency Medical Service—

  (a) specify the number of occasions on which an appeal was heard more than ten days after it was made, and the average time between the making and the hearing of the appeal;

  (b) summarise the outcome of all appeals;

  (c) report on the extent to which medical or other evidence influencing the outcome of an appeal;

  (d) summarise the reasons for any failure by a claimant to attend a hearing; and

  (e) report on the use made by claimants of representations at an appeal.'.—

  Amendment No. 22, in clause 5, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
  '(c) defining the way in which relevant evidence or information submitted by that person or by any medical practitioner or professional health worker will be used during the assessment'.
  Amendment No. 24, in clause 6, page 13, line 17, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—
  '(4) When a social security tribunal is to determine an appeal concerning a determination that a claimant was capable of work the tribunal shall sit with the claimants' general practitioner,'.
  Amendment No. 25, in page 13, leave out lines 18 to 26 and insert—
  'for appeals against determinations that a person is capable of work to be heard by a tribunal constituted under section 42 of this Act.'.
  Amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 26, at end insert—
  '(5) When a claimant has made an appeal to a social security tribunal concerning a determination that he was capable of work—

  (a) the tribunal shall hear the appeal within ten working days of the appeal being made; and

  (b) the claimant may be accompanied at the hearing by any person whom he nominates.'.

  Mr. Bradley: This substantial group of amendments goes right to the heart of the Labour party's opposition to the Bill, and it shows why we have consistently and rigorously opposed the Bill on Second Reading and throughout Committee, and why we will continue to do so.
  The clear purpose of the legislation is that the Department of Social Security must make its contribution to the cuts in public expenditure because of the Government's economic mismanagement. The £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement overspend is being addressed by the Government, and the Department of Social Security has looked at the people in the greatest need to try to make its contribution. It is clear that the legislation is Treasury-led, and its purpose is to make substantial cuts in the amount of money available to disabled people.
  By the Government's own admission, they expect to save £550 million in 1995–1996 and a staggering £1,450 million in the following year. There can be no greater testimony to the fact that this is about saving money, rather than about a rational and careful replanning of benefits to meet the real needs of disabled people. Those benefits must be made in conjunction with a co-ordinated and coherent policy by the Government to try to enable people with disabilities who are able to return to work to do so. Those who cannot return to work should receive an adequate and proper level of income to meet their needs and those of their family.
  166
  We have made much this afternoon of the fact that the Government are introducing this measure by regulation, rather than by primary legislation. The purpose of new clause 3 is to enable there to be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the medical test, which is a vital element of the new legislation. It is a disgrace that the medical test on which all of the decisions are to be made about whether a person is eligible for the new benefit is not before the House as we debate the legislation. The test does not form part of the Bill, and it will be brought forward at a later stage by regulation.
  It is a great abuse of Parliament that the Opposition are not able to examine properly today the details of the medical test, and that we must wait several months before that test is available for scrutiny through regulation. When it is brought forward, there will be no opportunity for the Opposition to amend the test, and we must accept it or reject it on regulation. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the crucial matter of determining whether a person with disabilities is able to work.
  The purpose of new clause 3 is to force the Government to produce a report to Parliament about the way in which the medical test will operate in practice. That report is crucial to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny and understanding of the way in which the medical test will operate.
  The report is also crucial because of our general views, which we explored in detail in Committee, on how the Government are developing the medical test. The process is a consultation sham. It is outrageous that a Bill entitled the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill does not contain a definition of incapacity for work.
  The medical test is intended to exclude people rather than make them eligible for incapacity benefit. A test of incapacity based on functional limitations alone is inadequate, unfair and unworkable, and the way in which it will be used for new claimants, compared with people in receipt of invalidity benefit, will be inequitable.
  If one wants to determine how the test will work in practice, the type of work that someone can reasonably be expected to do must be included in the Bill, but it contains no definition of the work that will apply to the test.
  Our first major criticism, and the reason why a report to Parliament on medical tests is so vital, is that the way in which the test is being developed has no validity. We welcomed the explanation that medical officers from the Department of Social Security gave about how the test has been developed, but that explanation did not comfort us that the outcome of the final deliberations will be a test that has any relevance to determining whether people are able to work.
  As we have stated before, it is to say the least very unsatisfactory that the so-called panel of experts who will draw up the medical test have to remain secret from the public, and that their deliberations will take place behind closed doors. It is also unsatisfactory that the Government are not prepared to release the names of the people who are devising the test on behalf of disabled people until after the process has been completed.
  A crucial element of new clause 3 is that, when a report is prepared after the medical assessments have been scrutinised, it will be passed to the group of experts for their views. It is important that they should continue to have a role once they have gone public and that they should have some voice in the way in which the test operates.

  167
  We are concerned about the fact that it is not clear how the final test will be validated by the group of experts. In Committee, we sought clarification of whether the test will be based on a consensus model, the Government will take views on the test and impose their final solution on the group of experts—regardless of whether they agree—or there will be room for public dissent. We would welcome an explanation from the Government.
  I am sure that all my hon. Friends, and Conservative Members, will have received briefing after briefing. I have here a sample of those that I have received from organisations throughout the country. Those organisations carefully analysed the consultation document that the Government published, and the briefings explain why they are so critical of the Government's attempt to introduce a purely functional test that can be applied to the world of work for people with disabilities.
  Those bodies also assert very strongly that they have been asked to take part in consultations on a document that changed almost before the ink on the first draft was dry. The whole exercise is such a mutant creature, such a changing phenomenon, that it is not clear at what point the final word will be said.
  We welcome the Government's undertaking in Committee that, following completion in August of the final deliberations on the medical test, the form of the new test will be published, and that further public consultation on the outcome of the deliberations will be allowed. I hope that, in the context of this new clause, the Government will be able to assure us that they do indeed intend to engage in that process. There must be new and full consultation when the new medical test has finally been devised.
  4.30 pm
  We are greatly concerned at the fact that, in the absence of a definition in the Bill, it is difficult— almost impossible — to debate incapacity for work. On this ground also, the new clause is important. We are told that a full definition will be provided in regulations. Without knowing how the Government intend to use the medical test in practice, it is very difficult to look forward to a clear understanding of the relationship between the medical test and the work situation. The Bill itself should contain a proper definition so that we might have an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
  Given the consultation document's criticism that case law has
  "broadened and blurred incapacity beyond its original meaning",
  and given that part of the thrust of the Government's argument seems to be that they need to tighten up the way in which invalidity benefit is currently administered, it is surprising that a precise definition has not been provided.
  A clear definition in statute law might have gone some way towards resolving any supposed problems of misinterpretation of the original intention. If the Government had addressed their mind to that point, all the other proposed changes in the administration of invalidity benefit might have fallen away, and it might have been seen as inappropriate to introduce this new benefit. This can only give additional thrust to the theory that the main purpose of the Bill is to cut public expenditure rather than to focus benefit effectively on people with disabilities.
  There is little evidence that the only way properly to target—that is the Government's terminology; they used the word "focus" in Committee; we believe that the proper word is "cut"—invalidity benefit is to set about this
  168
  elaborate new procedure. We believe very strongly—no one has suggested otherwise at any stage of debate on the Bill—that not every person in receipt of invalidity benefit is a genuine case.
  It would be absurd to make such a suggestion. However, the dismantling of the whole system and the introduction of entirely new procedures—in particular, the new functional medical test—does not support the Government's contention that they are trying to help disabled people rather than to take essential benefits from them.
  If the Government's purpose is genuinely to focus invalidity benefit, why will people who pass the medical test receive benefit at a lower rate? If the purpose is simply to tighten up the rules and ensure that the medical test is properly applied, why will there be a cut in the amount of money available to people with disabilities who pass the test?
  This is a crucial question, which the Government must answer. They must tell the public why, if they are simply trying—in their terms—to wean people off invalidity benefit, those who pass will receive benefit at a lower rate.
  So new clause 3 is intended to bring a report forward on the medical test, because we believe that the test of functional limitation is inadequate, unfair and unworkable. As a tool for assessing incapacity, the test is inadequate. The Government have based their research on the previous Office of Population Censuses and Surveys scales, which were defined very much for research purposes and not for the purpose to which they are now being applied. We believe strongly that other factors, and not just functional limitation, must be taken into account when using the medical test.
  Not only must we look at the individual's medical condition and disability; we must also assess the effect of their condition on their ability to carry out a range of social and functional activities, including the ability to travel to work, and their capacity to sustain functional and social activities within the specific demands and constraints of the workplace. A study undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute suggests that four criteria are important in the assessment of work capacity—age, skills, the accessibility of the job and discrimination by employers—and that a much wider test than the purely functional one proposed by the Government must be applied.
  The test, we believe, will produce unfair results. We were encouraged to a certain extent by the fact that now included in the medical test will be open-ended questions for applicants to answer, to explain some of the limitations imposed by their incapacity. But, by their very nature, open-ended questionnaires are difficult to analyse, and it will be hard to produce consistency of treatment as between claimants.
  As anyone who has undertaken social research knows, the interpretation of open-ended questions and their answers is extremely difficult. So there will be great differences in treatment, not only within Department of Social Security offices dealing with these matters, but between offices throughout the country. That is the importance of the new clause—that a report will be presented to Parliament so that we can look at the analysis to ensure fairness and equality of treatment throughout the country.
  We are also concerned that any functional medical test will fail to take into proper account what has been mentioned in many of the briefings that we have received

  169
  on this from organisations such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Arthritis Care and others: fluctuating conditions whereby people's ability to work varies from day to day, or even situations in which, as a result of undertaking some task at work on a particular day, they may be prevented from doing it the following day. We are also concerned that the functional test arrangement will not properly reflect the condition of people suffering from long-term debilitating illnesses such as myalgic encephalomyelitis.
  We are concerned about people whose disabilities are invisible, particularly those with chronic pain, who often experience difficulty in convincing others that their pain is real. There is a great deal of research on this point, and the sensitivity with which the medical test is applied will be crucial in ensuring that people who genuinely can or cannot work are properly and uniformly assessed. We have no confidence, from the way the test is currently being organised, that it will lead to that conclusion.
  Finally, we are concerned about people who have "managed" their disability through the use of medication and so on, but who have great difficulty in undertaking tasks to which the test may be applied. There are difficulties not only in the way in which the medical test will be applied to people's current occupation, but in the way in which it will be applied to all work.
  We are very worried that the all-work test will not reflect the relationship between the ability of the individual, through the functional medical test, and the real work opportunities for disabled people. We are worried that that will not be applied in a way that will lead them into real employment because, by the Government's admission, they expect 200,000 people who would currently claim invalidity benefit not to receive the new incapacity benefit, but to end up as unemployed.
  That is the reverse of the Government's previous policy, by which they sought to reduce unemployment by pushing people into any benefit they could find that was not unemployment benefit. Invalidity benefit was one such benefit that the Department of Social Security found, but it now wants to reverse that trend and to force people on to the dole queue rather than giving them a proper level of benefit.
  The other part of the group of amendments which is crucial aims to link the medical test to the appeals procedure. In Committee, we had some debate about the appeal procedure, but by our proposed new clause 4 we are strengthening the deliberation and looking towards the Government to give further comment and consideration to the way in which the appeals procedure will work in practice.
  The mechanism which we are employing is the presentation of an annual report to Parliament so that we can give proper scrutiny to the way in which the appeals procedure operates. Linked to that appeals procedure is the role of the general practitioner and of medical and other professional advisers in the appeals procedure.
  There were some welcome comments in Committee about the way in which the appeals procedure would work. We welcome the points, for example, that appeals could be made to a social security appeal tribunal unless otherwise specified, that the GP will continue to have a role, and that a decision of "fit to work" reached by the Benefits Agency medical service will be accepted by the Employment Service, so that people will not fail tests by both agencies
  170
  and fail to qualify for any benefit. Those points were welcome, but we need much greater clarification of the way in which the appeal procedure will operate.
  I know that the Minister said in Committee that further thought and discussion about the appeals procedure were continuing, but it is clear that we need to flag up some of our anxieties even more firmly.
  One issue which was mentioned to us since we debated the Bill in Committee and which is important to many organisations representing disabled people, is the current delays in the hearing of appeals—the time that it is taking for decisions to be made. As a result of what we believe to be the more stringent nature of the new medical test—I emphasise that we cannot say for certain the way in which it will operate, because it is not before us to debate—and the arbitrary way in which we believe that it may be applied, not only to current work patterns but to all work employment, it is essential that the Government provide some certainty about the length of time that they would expect the appeals to take.
  There will be a growing number of appeals. We must ensure that the Government will commit the resources to ensure that the appeals procedure is effective, and that the time scale in which claimants can expect a decision to be made is satisfactory. It must be especially satisfactory because of the structure of the new benefit. There is a change in rates at 28 weeks. Up to 28 weeks, a lower rate of benefit will be paid than after 28 weeks. Claimants will not qualify for the full rate of benefit until after 52 weeks. Therefore, we must be especially sure that the appeals procedure does not flow over that timespan, and that people do not lose on changing rates of benefit in that time.
  Therefore, we very much welcome some consideration and further comment by the Government about the way in which the procedure will work, what resources will be provided and what the cost of those resources will be to the Government, to ensure that a satisfactory procedure is put into place.
  4.45 pm
  What is crucial, as a result of the much more limited nature of the medical test, is the way in which the reports of medical officers, general practitioners and other medical professionals will be dealt with at the appeals stage. The Government are setting about a system which limits the role of the GP at the initial point of assessment. GPs will be allowed to produce their medical evidence on the condition of the claimant, but will not be allowed to give an assessment about the way in which that condition relates to the claimant's ability to work—or, if the GP chooses to do so, I suspect that that information will be ignored.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have a constituent who received support from his general practitioner, who was told by the Department's doctor that he was perfectly fit to work and then had three subsequent different examinations by different doctors, all of whom said that he was incapable of working.
  This morning, I received a letter—not from Monsieur Bichard, but from the personnel director of the agency, which I thought was a new development—which said cheerfully, "Yes; it is perfectly true that it did take 18 months. He has now got all the money back, and how inconvenient." There was not even a word of apology. Does my hon. Friend think that there will be a great deal more of that in future?
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the way in which the appeals procedure currently operates. Interestingly, evidence from agencies such as citizens advice bureaux up and down the country shows that, when a case has gone to appeal, ultimately the evidence that was given by the GP is upheld at appeal. I therefore suspect that we shall get into more and far more elaborate appeals, which will take an enormous amount of time, effort and cost, and which will fall back very much on the original assessment that may have been undertaken by the GP.
  No one suggests that the current situation is perfect; no one suggests that all GPs are happy with the current arrangements; but there is a strong feeling that, if GPs were given far greater guidance, better training and help in preparing the reports for the Department of Social Security, far fewer people might have had to go to appeal and then fall back on the GPs having to draw up new reports—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Or if they did not know anything about medicine, that would help, too.
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  We seek greater clarification of the role that GPs and other medical officers and assessments will play, and of the stage at which they will participate. It is feared that this will give rise to a massive number of discontented claimants who feel that they have been harshly treated by the medical test or its harsh interpretation.
  The test has limitations because of its functional elements in relating the multitude of different conditions, illnesses and disabilities that people have. It is difficult to fix those into a set of procedures and to make a one-off determination about whether people are capable or incapable of work. I believe that it will cause great distress and anxiety.
  I feel that the Government have not understood the threshold that they are trying to determine between capacity and incapacity for work. We are worried—because we have evidence of it throughout the changes that have been made to the social security system—that the guiding force in all the decisions will be the Treasury. Under the social fund, for example, people with exactly the same needs and circumstances are treated totally differently, depending on what time of the year they walk through the door.
  Although the Government will deny it, there is a fear that, if the medical test, however it is devised, does not limit the number of claimants to the amount of money which the Government expect the benefit to cost—even if the amount is not set in concrete—they will immediately change the threshold and the weighting of factors within the test to limit even further the opportunity for disabled people to be eligible for the new incapacity benefit.
  As all Government policy at the current time seems to be governed by that overriding Treasury figure, which is designed to force down public sector borrowing, but which causes those with greatest need to suffer as a result, that must cloud our judgment on all the Government's decisions.
  It is important that the new clause should enable proper scrutiny by Parliament of matters that are not contained in the Bill. It is crucial that Parliament be given an
  172
  opportunity to look in detail at how the medical test will operate in practice, and at those who have been granted or denied the new incapacity benefit.
  We need a report that gives a proper analysis, nationwide and region by region, of how the benefit operates in practice. We also need a proper analysis of how the appeals procedure will work in practice. We need evidence and research on how medical reports, GP assessments and the reports of other medical officers and professionals in the medical field are dealt with, to ensure consistency of treatment by claimants throughout the country.
  We also need to ensure that, throughout the whole process, money is not the guiding principle in determining the Government's response to people's genuine claims for incapacity benefit. People must feel confident that Parliament can come to a considered, reasoned and certain decision because the evidence is before us. The evidence is certainly not before us this afternoon.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I hope that the Government will look carefully at the proposals in new clause 3 and the group of amendments. There is a case for having a report to Parliament on the effectiveness of the medical test and I am sure that my right hon. Friends will be willing to reflect on it and consider it positively. I know that they are looking to develop a system that will work humanely and practically.
  The Government have offered us the concept of an objective medical test that contains considerable difficulties. At this stage of legislating, we do not know what the series of objective medical tests will be. We are grateful for the consultative document offered to us, but that itself has been changing, even during the consultation process. It is excellent that no less than 80 experts have been called in from outside the Department to offer their opinions and advice. But I suspect that, even if there were 800 experts, they would still face insurmountable difficulty in developing a satisfactory objective medical test.
  Having said that, I welcome the developments which it is reported are taking place, even at this stage, although, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) suggested, the introduction of additional flexibility may take the test a little further away from objectivity.
  We are contemplating a test not of incapacity for work but of functional incapacity. The purpose of the exercise is to establish objective and universal measures in a series of scores in tests. Will my right hon. Friend persuade me that that is not an impossibility? In assessing capacity or incapacity to work, one must consider the interaction in individual cases of a range of factors. One must consider the impairment or illness, which may be a fluctuating condition, in relation to the work experience and skills of the individual in question; his or her education and training; his or her personal household circumstances; and the work opportunities that may be available to that person.
  The distinction must not be forgotten between "own work" and "all work"—the distinction between the work which the person in question has previously undertaken —and whether the person would be fit for that work or similar work and any other work of which that person may or may not be capable. If we ignore that distinction we shall inevitably get ourselves into considerable difficulties.
  The Department's research makes us well aware of the difficulties that face people over the age of 50 in trying to

  173
  find jobs, and we are all too aware of the reality of discrimination against disabled people in relation to employment, an issue which we shall have a fuller opportunity to debate on Friday.
  I remind the House that the Department of Employment's sponsored research in 1990 found that 6 per cent. of employers candidly and brutally said that they would discriminate against disabled people. Another 25 per cent. of employers admitted that they might discriminate. A Spastics Society study found that 34 out of 94 employers, willing to interview, were not willing to interview a registered disabled applicant with qualifications and experience equal to other applicants. It also found that 53 per cent. of employers use pre-employment health screening. That study by the Spastics Society, entitled "Wasted Opportunities", on the activities of training and enterprise councils in relation to training disabled people, also offers a gloomy account.
  The disabled are three times more likely to be out of work and they are unemployed for longer than non-disabled people. At the beginning of this month, the citizens advice bureaux produced a gloomy dossier detailing instances of discrimination against disabled people.
  Against that background, it is difficult—indeed, impossible—to talk in terms of an objective medical test that would define a person's incapacity for work, because incapacity for work in the real world depends on the circumstances in which someone finds himself or herself and those circumstances may be adverse. So incapacity is not an absolute; it is a relative matter.
  Furthermore, we should think positively in terms of ability rather than disability and of capacity rather than incapacity. The title of the Bill, "Social Security (Incapacity for Work)", is somewhat chilling. Although I realise that it is not intended, I fear that the concept expressed by that title may encourage too negative a spirit when it comes to employing disabled people.
  There is a good case for having a report on the lines proposed in the new clause. If we are to have a report, it should look at a range of relevant measures within the overall policy. I hope that, by the time the Bill has completed its passage, the report will cover a partial incapacity benefit. It seems appropriate that we should have not just a single absolute incapacity benefit but a partial incapacity benefit which would be proportionate to the degree of disability of the person being supported.
  I hope that an amendment of that kind will be instated in the Bill. I know that new clause 5 was not selected for debate today, but there is no reason why it should not be considered in another place, where I am sure those involved in the debate would want to emphasise the value of gradualism and the rehabilitative experience of moving to part-time work, perhaps en route to full-time work. A partial incapacity benefit would be a useful complement to disability working allowance, under which benefit is cut off at a fairly low level of earnings.
  5 pm
  Similarly, I hope that a report would cover more generous linking rules, which we do not have an opportunity to debate today, but which I hope will be introduced into the legislation. The trap created by an eight-week rule is a deterrent to employment. I hope that
  174
  we might move to a two-year linking rule under incapacity benefit parallel to the rule under disability working allowance.
  The Government's strategy surely must be to get people into work. That is good for them and, of course, for the Government's finances, about which the Government are legitimately concerned. Rigid rules and rigid cut-offs are not conducive to that end and will, unquestionably, be insensitive to the variety of circumstances and needs. The formula used by the Benefits Agency medical service must, at the very least, be made flexible.
  I welcome the announcement by my right hon. and hon. Friends that the terminally ill, those on the higher rate care component of disability living allowance, and those on the prescribed list will not be required to undertake the test. I also think that people who are made exempt in that way should be fast tracked on to benefit, but that is a debate for another occasion. We are unable to debate amendments Nos. 17 and 18 because they were not selected. They too may be the subject of a debate in another place.
  As has already been argued, the report should cover the involvement of general practitioners. I cannot bring myself to believe that it is right to suggest that doctors consider that it is beyond the range of their normal responsibilities to play a part in the first assessment. I know that they are to offer an opinion on a rather curtailed basis in the first assessment, but because of some of the factors that I mentioned earlier, and because the personal history and circumstances of each individual should be considered, we should find ways to involve general practitioners as much as possible in the process. I know that many general practitioners would welcome such involvement and recognise it as a normal and proper part of their professional responsibilities.
  We need to know what role general practitioners will play in appeals. My right hon. and hon. Friends have said that GPs will have a role in the appeal process, but it has not yet been made clear what that role should be. A report should cover that aspect of the procedures.
  The report should tell us a good deal about what is happening in appeals. In recent years, the success rate of appeals involving invalidity benefit has risen. I believe that the figure was 21 per cent. in 1979, and 53 per cent. in 1992. A consistent weight of anecdotal evidence on appeals shows that the success rate of appeals has risen yet further since then. I suspect that the search for economies and the administrative guidance prompting benefits officers to be more stringent has perversely led to higher administration costs. In their unsuccessful attempts to weed out a considerable number of "unjustified" claims, they have incurred administrative costs. That has caused difficulties for everyone, both officials and claimants.
  The appeal process has lengthened from 21 weeks in 1986 to 30 weeks in 1992. We should also be concerned that it is possible for a claimant not to receive income during those lengthening periods while they wait for the outcome of an appeal. It would be helpful and proper if the report dealt with that matter as well.
  The purpose of the legislation is, very properly, to ensure that there is no waste in, or abuse of, this part of the benefit system. It also aims to ensure that appropriate support is provided to claimants who are entitled to it, and that such support is provided reliably and quickly. The objective of the legislation should be humanity, not

  175
  parsimony. It is a part of the benefit system through which we acquit ourselves, in part, of our responsibilities to those who are vulnerable and poor.
  There is a good case for having a report laid before Parliament, as the new clause proposes. We are, after all, embarking on an experimental approach that has not yet been fully formulated. For the reasons that I have explained, we cannot yet be confident that it will work. The Benefits Agency medical service will face a massive task. It is estimated that perhaps 600,000 people who currently receive invalidity benefit may have to undergo the test. We will need assurance, therefore, that the procedures and the quality of decision-making are of the necessary standard.
  To have a report would be fair to everyone who is sick and disabled, especially those who are rejected at the medical test. They are entitled, as we all are, to see that the system is performing as it should and that proper standards are defined and are being met.
  Finally, the Government should consider positively the suggestion to provide such a report as it would be a mark of their respect for Parliament and the public.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: This is an important Bill and therefore an important debate. The number of people currently receiving invalidity benefit is substantial. The Government estimate that 1.5 million people will receive benefit either now or in about a year, so we are discussing substantial amounts of public resources. More importantly, we are discussing the way in which our society, through the will of Parliament, will treat people with disabilities. For reasons that I think are clear, not least sheer demography, there are likely to be more people with disabilities in our community as we approach the end of this century and a new millennium. The debate is of great importance to social policy.
  As hon. Members have said, much depends on the medical test and how we define incapacity for work. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). I agreed with him when he said that incapacity was not an absolute concept but was, inevitably, a relative concept. I want to develop that argument to say that incapacity is relative to the employment position.
  The Government's legislation is based on an assumption which, in the current employment climate, many of us would regard as heroic. It assumes that those who fail the strict medical test will, by definition, be capable of work. I assume that the assumption is that with a bit of willingness those people will not only seek, but find, jobs.
  Will Ministers say more today than they have done so far, and more than they said in Committee, about how they view the association between medical capacity for work and the true prospects for gaining work? I hope that Ministers will respond and consider policy in those broad terms. Parliament today could not agree to the measure with any great confidence if it felt that the result would be that many people with disabilities which were not serious enough to pass the test would be consigned to poverty because they would be unable to find their way into the employment market. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. A strict medical test, regardless of the employment situation, must make for poor social policy.
  I will put forward two employment scenarios relating to the medical test. One would be where the medical test was
  176
  being applied in full and buoyant employment, where not only were the official unemployment levels very low, but there was a shortage in the labour market and employers were crying out for decent labour. In those circumstances, employers would be bending over backwards to accommodate people with disabilities. They would be heavily into training, they would be adapting their premises and they would in a variety of ways be sensitive to the needs of those with disabilities.
  We all know that to assume that people with disabilities—even serious disabilities—are not capable of work represents great prejudice and potential discrimination against such people. There are remarkable people around—we have all had them as colleagues in different walks of life—who, despite many disabilities, are making a major contribution to their workplace and therefore to the economy.
  Professor Stephen Hawking labours under the most considerable disabilities imaginable, yet he is one of the most brilliant scientists in the west and has made a major contribution not only to his university, but to the enlightenment of us all. To assume that someone with even such grave disabilities was incapable of work would be a great slur on that man and many others less famous. In the right employment conditions, many people with the most grave disabilities are capable of work and, equally important, should be able to obtain work. In the right circumstances, we might have more confidence about even a strict medical test.
  Sadly, the employment scenario that I have outlined is very far from the reality in the United Kingdom. Instead, for many the reality is not employment, but unemployment; there are 3 million or 4 million people out of work, the trends in the labour market are towards less security and permanence and people have to chop and change their jobs.
  Increasingly, Ministers and other pundits make a virtue out of that. They say that those are the circumstances that workers will have to face in future; they will have to retrain constantly and no job is for life—even for those with safe seats in the House—and that people should not expect such security. In those changed employment circumstances, it will become more difficult for people with disabilities to find employment. I wonder how the Government would present their Bill to us in that context, which they will need to address.
  The evidence so far, without taking account of developments in the most recent years, is worrying for the employment prospects of those with disabilities. In 1989, Social and Community Planning Research estimated that 22 per cent. of people with disabilities who regarded themselves available for work—the so-called economically active as the statisticians would have it—were out of work. If the Government have data for a more recent period, they would be useful, because I suspect that things have changed for the worse, even since 1989.
  Another report in 1992, from Stephen Smith of the Spastics Society, found that employers were six times more likely to turn down people with disabilities for interviews even where their qualifications, experience and CVs were just as good as those who were not disabled. We face a problem of discrimination from employers; it is well known to the House and well documented. Other Government studies have estimated that it is 2.5 times more likely for people with disabilities to be out of work than those who are able-bodied.

  177
  A survey organised by the voluntary organisation, PACT in Brighton, also relates to the debate. It found that 40 per cent. of employers in Brighton regarded people with disabilities as unsuitable for employment. That is another example of the prejudice and discrimination that we face in Britain.
  5.15 pm
  Perhaps the most telling to the House is that many years ago, shortly after the second world war, the House in its wisdom passed a Bill saying that larger employers—those with 20 or more workers—should have a disability quota of 3 per cent. of their labour force. We understand that, despite having had many years to implement that measure, three quarters of employers do not meet the quota. Since 1975 there has been no prosecution to enforce it. That suggests that, although we may willingly pass legislation in the House, we are rather lax in its implementation.
  Still on the theme of the association between the medical test and the reality of finding work, I was struck by a briefing that many of us received from the Policy Studies Institute written by one of their senior social scientists, Richard Berthoud, about the reality behind the medical test. He talked in particular about discrimination by employers. I quoted from it in Committee and I shall quote a paragraph today, as it makes an important point. It states:
  "At a meeting of the 'panel of experts' convened by the DSS to discuss the medical assessment, a disease was described which caused people to tremble permanently and uncontrollably. People with this disease are not impaired in any way: they could stand, walk, sit, grip, reach and do all the other things required by the medical test. But other people, it was said, could not bear to watch them—they became upset and could not concentrate on their own tasks. As a result of the effect on other employees, no employer was prepared to hire someone with this condition."
  The reaction of the panel would be the reaction of many of us in the House—we would be appalled. Many suggested that it was outrageous and that employers should be made to hire those people. But in reality, sadly, many employers will not hire such people because of their effect on other employees.
  The document went on to say that most people would agree that employers and employees should not discriminate in that way and that perhaps they should be banned from doing so. However, as long as discrimination persists, removal of trembling and other socially embarrassing conditions such as disfigurement from the assessment criteria would mean that those affected would be denied incapacity benefits and face the punitive treatment offered to the unemployed. Here we have the real and complex association between the danger of failing a medical test, because, objectively, the person can work, and the reality whereby the prejudices of many ordinary people and employees and the prejudices and discriminations of employers mean the person cannot find work.
  Again I put it to Ministers: what are the employment prospects of those who may fail the medical test? Do the Government think, even at this stage, that it is wise to bring to the Chamber legislation which, however scientifically well constructed—and we do not know that, because we do not have the details—nevertheless does not seem to take account of current reality?
  I have received correspondence from people who say that in practice, in the labour market today, if they have a disability, particularly if they are no longer very young,
  178
  they find it difficult to get work. Someone wrote to me from Kent saying that his local disability employment adviser had written to him and said that he was unlikely to get a job. Why? He was told:
  "Because of the changes in companies employment policy as a result of the recession, your age, your disabilities, which would preclude you holding down a full or part-time job, and the fact that you have not worked since 1987."
  The DEE went on to say:
  "I am sorry, but you are now unemployable."
  I do not know the full details of that case, but that may well be someone who passes the test prescribed by the DSS but fails the most important test of all—the jobs test—and ends up not in employment but in unemployment.
  I would like to add to what has been said by hon. Members in Committee and in the House today about those who have conditions that fluctuate from day to day, week to week or month to month and put this important point to Ministers. How will the medical test allow for those who perhaps on the day of the test seem to be relatively able-bodied and therefore capable of work according to the legislation but who perhaps the next day, week or month have a relapse and find that they cannot work? That is of real concern.
  I am told by those with ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis—including those who come to see me in any constituency office in Croydon, that on some days, despite suffering for many months, they may feel relatively fit and confident about life and the prospects of work, while on another day they may wake up in the morning and find it almost impossible even to get out of bed, such are the debilitating effects of ME and similar conditions.
  The point was mentioned in Committee, but I will put it again to Ministers. How can a test, however sophisticated, allow for such a condition on the day? It appears to be true for those with physical conditions. I suspect, although I am no expert, that it is even more true for those with mental illness, certainly certain forms of mental illness. Again, someone from Croydon came to see me, speaking on behalf of those in the Manic Depressive Fellowship—those who suffer from the terrible condition of manic depression. He told me a similar story—that on one day he may truly be one of the most depressed people in the community and be almost unable to function, certainly not in the labour market and hold down a job.
  He used to be a lecturer at a college. After many years —indeed, decades—of battling against his manic depression, he finally had to succumb and leave his place of work and is now dependent on invalidity benefit. He said that on some days he is really down, but because his condition fluctuates from week to week and month to month, at other times he may be almost up in the clouds and almost too active—indeed, hyperactive. It makes him do foolish things. He gives away too much money to his charitable causes. That is a fluctuating condition. How would a strict medical test allow for that?
  This is a serious debate. I am not making a polemical point. I am interested in how the Government can devise a test to allow for the reality of people's conditions, because we all know that the prospects of any of us at some stage becoming mentally ill are quite high. We are not talking about small numbers of people, but about a large percentage of men and women. How they will be treated is important.
  It would be helpful if the Government could tell us more today about the conditions that will be on the exempt list.

  179
  I welcome the assurance given in Committee that, although they are not shown on the face of the Bill—I understand that—people suffering from many other conditions, including those suffering from AIDS and symptomatic HIV, are likely to receive extremely sympathetic treatment from Government when the exempt list is drawn up. If Ministers have a moment today to confirm that assurance, I know that many people would be most grateful.
  In my experience, social security, while often presented in terms of policy, grand principle and key objectives, depends crucially on its detail. It is therefore up to the House to take its role as scrutineers of legislation extremely seriously. Again, I offer this not as a polemical point but as a serious contribution to the debate. Having served on the Committee that considered the Incapacity for Work Bill, I have been appalled by the manner in which Conservative Back Benchers treated the Committee in such a cavalier way. I have been on Committees for smaller Bills, but that was my first major experience. I offer, therefore, an innocent essay on what I found. But I was genuinely surprised and appalled by the way in which Conservative Back Benchers approached the Committee.
  It is partly a function of the fact that, sadly, the more independent-minded Conservative Back Benchers were on the exempt list and not allowed to serve on the Committee. It was packed, I suppose, with trusties. At one stage—it was a rare moment—a Back Bencher rose to make a contribution and said that he would be very brief. Indeed, he had promised his Whip that he would speak for only four minutes.
  Those of us who—at our teacher's feet—studied the British constitution, read textbooks which, I now realise, came from the section called "Fiction". They told us the story that, having been considered in broad terms in the Chamber of the House of Commons, a Bill is then subjected to scrutiny line by line in Committee. That includes this most important matter that we are discussing now about the medical test.
  The Bill was subjected to scrutiny in great detail by Opposition Members, but not by Conservatives. I was genuinely surprised that certain Conservative Back Benchers spent more time in conversation with their secretaries on constituency matters in the Committee Corridor than they did in Committee. When challenged on that, because we tried to encourage genuine debate and scrutiny, one Conservative Back Bencher—I forget which one—said, "Don't tell me this. I approve of the Bill. I do not need to be here."
  Surely that is not the point. Either we take the scrutiny of such proposed legislation seriously—not least social security legislation, where the detail is so vital; hence the debate today about the medical test and our urging of a report—or we do not. I think that the Bill, in a sense, has become a case study of poor Government and poor parliamentary scrutiny.
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I am sure that the Conservative Back Bencher to whom my hon. Friend referred was the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). My hon. Friend will notice that he has not even attended this evening's debate. I am sure that it has not escaped my hon. Friend's notice that few Conservative Members have turned up for the debate on this important aspect of the new clause. Perhaps that is something that he would want to write into his revision.
  Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee.
  Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend informs me from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Teignbridge was not on the Committee, but I am sure that when my hon. Friend amends the textbook on the British constitution, this will prove a major part of the new edition.
  Mr. Wicks: I am flattered that my hon. Friend was scrutinising my speech with such care and made that timely intervention.
  We are dealing with a serious matter. Although I do not want to strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many of us returned time and again in Committee to one of the recent pieces of social security legislation—the Child Support Act 1991. Why? We now find that that piece of legislation, which went through Parliament and Committee, is causing an almighty row because what we may regard as "the detail" is blood and thunder detail for families in this country. I understand that today there has been a huge lobby of Parliament because people are upset by the detail.
  At this stage, the medical test and the Bill are not causing a furore; the Press Gallery is not packed. Whatever parliamentary correspondents do, we find that they do not correspond with Parliament. No journalist ever attended the Committee stage of the Bill. It will be different, however, when the effects of the detail come home to roost. Constituents will turn up in our surgeries, saying, "Once upon a time I would have received such and such a benefit. I have just taken the medical test, but I did not pass: I was told that I was capable of work." My constituents will then say to me, "Mr. Wicks, I tried my best to find work: here are my applications. I have been told that, because I have a disability and am over 50"—or 55—" I shall not be able to find work."
  I know what will happen. Conservative Members will say, "How can this have happened? We do not understand it. Who was looking after the detail?" Indeed, I have heard Conservative Members say of the Child Support Act, "I support the principle"—that ritual cry—"but I did not know that it would be like this." I suggest that even those hon. Members who spent hours in the Corridor when they should have been in the Committee Room will say to Ministers, "What has happened to the detail? A man cannot find work; he has a disability; yet he has failed the medical test. Think again."
  5.30 pm
  This is important. We should draw lessons from our recent experience of scrutiny, or rather lack of scrutiny: Bills, not least social security Bills, should include social impact statements spelling out the implications for people in the real world, and there should be pre-legislation hearings. I remember the Minister of State's saying that he thought that that was a good idea. We need Back Benchers on both sides who, while playing a party role, also take very seriously—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of licence, but I should be grateful if he would now return to the new clause.
  Mr. Wicks: You have been very kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), I did not speak Welsh, which would

  181
  have given you an opportunity to intervene earlier; I have done my best with my north London accent. I am glad that you have allowed me to express some of my thoughts, because the way in which we scrutinise the legislation is clearly important.
  We should consider very carefully the motivation behind the Bill and the medical test. Have we been presented with a measure that is principally a piece of social policy—including the provision for the medical test, which we think warrants an annual report—or with a piece of financial policy?
  In Committee, we were assured that the medical test provision was truly a piece of medicine—a piece of science —which had little to do with finance or the Treasury. I know you will consider what I am about to say very relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill contains no impact statement about people, but it contains such a statement about money: we are told that, by 1996–97, gross savings of £1.45 billion will have been achieved.
  How can we be confident that the medical test will be objective if we already know the bottom line? The Treasury has set the targets. Whatever the details of the medical test, and whatever the committee of experts may come up with, the threshold for receipt or non-receipt of benefit will have to be set according to financial targets. I have thought hard about this, and I consider it wise of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Withington (Mr. Bradley) to suggest an annual report on the test if the Bill is enacted—which I hope it will not be; I hope that the House will think again. We should be able to see for ourselves how the test is working in practice—whether it is working according to a financial criterion, or just according to a medical one.
  If we allow the Bill and the medical test to proceed, the inevitable consequence will be the impoverishment of many people with disabilities, and their further marginalisation in the community. That is the great worry. In future, more people who do not receive this benefit will find themselves on unemployment benefit or income support: that is clear from the financial statement in the Bill. The Government admit that although there will be gross savings, there will also be marginal costs as a result of the increase in income support and unemployment benefits. Perhaps Ministers will now come clean, and tell us how many more people with disabilities—people whom we should be looking after—will become dependent on means-tested income support if the Bill is passed.
  I think that there is an alternative to the medical test. It should be understood that people with disabilities are full citizens who should be part of an active society. The best policy that we could introduce is not about incapacity, but about capacity and full employment. Unless we return to full employment, we shall never be able to integrate those affected by the Bill into the community. If the Government are assuming mass unemployment in the future, it seems that more and more people with disabilities will become marginalised and unable to seek work; more and more will depend on income support. I believe that there is an alternative way forward, in terms of a public policy with decent social implications for people with disabilities which would also make economic sense.
  In Committee, Conservative Members—occasionally, when they were present—would throw the following
  182
  thought at us: "Are you saying that you would spend more money?" I think that we are saying that the right package of economic and social policies for those with disabilities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is displaying great skill, but we are returning to a Second Reading debate. I ask him to relate his remarks to new clause 3.
  Mr. Wicks: I am coming to my final paragraph, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I firmly resist the charge that financial costs are attached to our suggestions in Committee. I believe that there is a way in which the House—and even the present Government—can think about people with disabilities and the range of policies that they need which would not only be desirable in social terms but would make economic sense to our community.
  Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) usually speaks for the Liberal Democrats on social security matters. Unfortunately, he has been placed in an unenviable position: amendments have been tabled in his name both here and in the Standing Committee of which he is currently a member. As he has no party colleague in the Committee, it fell to me to deputise here —which I do with some trepidation, given the thoughtful speeches that we have heard so far. It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have given the matter considerable attention and thought.
  It is apparent to me that the application, or the detail, of the all-work test is so vague, unpredictable and unknown that—having briefly looked through some papers—I may know as much about it as almost any other hon. Member who is present. As I listened to the debate and tried to take in what was happening, I had some horrible ideas about what might be in prospect.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) referred to someone in the position of Professor Stephen Hawking. Let us suppose that someone who had not even acquired O-levels found himself in exactly the same medical condition. It sounds to me as though such a person would be deemed fit for work, and able to take on the job of professor of science at one of our leading universities.
  The Minister may say that that could not possibly happen—
  Mr. Burt: No, it could not.
  Mr. Wallace: But I am not entirely persuaded by what I have heard so far. I accept that I have given an extreme example, but I feel that in any event there is considerable scope for injustice and unfairness to be visited on people with disabilities, or what could be described in common parlance—as opposed to the legal terminology that we are about the pass into law—as incapacity for work.
  One can perhaps think of a number of such factors, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West referred to a report by Richard Berthoud of the Policy Studies Institute which outlined some of the circumstances that could arise.
  The report draws attention to the case of a person who is academically well qualified and lives in a town where there is a considerable amount of service industry, especially clerical jobs. That person sustains a serious

  183
  injury to his leg but, after it has healed, is able to return to employment and take up the clerical duties in which he was involved before.
  Another person in the same town who suffers exactly the same accident might have a different employment history. Perhaps he left school without any qualifications and laboured on a building site. He might have the same physical injuries, but suitable employment opportunities might not be available for him.
  We are being asked to accept a test that relates purely to the narrow range of medical functions. It is merely a check list that will be ticked off, or otherwise, but which will take no account of how a particular medical condition can affect someone. It is not simply a matter of whether someone is capable of walking 100 m; there might be psychological effects. A person's previous training and the current job opportunities must be taken into account. What are a person's living circumstances?
  In my constituency, many people live miles from the nearest town. An injury that renders them incapable of driving a car might cut off a range of employment opportunities, but, if they lived in the middle of a town, a good number of employment opportunities might be open to them.
  Another mental picture of the system being set up is that it resembles the competitions or quizzes that sometimes appear in magazines. One is asked questions A, B and C, and one receives five points for A, two points for B and zero for C, and the points are added up at the end. It seems that we are devising a rigid system under which points will be added together: if one scores more than a certain number, one is disqualified from benefit, whereas if one falls beneath that number, one qualifies.
  I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). He said that the application of such a system places a great deal of power in the hands of those setting the rules. One of the briefings that I have seen believes that the Government estimate that 400,000 current recipients of invalidity benefit will have to undergo a new test as their cases come up for review, and that as many as 250,000 will no longer qualify.
  I have no doubt that an estimate has been made—it was probably in the original Bill before Second Reading, when the financial consequences had to be spelt out—of how much saving will accrue to the Treasury. One has the feeling that, as long as there is a strict objective test with a score card, it will be possible to make adjustments to ensure that the anticipated savings materialise, and that is quite apart from the effect that the system could have on individuals.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West made another important point. It is not only a question of incapacity for work or otherwise, but of a person's ability to get work even if he or she is deemed to be capable of work. This raises the question of the prejudice and discrimination that is often suffered by people with disabilities. I remember that, in the days when I was my party's employment spokesman, the issue of the 3 per cent. quota arose. It was clear that it was honoured far more in the breach than in its enforcement. I fear that we are ensuring that many people will lose on invalidity benefit, without any obvious road back to employment.
  It might not be possible to get them but, in addition to all the figures that the Government would be asked to put before Parliament under new clause 3, it might have been
  184
  useful to add another one—what percentage of those who have been deemed capable of work got jobs within two months of that determination being made?
  5.45 pm
  Some element of judgment must come into play, and it is important that general practitioners should have a role. Many doctors are not keen on having thrust on them the duty of being, as it were, enforcement officers on behalf of the Benefits Agency. It is perfectly understandable that they do not want to be the last arbiters, but I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that GPs nevertheless have an important role to play.
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), said:
  "GPs retain an important role."
  He said that a GP's input would be
  "a vital part of the consideration … We are not writing GPs out of the picture."
  My colleagues and I tabled amendment No.22 because we seek some way to ensure that the role, advice and information of GPs can be properly channelled into those considerations.
  The Minister also said:
  "The GP's opinion on whether a person is incapable for work is not specifically sought."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, February 1994; c. 351–2.]
  He said that after having said that consideration of the GP's opinion was part and parcel of the process. The purpose of amendment No.22 is to ensure that, in regulations, a way is defined
  "in which relevant evidence or information submitted by that person or by any medical practitioner or professional health worker will be used during the assessment".
  It is our concern that such a method is introduced as early as possible.
  The briefings which I think all hon. Members will have received from citizens advice bureaux give examples of cases in which the absence of a general practitioner's involvement at the critical tribunal stage led to benefit being withdrawn and having to be granted again after an appeal, or even in the intervening period.
  For example, a CAB in the west midlands reports that a woman in her mid-fifties was examined by a medical officer after four months on invalidity benefit. She was found fit for work, but, at the tribunal, on presentation of a letter from her GP, the Benefits Agency presenting officer conceded that the withdrawal of invalidity benefit had been inappropriate. Similar cases of invalidity benefit being withdrawn but restored after a report from a GP have been reported in Staffordshire and the north-east.
  We want GPs to be involved in the provision of essential information. Not only should that be recognised and accepted as part of the process, but the way in which the information is to be channelled into the process should be formally set out. It should not be left to chance or good fortune, or to whether someone has got around to getting their GP's view.
  It is not necessarily true that GPs are usually lenient. Indeed, one survey showed that 80 per cent. of respondents believed that their GPs sometimes refused sick notes to people whom advisers considered to be unfit for work. We should trust the medical profession to give its view—a view very often based on long experience of the person involved.
  On the day that a person is assessed, he may be capable of carrying out particular tasks and functions, but a medical person who has had the opportunity to see the progress of

  185
  a condition, or who has seen the person a number of times, might know that, under stress, in certain circumstances or more often than not, that person will not be capable of performing those functions.
  We are trying to secure justice. If the new clause stands as it is, I, like the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, fear that, in the months and years to come, many more constituents will come to our surgeries asking how in the world it was ever accepted. We shall have to say that some of us warned of the problem at the time. We hope, having issued the warnings, that the Minister is prepared to listen and to do something about it.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: One of the hazards facing any legislation is either that it slips through the House of Commons late at night or that it is fairly lightly examined. I am afraid that the Bill and its implications are in grave danger of not being properly examined.
  I do not find it surprising that there are no former members of the Committee present on the Government Benches. I remember being stunned in Committee by a Conservative Whip when, in a voice which carried round the room, he said to one of his own Members who was making what I thought was a coherent speech "Sit down you little 'blank' and shut up." I remember being even more astonished when the Member did as he was told. It illustrated simply the difference between Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and Her Majesty's Government, because had I, as a Whip, endeavoured to say such a thing to a Labour Member, I suspect that I might have been in a highly dangerous position.
  We are discussing a Bill which will affect some of the most vulnerable people. I find it a horrifying suggestion. It is a cynical move, which is made clear in the Bill by the suggestion that large sums of money are to be saved by the change in the legislation. If it were a straightforward matter of changing a medical examination and of ensuring that general practitioners were not put under unnecessary pressure to support their patients when they did not believe that it was justified, the Government should be able to spell out in exact detail the sort of tests which are to be applied, the kind of hazards that the applicant will have to face and exactly how the applicants will be expected to respond. That has not happened.
  Regulations are increasingly used as a trick to hide from Members of Parliament the implications of changes in legislation. It is not the first time that that has happened; it is an increasing habit. The Government consistently introduce regulations, not on the basis of a full discussion of the Bill in Committee, but in subsequent moves after the Bill has reached the statute book. That is not only unhelpful but positively misleading.
  The Child Support Agency is an interesting example of that process. We were told of its principle and the House of Commons took on trust the ideas that Ministers presented as a clear impression of what was to happen. We are told that the legislation before us will not damage the interests of the disabled, but that it is simply a matter of ensuring that the medical tests are set out clearly, that people have to comply with certain conditions and that if they are in receipt of the wrong benefit, all that will happen is that they will find alternative forms of benefit or will receive alternative forms of support. Frankly, I do not believe that.
  When two of the nicer members of the Government are sitting on the Front Bench, it is difficult to be as vicious as
  186
  one would want to be in the debate, but I do not believe that the Government are bringing forward the medical tests because they think that they will improve the lot of people who are receiving the wrong benefit: they are looking to save money. If they were not, they would have no objection to the new clause, which sets out a number of sensible, straightforward ideas. What is the objection to telling Parliament how many people attended a medical examination, or what number of people, having attended an examination, were determined to be incapable for work? What is the difficulty?
  The Government intend to do something much more straightforward—to try to save money from those who are already among some of the poorest people in our society. We do not have to consider the proposed changes to know what will happen. In case after case in our constituencies people are referred to tribunals. The length of time before their cases are heard is becoming longer. When they eventually get to court, a number of them receive verdicts that they do not accept and they undergo the whole procedure again.
  A number of general practitioners support the claimants because they know that the claimants are telling the truth and finally, as happened today, one receives a letter from the agency—not even the Department—saying that it is correct that that man or woman, who has gone through an enormous amount of highly complex bureaucratic machinery, is to be given back their benefit, but only after a long time.
  Ministers seem to think that, if people are deprived of their benefit for a number of weeks or, in some cases, for months, giving them a sum of money is all that is necessary. That does not begin to deal with the difficulty.
  Mr. Burt rose—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am delighted to give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady mentioned that case a little while ago. I had not heard of it previously. What she says disturbs me and I am more than happy to consider the circumstances. I should not like her to think that I consider that what she has described to be normal or just. I shall certainly look at the circumstances.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I must give the Minister his due. I do not believe that he would consider it normal or just, but the reality is that his Government have introduced legislation which has precisely the effect of that case. The fact that the Minister does not accept it cheers me up only marginally.
  Increasing numbers of people who are in receipt of benefit are being destabilised because they are being told that they will have their right to benefit questioned in such a manner that they will have to go through a great deal of re-examination, that they may have to present the case over again, that they may lose their benefit, that they may have to reapply and that it may take some months before the case is cleared up.
  In a civilised society, I do not regard that as an acceptable way to conduct matters. It means that, if people are already on benefit, they will tend to try to borrow and beg from everybody they know to keep themselves going while their benefit is stopped, and when they finally receive the money they will be in such difficulty that they will—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is an experienced campaigner in the House and she knows full well that there is a new clause before us to which I wish that she would address her remarks.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I would not dream of upsetting you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in any way.
  Mr. Terry Rooney: Yes, you would.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: No; I would not dream of it.
  The new clause addresses the important question about the medical test. The House of Commons ought to be informed at every level of what is happening to those who are in receipt of benefit. When the Bill was introduced, I was horrified by the suggestion that general practitioners were not altogether to be trusted and that, if they had people on their list who were to be in receipt of benefit, we could not wholly take their word on a person's medical condition, because they might be influenced by their relationship with the patient.
  h
  In 22 years of general practice, I have met all sorts of general practitioners—some pompous, some intelligent, some less intelligent, some hard-working and some who were not overwhelmed with a desire to kill themselves with hard work. However, one thing that they all had in common was their ability to talk to their patients to a greater or a lesser degree. The idea that they will not be able to tell their patients honestly about their medical condition and about their right to receive benefit is a crazy and ill-founded idea.
  I would rather that the House did not pass the Bill because I have grave doubts about it. If we accept the new clauses, we may go some way towards giving ourselves a fall-back position because I suspect that, in a year, the House of Commons will have to re-examine the entire legislation to see whether it is working and what effect it is having on recipients of benefit.
  I take the Minister's word for it that he is happy to investigate specific cases. That is helpful, and I shall take him up on it. However, I tell him firmly that I think that the change in the law is not about entitlement to the correct benefit—I wish that I thought it were—but about saving the Treasury money. The Treasury has lost a lot of money and it has to get it back. People in receipt of benefit are a jolly good target.
  I must also tell the Minister that I do not think that the Bill will have that effect. I do not believe that it has been thought through. We may find that at the end of its first year of operation the medical tests are not producing the saving of money, and that all that has happened is a change in the circumstances of the people at present in receipt of invalidity benefit.
  I regard the Bill as a most unacceptable move. It is doubtful in intent, and I believe that it will be unworkable. The people who will pay for it, as always, will not be all those Tory Members of Parliament who are not here tonight, but the people who are most in need—the people now in receipt of benefit.
  6 pm
  Mr. George Mudie: It is quite a challenge to follow that impressive address by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  I rise to speak with some regret at the fact that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. He is the villain of
  188
  the piece and the architect of the legislation, and he should be forced to sit through the debate and hear the truth about it being aired—he should even forced to defend it.
  As I said in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People are the acceptable face of the Department of Social Security, and it is unfair on them that they should have to sit through 25 or 30 hours of Committee proceedings, and then come to the Chamber, to defend the indefensible.
  In Committee, I drew an analogy with the present Government ban on Sinn Fein, under which we see Gerry Adams speaking but cannot hear his voice, so his words are spoken by an actor. In fairness to the two Ministers present, it would have been better if, during proceedings on the Bill, the voice of the Secretary of State had been piped in. It is clearly not those two humane and compassionate junior Ministers who are forcing through the legislation. No, what we see is the hard heart of the Secretary of State in action.
  I regret that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, partly because on Second Reading he said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has also said —it is worth repeating—that the legislation affects the most vulnerable people in our society. The Secretary of State finds it difficult to recognise vulnerability or compassion, so when he recognises who are the most vulnerable, we must be well aware what we are dealing with.
  The amendments concern the most vulnerable people in our community, so they require great concern and great thought. If the Minister is really so compassionate and so worried about individuals having such a long wait for their appeal hearings, and the consequent effects on their benefits and their families—I shall touch on those later —the best way in which to show that his concern is genuine would be to accept amendment No. 26, which would ensure that appeals would be heard within 10 working days. That would show a real acceptance of the vulnerability of the people concerned.
  I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, become understandably worried that we are straying from the chosen path when we refer to the Child Support Agency, but there is a valid analogy with the Bill.
  One of the reasons behind the amendments is the fact that the Bill will adversely affect individuals; it will not affect whole communities, so there will be no great uproar as there was with the poll tax. Like the Child Support Agency, the Bill will adversely affect individuals who may be isolated in the community. The argument is exactly the same as the argument about the Child Support Agency. We can discuss the principle and largely agree on that, but it is the operation of the detail, and its effect on individuals, that will cause the problems.
  Because of your knowledge of your area and the industries in it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that any cut in invalidity benefit, such as the cut that will result from the introduction of incapacity benefit, will have dramatic effects on the standard of living of families whose head is someone who, through working in one of the industries with which you are familiar, has suffered accidents or strains on the body, and who is unable to get the money.
  I know that you worry when we keep referring to the Child Support Agency. It is because the same principles—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not worry at all if the hon. Gentleman will base his remarks on new clause 3 and the amendments associated with it.
  Mr. Mudie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  New clause 4 calls for an annual report, which would reveal the facts and figures to enable the House to see the individual distress that will be caused throughout the country.
  The Bill is a disgrace, not only because of the content that I have already mentioned, but on constitutional grounds too. Even according to the Government's figures, it is estimated that 250,000 people out of the 600,000 on the existing benefit who will be referred for medical tests will lose their benefit. On constitutional grounds, I worry about the House of Commons passing a law the heart of which is unknown to its Members.
  I shall give a brief illustration of how bad the constitutional effects are. Clause 5 introduces a new section of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 that has seven subsections, most of which begin with phrases such as "Regulations may provide". Subsection (2) begins:
  "Regulations may make provision as to".
  Subsection (3) begins, "Regulations may provide", and so does subsection (4). Subsection (5) begins, "Regulations may prescribe". I could go on.
  Those subsections deal with a crucial part of the Bill —the
  "Test of incapacity for work"
  which is related to the medical test, yet six out of the seven do not contain provisions that we can argue about with objectivity and detailed knowledge, because everything will be subject to regulation. The detail is not here. It is difficult to deal with the details of the medical tests, because we do not have them.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking makes a mockery of this Bill, because, with his disabilities, he would clearly be eligible for one of the fast-track cases under the legislation. He would go through—he would not be subjected to a medical test, and he would get the benefit.
  The Minister may say that he would get the benefit because the Government are not taking age, experience, education and previous work into consideration. I ask the Government what would happen if an ex-coal miner got the same disease as Stephen Hawking.
  Mr. Burt: He would get the benefit.
  Mr. Mudie: Exactly, but he would not get the benefit because of age, experience and so on—he would get it on purely medical grounds. One of the factors that is wrong with the Bill is that the medical test will be the be-all and end-all, and no other factors will be taken into consideration. Incredibly, here we are in March after a long session in Committee—I think that it was 25 to 30 hours.
  Mr. Ingram: It is 34.
  Mr. Mudie: We spent 34 hours in Committee. Here we are on Report, and we do not have the details of the medical test, which is at the heart of the Bill.
  Can I tell the House anything about the medical test? I cannot do so, because it is not spelled out in the Bill. Can anyone tell the House about the medical test? No. The details of the medical test will come before the House after
  190
  the Bill has gone through, when we are on holiday in August. The Bill will go to another place, although there are no details of the medical test—and they are not expected until August.
  I think that Madam Speaker was in the Chair when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) was explaining who will draw up the test. There are 80 faceless people drawing up the test. The Minister is so confident about the legislation and its principles that the medical test is being drawn up in secret, and he will not allow the names of the people who are drawing it up to be made public.
  In Committee, when we discovered that two of the 80 experts did not wish to have the Minister's protection and were prepared to make their names public, we were told that they were forbidden to do so. Therefore, the disabled organisations which wished to have a dialogue with the experts to ensure that the medical tests were the best that could be worked out among everyone involved could not do so, because the identities of the people who are drawing up the tests are secret.
  This secret medical test will be coming in August, and we are discussing the Bill in March. If that is not defensible in the country on a matter that will take benefit away from 250,000 people, I do not know what is indefensible. [Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary wants me to give way, I shall sit down.
  I shall refer to amendment No. 26 briefly, because I do not wish to take up the time of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke in telling terms about the amount of time it takes to hear appeals. If the amendment is accepted, it will mean that appeals must be heard within 10 days. I am pleased to know that I have the right amendment for once. This is an historic moment in my speaking history in the Chamber, and I hope that it will allow the Chair to relax. I even know the contents of the amendment, which makes a welcome change.
  Amendment No. 26 says that any appeals would be heard within 10 working days, and individuals would be allowed to be represented. Both parts of the amendment are important, but I wish to talk about the first part, because it is especially important. As a result of the Minister's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I hope that he will tell the House that he accepts the amendment.
  6.15 pm
  If the information provided by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is genuine, the Government's statistics show a distressing situation. According to the information provided to hon. Members, the length of time for hearing appeals increased from 21 weeks in 1986 to 30 weeks in 1992.
  I shall go a bit further in terms of the repercussions for an individual. If an individual has been turned down for benefit and has lodged an appeal, he cannot get unemployment benefit or income support, and is therefore incomeless. I was grateful for the sign of humanity—I do not say this lightly; it is accepted—that brought the Under-Secretary to the Dispatch Box to ask my hon. Friend for details, because the present situation is not acceptable.
  At present, it takes 30 weeks for an appeal to be heard, which can mean 30 weeks without income. If the Government's figures are accepted—I intend to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the debate on a later

  191
  amendment—they show that the average benefit paid is £79. If a person who is sick long-term appeals against a decision and is turned down, how does he run his home?
  I understand that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, get very excited when we refer to the Child Support Agency. However, the same Department takes a decision which lands on people who lead very ordinary lives with very ordinary budgets. It takes a decision that has a frightening financial effect on people, and the Government wonder why there is an outcry.
  I challenge the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and accept that 30 weeks translates into seven months. Would the Minister, without warning—even though, after his considerable time in the House, he may have built up considerable savings—like to have to go without income for the next seven months? That can be the effect of a decision. If that happened to me, without the considerable savings that I am sure the Minister has, the effect on my domestic expenditure would be devastating. However, that is what is happening.
  This is no game; this is not semantics. When hard-working people in communities all over the country —according to Government statistics, we are talking about people over 50 on average earnings, manual workers and people who are often in occupations without sick schemes —are off work because of illness, they face up to seven months before a decision is taken and they can get some money flowing into the family. What effect does that have on rent, hire purchase and mortgages? What family's income could withstand seven months with a block on one income?
  I am grateful that the Under-Secretary leaped to the Dispatch Box, and I would not for a second challenge his compassion, but I want now to see the proof of it. That proof would be his acceptance of amendment No. 26, which would impose on the bureaucrats who run the system that two weeks is a sufficient time for anybody to be without income, and that an appeal should be heard within two weeks.
  Although I said that it was less important than my previous point, the question of representation is important. I recently appealed to a Child Support Agency tribunal, and I made the point that both the child support officer and the chairman of the tribunal seemed to have a thick handbook. I made the point informally after the hearing that it would have been better if they had warned me, as a representative, that they would be using that handbook. It might have saved hours in the hearing.
  Incredibly, I was told that representatives are not told, because it is difficult for them to understand those books. Those involved with the tribunal have trouble in understanding them, so the representatives would not be able to understand. They may have got that right in my case, but, as a general principle, it is rather patronising. It seems to be symptomatic of the objection to representation and of a culture in which representation is a nuisance.
  In 1990, the Public Accounts Committee looked at invalidity benefit. The Committee's report showed that people with representation had greater success than those who were not represented. The technicality of the proceedings and the regulations makes that straightforward. That point should make amendment No. 26 even more alluring to the Minister, and I look forward to him joining me in the Lobby.
  Mr. Flynn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends, and the prophecies of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will come back to haunt the Government.
  This is a deeply flawed Bill, which has no central heart. We are passing the bare bones of the legislation. We know that the Government are saying—as they said often in Committee—"We are the Government, trust us." Some of us take a rather cynical view of that promise. They have said again and again that they are nice chaps. There was wonderful praise in Committee for the two Ministers who are on the Government Front Bench today. They are saintlike and give all of their salaries to the poor.
  We pointed out that there are other people on that Front Bench who are absent now. Those people help to make up the Government's soft man/hard man technique, which is well-known for interrogating prisoners. The prisoner gets pummelled into one state by the crude savage, and then the nice man comes in and offers him a cup of tea and a bag of sweets. That is the kind of psychological treatment that the House and the country are getting from the Ministers.
  The Secretary of State—who is absent—is a terrifying sight when we see him in full colour on television. At the Nuremberg rally—the Conservative party conference—he threatened everything under the sun. That was the last time that he descended to bad German and barbed French—"Ich bin ein Führer", or "Après moi, la déluge." It was a terrifying sight. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the list that he had before of all the scapegoats that he was to pursue in the coming year.
  The great problem for the Government is translating the party rhetoric into legislation and, in their attempt to do so, they produce atrocious legislation. The new clause gets to the heart of the Bill—the test for incapacity for work. I have sat through many hours of the Committee—as have many of my hon. Friends—and I still do not know the answer to the central conundrum.
  It is good to know that Government Back Benchers are unanimous in their support of the new clause—they speak with one voice, it may be said. They are saying that they will approve the new clause, and that is splendid. We must test whether we believe the Government when they say, "We are the Government, trust us." They have enunciated a new heresy today. An entirely new part of the Government's policy has been announced, and can be described as the right to lie.
  I have heard of the right to buy, in housing—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is pursuing an interesting case where the right to buy has become the right to steal—but the right to lie is something quite new. I understand that the Minister with responsibility for open government told a Committee that, in exceptional cases, it is necessary to say something untrue in the House of Commons. The little trust that we had in the Government will be shattered.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: That is a disgrace.
  Mr. Flynn: That is what a Minister said this morning to a Committee. One of the national newspapers has quite rightly headlined that as a shocking statement.
  Are the Government telling the truth now about the Bill? Our cynicism suggests that the new clause is needed. It asks for very little. It provides that there should be a report to both Houses of Parliament that would reveal the

  193
  effectiveness or otherwise of the test for incapacity. The Government still want to proceed with the all-work test, which is based on a fundamental misconception—perhaps the Minister can try to explain it to us again. The misconception is that the capacity for work can be defined as an objective test that applies to everybody, regardless of his education, training, work history, personality, age and ability to cope with the consequences of ill-health and disability.
  An anonymous army of experts is meeting, perhaps in a secret cave at midnight, to decide on the score sheet on which people will be classified as capable or incapable of work. That is a fundamental absurdity. The case of Stephen Hawking was quoted at length during the Committee. Another case quoted was that of someone who was blind and might not be able do his work, but who might be able to become a Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party. It is nonsense to suggest that there can be any test for incapacity for work.
  Traditionally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the industries where you and I worked before we entered this place, young men who were healthy, fit and in the prime of their lives did the hard manual labour. Towards the final years of their working lives, they would have lighter jobs, such as sweeping up or possibly clerical work, which would be made available to them if their health was failing. That can happen to many of us. We can all go through periods of incapacity from the moment we come into this world, and we can have failing capacity throughout our lifetimes.
  In these hard, Thatcherite days, if someone can no longer do his full work, he is thrown out. There is nothing left, and there is no alternative. However, we are entering an age when many alternatives are available. I wish that the Government would take seriously the opportunities provided by the new supercomputers, which will provide thousands of jobs on the information highway. It looks as if we will lose out on that, as we have lost out in many other industrial developments.
  Those opportunities will, however, produce work that requires little physical effort. A keyboard must be operated, but little is required in the way of physical strength. That does not mean that anyone can do it. Someone in the unfortunate state that Stephen Hawking is in could not; his brain functions very well, but he can hardly even use his voice.
  Some people can work in such jobs and can contribute richly to our society. However, many people could not do so because of their background and often because of an objection—based on their generation—to using high-tech machines, which now affect all available work. People who used to do manual jobs in a heavy industry find that there is nothing else that they can do and that they cannot move to the sunrise industries that are taking its place.
  The Bill will have a catastrophic effect on certain areas of the country where many people receive invalidity benefit. That is not because doctors in those regions operate a different regime but because there is a tradition of heavy industry, which crippled and maimed the people who worked in the mines, quarries and steelworks. When workers in those industries finished their careers they were generally very run down and greatly damaged by their work.
  194
  6.30pm
  The Bill will not only damage people in those areas; it will hit their communities. We shall be taking a vast sum of money—millions of pounds—from small communities. We shall be taking away money that went straight into the local economy. It was not invested in Lloyd's, or on the stock exchange, or spent in Penang; it was spent in local shops and went straight into the local economy. We shall be taking that money out of the economy.
  The effect of social security legislation on the great British press has been mentioned. Tonight, one newspaper is carrying a headline about a Minister's right to lie to the House of Commons, but no newspapers will report the debate tomorrow. I once heard hon. Members who take an interest in social security described as social security buffs, as though they collected stamps, were interested in steam engines or must be a special breed to be interested in such an obscure subject. However, that subject involves the livelihood of tens of millions of people and the small disposable income on which they depend on. Few parts of our work can be more important or have a more profound effect on the lives of millions of people. The Bill will not affect the lives of members of the press, however, as few of them receive invalidity benefit.
  Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have looked closely at the new clauses and amendments and he seems to be very wide of them. Will he return to the subject under discussion?
  Mr. Flynn: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  In Committee, we discussed the medical test that lies at the heart of the legislation. The consultation document was the only written sign of Government thinking and certain organisations were invited to respond to it. However, even that document was modified between its publication date and the closing date for responses. We are therefore being asked to approve legislation that is merely a sign of what the Government will do and that does not contain any of the details.
  We could argue that the test is not so much a medical test, as has been claimed, as a mechanical test. It is a test of a person's ability to perform certain activities. It does not make sense to have that type of test unless there is some way to relate it to the type of work available in the area, to the job that the person concerned can do and to his or her training and ability. That is our fundamental objection.
  We are asking for very little in the new clause. We want
  "an account of the number of people who attended a medical examination under that part of that Act and a description of … such an examination".
  The House has been down this road many times before. Hon. Members have referred to the deficient Child Support Agency legislation—the Child Support Act 1991. I cannot find a Back-Bench Member of Parliament who admits to being a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Child Support Bill. There must have been a Committee stage, but no one confesses to having been a part of it, apart from Front-Bench Members, who are the guilty men—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, whether that is true or not, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion.
  Mr. Flynn: By asking for the accounts, Madam Deputy Speaker, we shall improve the legislation.

  195
  Will it be difficult to provide such an account? The information must be available. The Department must have some way to keep a record of how this disastrous legislation unfolds in the years to come. Millions of people will be affected by the Bill. We need to know how many people have medical examinations.
  When questions were tabled about the progress of other new legislation and about disability working allowance, we found that the results were quite different from what the House had expected. When the Bill is enacted we know that there will be confusion and that people will be upset by the unfairnesses of it. It is essential for Parliament to have information about how it is working at regular intervals.
  In new clause 3, we are asking for
  "an account of the number of people who having attended such an examination were determined as incapable for work".
  That is crucial because we believe that the legislation will be a disaster. The Bill is a means to cut expenditure and it will take people off one benefit and put them on another.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing not the Bill but two new clauses and several amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman of that fact.
  Mr. Flynn: I was quoting from new clause 3(c), which asks for
  "an account of the number of people who having attended such an examination were determined as capable of work".
  How will the test work? What will take place? I am sure that the Minister will be happy to tell me.
  The new clause also requires
  "an account of the reasons for determinations of capacity for work".
  In the absence of any details from the Government, we can conclude only that the decisions will be subjective and will be made on the spot and that the same injustices, unfairness and different treatments that exist with the social fund will result from this legislation. Benefit will depend on whether one turns up on a Monday, or in March, or on whether one comes from one side of the street or the other. We already have an example of imperfect legislation causing great unhappiness.
  In new clause 3(e) we are asking for
  "an assessment of the medical test by such persons whom the Secretary of State may choose".
  The test is new and we are going into uncharted waters without a rudder. Therefore, it is crucial that the Government accept the new clause.
  Mr. Burt: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to a variety of remarks on the amendments. I shall be as brief as I can, but I will try to cover them all. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) made many of the remarks straightforwardly, and they were amplified by some of his hon. Friends.
  New clauses 3 and 4 would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on aspects of the operation of the new incapacity benefit. New clause 3 wants such a report no later than 30 September 1996 on the operation of the new
  "test of incapacity for work".
  The new clause also requests details of people who attend medical examinations under the Act between April 1995, when the test will be introduced, and September 1996.
  There is a case to be made for the provision of information about the workings of the legislation, but I am not certain that there is a case to be made for the publication of a report as such. We shall collect
  196
  information of this type, and we believe that we shall do so in better quality and greater quantity than the new clause suggests. It would not be wise to restrict ourselves to the time scales and other parameters of the new clause.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Burt: Not at this stage; I should like to make some progress.
  In the case of any social security benefit—new or existing—we routinely collect a wide range of statistical information. This is published both in the annual reports of social security statistics and in specialist studies, which include evaluation reports on specific benefits. It is all the more important that new benefits be monitored in order that their effectiveness and performance may be evaluated.
  The new incapacity benefit is a good example of one that will be subject to very careful monitoring. The introduction of incapacity benefit brings a considerable change to the current provision of benefits for the sick and incapable by refocusing the benefit on those who, for medical reasons, are incapable of work.
  By September 1996, incapacity benefit will have been in place for 18 months, and we shall have collected much information about its operation. I see no advantage in making reports to Parliament along the lines suggested, but the information will be available to hon. Members from a variety of sources, including the statistics that I have mentioned already, and parliamentary questions.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will know that, increasingly, hon. Members who put questions to his Department are referred to the relevant agency. They are told that the agency must take responsibility for day-to-day operations. The hon. Gentleman has not made a case for not publishing statistics, and he certainly has not made a case for Ministers' refusal to answer questions on the Floor of the House. Why cannot we have a report that is capable of being discussed by Members of Parliament? By his own evidence, he will by then have information.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady will be aware that answers to parliamentary questions that come through executive agencies are published, and that Ministers are responsible for answering on the Floor of the House any oral questions that relate to their work. In addition, there are plenty of opportunities for debate in the House about such matters.
  Mr. Wallace: If questions such as those envisaged in the new clause are asked, will the Minister answer them, or will he refer them to the executive agency?
  Mr. Burt: It will depend on the nature of the question. Hon. Members know that the next steps agencies are being developed in an attempt to separate the operational arm of Government from the policy arm. Policy questions are always answered by Ministers, but questions about operations can be answered more speedily by the executive agencies. Ultimately, however, Ministers are responsible for operations.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I should like to refer to a matter that I raised during a recent meeting with the Minister. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that, under the new regime, the range of questions answered will be no narrower than in the past? Can he give an assurance that, when an hon. Member presses for an answer from a Minister rather than from the agency, the Minister will not refuse to reply?
  Mr. Burt: The rules governing parliamentary questions may be a little more strict than those governing letters. Suppose, for example, that an hon. Member presses for an answer from me about a particular operational matter relating to the Child Support Agency. I take the view that the chief executive should first deal with the query. That is the purpose of the agency. However, if ultimately pressed, I shall answer by letter. Slightly different rules may apply to parliamentary questions. However, such questions are always published, so the information is made available.
  I should like now to deal with a number of specific issues in relation to new clause 3. The debate was started with the usual comments about the Government's mean-mindedness. I should like to put in hon. Members' pipes three facts for them to smoke later—if such a metaphor is not politically incorrect these days.
  The Government's record on benefits for disabled people is extraordinarily good. Spending has increased by 225 per cent. since 1978–79, and it is currently some £16.5 billion. The disability living allowance, which the Conservative Government introduced, has already brought 500,000 successful claims. Expenditure on invalid care allowance was £4 million in 1978, and it is now £366 million. I could give many more statistics, but I shall not do so. Any suggestion that the Government have been mean-minded in relation to the disabled is absolute fantasy, so I do not expect to hear that argument again tonight.
  6.45 pm
  The test of medical incapacity for work has constituted the meat of this discussion. What do we mean by "medical incapacity for work"? [Interruption.] I tried in Committee to give an explanation, and I am happy to repeat that explanation for the benefit of those who were not members of the Committee and for those who want further clarification.
  We mean a restriction or lack of ability to perform the activities involved in working. We do not mean a restriction or lack of ability per se. Nor do we have in mind the fact that the likelihood of getting a particular job is reduced by factors other than medical ones. We are interested in the point at which the ability to do any form of work is substantially reduced—not the point at which all work becomes impossible.
  We are trying to establish a threshold above which it would be unreasonable to expect people to work. Many disabled people will choose to work, but benefit will be available to those who do not. This is the Professor Stephen Hawking argument. There will clearly be no question of anyone in a position like that of Professor Hawking being required to work. That that remarkable man is able to work bears testimony to the fact that there are others, similarly disabled, who work—
  Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burt: I have too much to get through. Several hon. Members who were on the Committee and who have been present throughout this debate need answers.
  The threshold is not one above which it would be reasonable to expect anybody to be able to work. [Interruption.] Exactly: if Stephen Hawking can work, anyone can work. Clearly, that cannot be the test.
  We are trying, through a process of consultation and consensus, to get a wide range of people—panel members and those they consult—to provide their definition of
  198
  incapacity for work: a definition that relates functional limitation to a substantial reduction in the ability to do work of some kind. That is what is being discussed at the moment.
  A number of points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), whose contribution I greatly appreciated. My hon. Friend referred in particular to disabled people's disadvantage in the jobs market.
  All employment services and training—enterprise and education programmes and services for unemployed people—are open to people with disabilities, often with the entry criteria relaxed. There is a wide range of services and schemes for those who need special help. In 1992–93, 62,978 people with disabilities were placed in jobs. That is an indication of what can happen, and it is a point of great importance.
  A number of questions about the snapshot element were raised. Is the medical test a snapshot? No, it is not. It involves the completion of a questionnaire by the claimant, a statement of diagnosis by the claimant's general practitioner, a list of principal disabling conditions and, where required, referral to a departmental doctor for a report or examination.
  The departmental doctor who examines a claimant will take account of the variability of the condition over given periods. Thus, the assessment will create an overall picture of the effect of the medical condition on the person's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities, and hence his capacity for work.
  This is an appropriate point at which to mention the role of the general practitioner. As I said in Committee, the GP plays his vital role at the beginning of the period of incapacity, when it is still the GP's medical certificate that counts. Of course, it is very important that the GP should feel that he has a continuing role to play and may submit information on behalf of the patient at any stage.
  Several hon. Members made a point about whether the GP's role was appropriate. It was alleged that we had suggested that, in some way, general practitioners had not been doing their job. That is not the point. General practitioners themselves have been concerned about their role.
  I want to quote from a report to indicate that I am not the only person who is saying this. The medical journal Monitor Weekly of 2 June 1993 said:
  "More than two-thirds of the 100 GPs questioned by Monitor admitted they had signed a sickness benefit form for patients whom they knew not to be sick, or for an illness that would not prevent the patient from working."
  That is borne out by other studies, which have shown that it is a question not of GPs' deliberately avoiding the test but of their taking part in a way that they find inappropriate as the gamekeepers in the area of this benefit.
  Mr. Ingram: Can the Minister tell us how many general practitioners there are, what percentage the sample represents, and whether he considers it a scientific sample?
  Mr. Burt: No one claims that the point made by GPs and what they have said over a period is invalid. Again, I am making the point that GPs retain a role in this benefit right the way through, but do not have the definitive and distinctive role that they had in the past. I see nothing wrong in that.
  Turning to other issues, some hon. Members asked about particular illnesses and whether, on their own, they

  199
  would be a matter for a decision. The effect of any medical condition or disorder on the capacity to work is of cardinal importance, but such an effect can vary in intensity, over time, from mild to severe. We are taking steps to ensure that the needs of people with such conditions are addressed in developing the new tests. As part of the development of the medical assessment, in-house studies have researched the extent to which certain complicating factors, such as pain, stiffness and fatigue, may affect capacity to work. [Interruption.]
  This research has been incorporated in the development of the medical test so far. The consultation exercise has informed the debate, and a consensus will be reached, to give sufficient and appropriate weighting to such factors in the medical test.
  I turn now to information about the panel and the allegations there. Once again, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), in particular, and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), suggested that these people were being kept well away from the public, working in secret, working in caves.
  All I can say is that members of the panel will certainly have had full access to the reports of the Committee and of these proceedings in the House, and I imagine that they would want to keep well away from hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Newport, West if they believe all they read about them.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: That is rough.
  Mr. Burt: It is as rough as I get: the hon. Gentleman knows that.
  In relation to anonymity, we decided at the outset that the participants in the expert panel exercise should be anonymous, to ensure that they could give their professional input without the possibility of any external influence. [Interruption.] We have, however, readily agreed to give details of their areas of expertise. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) wishes to intervene, perhaps she will do so in the normal way, rather than from a seated position.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I would be delighted to, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Burt: I should not, but I will.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware how many doctors, male and female, sit on how many assessment panels, how many research papers they publish, and how much effort they put into researching a vast number of medical conditions and their implications? Why does the Minister have this poor, weak, pathetic, little group who must be protected, not only, according to him, from hon. Members but also from the general public, because they are somehow terrified that their views would be influenced? How many are there? How often are they protected? Is this the only way in which the Minister protects them, or does he protect them in other spheres as well?
  Mr. Burt: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me complete my remarks about this section, and then she will hear some of the answers.
  200
  The group has access to anybody it wishes, and should its members wish to beat a path to the hon. Lady's door, they will no doubt do so. We have readily agreed to give details of their areas of expertise, and the answers to a number of parliamentary questions confirm that that is the case.
  Once the expert panel have completed their work, we will give full details of all those who were approached. The idea is that we should issue a report round about August, which will summarise the results of the consultation exercise, the work of the panel and the evaluation exercise and which will also give details of who they are. There will then be an opportunity to consult in relation to the work they do, with a view to trying to get down to a test.
  So there is no way in which this work can be said to be done in secret or anything like that. It is very important that the results of the panel's work are published in a formal report, so that they can form part of the debate on the regulations which will establish in law the medical test of incapacity for work.
  Mr. Howarth: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the matter of confidentiality, may I press him on confidentiality in another but relevant context? He will be aware that one reason for the increasing number of appeals is that applicants are not made aware of the contents of the reports produced by the Benefits Agency medical service. Will my hon. Friend ensure that in future those reports are made available to claimants? It will show a properly respectful attitude to claimants, and it may mean rather less time, energy and resources wasted in appeals.
  Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right, and I am happy to give the assurance, which I gave in Committee, that the information will be available.
  New clause 4 seeks details of those appeals heard more than 10 days after they were made, a summary of the outcome of all appeals, a report on the extent to which medical evidence influenced the appeal outcome, a summary of the reasons for any failure by claimants to attend the hearing, and a report on the use made of claimants' representatives at an appeal.
  The Benefits Agency and the independent tribunal service are committed to looking at ways to improve the clearance times for appeals across the whole social security benefit system. There has been considerable activity to identify and eradicate causes of delay, and there are some indications that this is already successful.
  Every party, including claimants, representatives and adjudication officers, is entitled under Social Security (Adjudication) Regulation 4(2) to at least 10 days' notice of a hearing. Times run from the date of posting of the appeal papers to the day before the hearing of the case. However, both the claimant and the adjudication officer will wish to prepare submissions before a hearing is confirmed.
  Furthermore, the claimant's representative will require time to prepare, and often he or she is unavailable for the designated hearing date, necessitating a postponement. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge the sheer impracticability of the suggestion that appeals should be heard within 10 days of their being made.
  I am not certain what purpose the final two parts of the new clause would serve. Where the claimant is absent, the tribunal will satisfy itself that papers were duly notified and whether the claimant has indicated an intention to be

  201
  present, before considering whether to continue with the hearing. The Department has no obvious interest in the reasons for a claimant's absence or a yearly summary of those reasons. Similarly, it has no interest in the use made by claimants of representations at an appeal.
  We are rather confused by amendment No. 22. It appears to seek to ensure that the Secretary of State shall set out in regulations the manner in which evidence and information are to be used in the assessment of incapacity.
  If the House is looking for reassurance that all evidence, whether provided by the claimant, his GP or another person, will be properly considered in the assessment of incapacity, I can provide that reassurance. All relevant evidence will be taken into account at all stages, both in the Benefits Agency medical services doctor's assessment of the claimant and in the adjudication officer's determination of incapacity. Nothing will be excluded.
  I question the need for amendment No. 24, the purpose of which is to require the claimant's GP to sit with the tribunal where the appeal concerns determination of the capacity to work. I am sure that the medical profession would not wish to spend time and resources in that manner. GPs, and the British Medical Association, have said for some time that acting as policemen for the social security system can undermine the doctor-patient relationship. They have complained for many years of an ever-increasing amount of paperwork.
  The new method of assessing medical incapacity will mean that GPs need to complete many fewer statements of incapacity, and that the Department will be writing to them for further reports rather less often. I fail to see, therefore, what purpose amendment No. 24 serves.
  In relation to amendment No. 25, our intention is that appeals against decisions made by an adjudication officer on incapacity benefit shall go to social security appeal tribunals. The tribunals comprise a legally qualified chairman, who guides the proceedings and advises on the law, and two lay members. The arrangement reflects the existing provision in invalidity and sickness benefits.
  The most sensitive appeals on incapacity benefit will be those which concern a dispute about the level of the claimant's functional limitations. In these cases, we think that the tribunal should have access to independent medical expertise. The members of the tribunal, who are trained and expert in this, will weigh the evidence and they will make the decision.
  I believe that the new clauses and amendments will not provide any additional benefits for claimants, and I invite hon. Members to reject them.
  Mr. Bradley: The Minister's explanation has done no more than reinforce our view that an annual report is required. He started by claiming how good the Government's record was on benefits for disabled people, but forgot to mention that the purpose of the legislation is to cut £1.45 billion from that budget in the next two years. If that is a mark of success, I despair of the Government's intentions in relation to other aspects of social security.
  We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, well supported by all my hon. Friends, and especially by the contribution of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) which, as the Under-Secretary of State said, was greatly appreciated by the Government. It was
  202
  certainly greatly appreciated by Opposition Members because he fully supported our new clauses and amendments.
  We would have had an even more interesting debate in Committee if the Government had not censored the membership of the Committee but had allowed a proper debate among people genuinely interested in the topic, with the knowledge and expertise that would have been greatly welcomed in our deliberations during our 35 hours in Committee. It is a sad reflection on that censorship that not one Conservative member of the Committee has deigned to turn up to speak on Report.
  7 pm
  By our proposals we simply seek information in terms of an annual report and a report on the appeals procedure to be presented to the House of Commons for proper parliamentary scrutiny. I find it incredible that a Government who claim to be the champions of open government should say that all that information will be gathered by the Government but that they will not present it in any coherent form to Parliament. One can only suspect that their real intention is to gather that information, recognise the realities of the way in which the medical test is operating and suppress the information, because they will not want a genuine debate in Parliament about the operation of the medical test.
  The debate could not have made clearer why the medical test should be considered by us today—so that we could have a proper debate about the way in which it would operate in practice. The Minister has reaffirmed that the Government seek a clear threshold on which to base the decision whether someone is capable or incapable of work. It is clear from all the information—all the representations from organisations that represent disabled people throughout the country—that it is inappropriate to set a fixed threshold.
  Incapacity is a continuum. One needs to judge the nature of the illness or the nature of the disability against the real world of work. It is incredible to suggest that the Government could apply that medical test—which is not before us—to that concept of own work and all work without explaining the way in which all work will operate in the current employment market.
  We must demand that information be presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Reports on the way in which the incapacity benefit will work are crucial. We place clearly on record our total opposition to the Bill because, as all my hon. Friends have said, the reality of the Bill will not bite for at least 12 months. Then Conservative Members will come whining back to the House, as a result of their casework, and say, "We did not vote for this. We did not understand what would happen. We did not understand that the medical test would be applied in this way. We did not understand that there would be a reduction in the amount of benefit available under the new incapacity benefit compared with the previous invalidity benefit."
  We must say clearly, through the amendment, that we are voting to oppose the cuts in benefit to disabled people, and to oppose the tightening of the regime on the medical test and applying the reality of people with disabilities to a situation in which at least 3 million people are unemployed. That is what we are voting for. Let no Conservative Members return to the House in future and pretend that they did not understand what they were voting for. This is the opportunity to make their intentions clear.
  Question put,That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 299.

  Division No. 155]

  [7.04 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Denham, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dewar, Donald

  Ainger, Nick

  Dixon, Don

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Alton, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bames, Harry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Beggs, Roy

  Flynn, Paul

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Foulkes, George

  Benton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Galbraith, Sam

  Betts, Clive

  Galloway, George

  Blair, Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Blunkett, David

  Garrett, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Boyes, Roland

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Burden, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hall, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hanson, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hardy, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Janner, Greville

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  204

  Keen, Alan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prescott, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry

  Radice, Giles

  Litherland, Robert

  Randall, Stuart

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Redmond, Martin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reid, Dr John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKelvey, William

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Madden, Max

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliot

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Watson, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Andrew

  Murphy, Paul

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Olner, William

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wise, Audrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Worthington, Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Pope, Greg

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bates, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkins, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  205

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hague, William

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Harris, David

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  206

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Spring, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stephen, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stewart, Allan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sykes, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pawsey, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Ward, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Watts, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wells, Bowen

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sackville, Tom

  Whitney, Ray

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Spicer, Michael (S Warcs)

Clause 2

  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RATE
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 21, leave out "£42.70" and insert ""£43.45".
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8 and No. 14.
  Mr. Scott: The amendments deal with the way in which the rates of incapacity benefit and statutory sick pay set out in the Bill will be revised to take account of the genuine increases in benefit rates—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members wish to chat, will they please do so outside the Chamber?
  Mr. Scott: The amendments will ensure that the rates of benefit will be revised to take account of the general increases in benefited rates from this coming April and also in the April 1995 uprating. Amendments Nos.1 to 7 are straightforward; they simply replace rates of incapacity benefit set out in clause 2 to bring them into line with the new April 1994 rates of sickness and invalidity benefit.
  Amendment No. 8 has two purposes. The first is that the amendment will provide for the middle rate of incapacity benefit to be increased, but only if the Secretary of State decides to uprate the higher rate of statutory sick pay before the commencement of the Act. Its second role is to provide for a further increase to the rates set out in clause 2 to take account of any increase in benefit rates that are required in accordance with the April 1995 uprating.
  As hon. Members who followed the debates in Committee will be aware, from the introduction of incapacity benefit we are committed to increasing all the basic rates, age additions and dependency increases in line with the general uprating of benefits. That means that the middle rate of incapacity benefit will be uprated in the usual way from 1996 thereafter. I hope that the House will support the amendments.
  Mr. Ingram: The Minister gave a very brief outline of what the Government propose to do. I do not know whether he wanted to appear as Father Christmas; perhaps it would have been better if he had put on the guise of one of the Greeks with the Trojan horse. We are not going to have a brief debate because the matters underlying the Minister's announcement are at the heart of some of the Bill's worst aspects. The announcement involves not only uprating, but those affected by the rates.
  Throughout our discussions of the Bill, both here and in Committee, we said that the uprating, about which we have just been advised, and which we debated in detail in Committee, would be no less than an assault on people with disabilities. The essence of the Bill—as revealed through the rates that have been increased to take account of the recent uprating statement—involves cutting the amount paid to those with disabilities who are unable to work after April 1995.
  The amendments alter only slightly the extent of the cut that those disabled people will face from April 1995. The Government amendments remind us of the analysis of the cuts that was made on Second Reading and explored in detail in Committee.
  The Bill extends the short-term incapacity period, as it is classed, from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. That will mean that benefit entitlement will be delayed for a full year, and will result in a lower level of payment than is currently available through invalidity benefit. Often, the needs of a newly disabled person are greatest in the early stages. We discussed that in great detail in Committee, but unfortunately we were unable to convince the Ministers of the merits of our argument. We hoped that the upratings contained in the Government amendments would be much more substantial and would recognise the strengths and merits of the arguments advanced in Committee.
  There is a concession to those with a terminal illness or a deteriorating or long-term sickness, but it does not extend to the short-term incapacity period, which has been increased from 28 to 52 weeks. To make someone with a teminal illness or a major deteriorating or long-term sickness wait 52 weeks before receiving the full benefit is nothing short of a disgrace.
  208
  While the amendments redefine the short-term incapacity period as 52 weeks, the new all-work test remains applicable at 28 weeks. That means that people who pass the test at 28 weeks will be regarded as incapable of all work, but will not be entitled to full benefit for a further 24 weeks. That delay in the long-term entitlement from 28 to 52 weeks means that the basic rate of benefit will be awarded at two levels and will not be paid at the full rate. No allowance for children and no full allowance for a non-working partner can be paid. No allowance will be based on the claimant's age.
  It is worth while dealing in detail with what the Minister briefly set out earlier and to consider how each new rate compares with existing invalidity benefit. We should consider the impact of the changes proposed in the Government amendments on current invalidity benefit claimants.
  Rather than being entitled to long-term benefit at 28 weeks, as is the present position, claimants will be paid a higher rate component of short-term benefit for 29 to 52 weeks. That means that less money will be paid as a higher rate short-term benefit, and at a lower rate than the long-term benefit. Further costs are to be made by non-payment of age additions until after 52 weeks, and then only under restricted conditions.
  I should like to go back to the preceding debate so that Conservative Members at a later stage—either in our deliberations of the Bill or after the Bill is enacted—cannot say that they did not know what the effects of the measures would be. If they approve the Government's uprating measures, they will be accepting the cuts. If the Government had tabled different amendments that took account of the merits of the arguments advanced in Committee, they would have obviated the need for me to give the following facts for the benefit of the House, especially Conservative Members.
  I propose to deal with each category of person who will be affected by the new rates and to compare what they receive under the invalidity benefit system with what they will receive after uprating to consider the loss implications. The greatest loss will be in the 29 to 52 weeks period. The losses will be substantial if the Government amendments are accepted.
  A single person who is under 40 years of age receives at present £69·75 in invalidity benefit. Under the new short-term higher rate incapacity benefit, which is payable after 28 weeks for 24 weeks, the same individual with the same illness will receive £52·50 a week. That is a loss of £17·25 a week. Over the 24-week period, the loss amounts to £414. A single person under 50 years of age receives at present £65·20 in invalidity benefit. Under the new benefit rates, that person will receive £52·50, a loss of £12·70 per week and, over the 24-week period, a total loss of £304·80. A single man under 60 years of age and a single woman under 55 receive £61·40 in invalidity benefit. Under the new benefit rates, they will receive £52·50—a loss of £8·90 per week and a total loss of £213·60 over the 24-week period.
  The extent of the loss for those with families is even greater. A married person under 40 with two children receives £125·05 in invalidity benefit. Under the new benefit rates, that person will receive £79·40—a loss of £45·65 per week and a total loss of £1,095·60 over the 24-week period.

  209
  7.30 pm
  A married person under 40 with no children would receive £104·25 per week under the present system and £52·50 per week under the new benefit—a loss per week of £51·75 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,242.
  At present, a married person under 50 with two children would receive invalidity benefit of £120·50 per week and £79·40 under the new benefit rates-a loss per week of £41·10 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £986·40.
  A married person under 50 with no children would receive invalidity benefit of £99·70 and £52·50 under the proposed benefit rates—a loss per week of £47·20 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,132·80.
  A married man under 60 and a married woman under 55 with two children would receive £116·70 in invalidity benefit. Under the new incapacity benefit rates they would receive £79·40—a loss per week of £37·30 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £895.20.
  A married man under 60 and a married woman under 55 with no children would receive invalidity benefit of £95·90 and £52·50 under the new rates—a loss per week of £43·40 and a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,041·60.
  Those are substantial sums, but I am putting all this information on record—and there is more to follow—so that Conservative Members who are not present to listen to the information may pick it up in the Lobby and change their minds. They may decide that they do not want to support the proposed changes, but even if they continue to support them, they may put additional pressure on sympathetic Ministers responsible for the Bill and ask them to put more pressure on the Treasury to bring about a different approach to the whole ethos of the measure.
  The figures I have given do not illustrate how families will be affected. Those with more than two children will lose an additional £11 a week for each additional child. Over the 24-week period that adds up to a loss of £264. Someone under 40 who is married with three children will face a total loss over the 24-week period of £1,362·60.
  Those are substantial losses for people who are going through the difficult adjustment to what is now termed incapacity for work and are having to live off much-reduced benefits. Clearly, it affects families worse than others, because of the impact of a small sum going into the family home. It creates great difficulties for parents trying to sustain their children on a weekly basis on a much-reduced sum of money.
  While the major losses will be sustained within the 29 to 52-week period, there will also be losses from 52 weeks onwards, but there are two surprises in the information I am about to give.
  A single person under 35, receiving invalidity benefit of £69·75, will continue to receive £69·75, so the loss for that individual is zero. Surprise number one is that we have actually found someone who will not lose under the proposed measures. Unfortunately, the trend does not continue for long, because a single person under 40 who would at present receive invalidity benefit of £69·75, will receive £63·70 under the new rates—a loss per week of £6·05.
  A single person under 45 who would receive invalidity benefit of £65·20, will receive £63·70 under the new rates —a loss per week of £1·50. A single person under 50 who would receive invalidity benefit of £65·20, will receive £57·60 under the new rates—a loss per week of £7·60. A
  210
  single man under 60 and a single woman under 55 who would receive invalidity benefit of £61·40, will receive £57·60 under the new rates—a loss of £3·80 per week.
  Hon. Members will want to know when the next big surprise is coming. It is in the very next piece of information and relates to a married person under 35 with two children, who under invalidity benefit would receive £125·05. Under the new rates that person will receive the same amount, so again there will be a loss of zero. It is miraculous that out of all the categories I have listed only two sustain no loss whatsoever.
  I do not imagine that there will be much rejoicing even in those households. They will be saying, "If everyone else is losing, for how long will I continue not to lose?". How long will it be before the man from the Treasury knocks on the door of the Secretary of State for Social Security asking to see his secret little list and asking him what other categories of people can bear a cut in benefit?
  It is worth while putting on record the other categories and the rates that will apply to them. A married person under 35 with no children, who would receive invalidity benefit of £104·25, will receive £69·75 under the new rates—a loss per week of £34·50.
  A married person under 40 with two children, who would receive invalidity benefit of £125·05 a week, will receive £119 under the new rates—a loss per week of £6·05. A married person under 40 with no children who would receive at present £104·25, will receive £63·70 under the new rates—a loss per week of £40·55.
  A married person under 45 with two children, who would receive £120·50 at present, will receive £119 under the new rates—a loss per week of £1·50. A married person under 45 with no children, who would receive £99·70 at present, will receive £63·70 under the new rates—a loss per week of £36.
  A married person under 50 with two children, who would receive at present £120·50, will receive £112·90 under the new rates—a loss per week of £7·60. A married person under 50 with no children, who would receive at present £99·70 will receive £57·60 under the new rates —a loss per week of £42·10.
  A married person under 60 with two children, who would receive at present £116·70 per week, will receive £112·90 under the new rates—a loss per week of £3·80. A married person under 60 with no children, who would receive at present £95·90 will receive £57·60 under the new rates—a loss per week of £38·30.
  Certain assumptions are built into those calculations, but it is a reasonable assumption that all spouses referred to in the categories are under 60.
  A range of swingeing cuts is implicit in what the Minister has announced tonight. It may well be that the answer to the argument might be that some people receive other benefits as a consequence. However, the Government's own estimates show that only 40 per cent. of claimants will be eligible for income support, thereby falling into the safety net. So a significant number of people will lose substantially as a result of the figures that we are being asked to consider.
  I have dealt with the categories of people that fall ill in the period 29 to 52 weeks, and those who are on longer-term benefits after 52 weeks. It is no surprise that there will be a loss for people who fall in the cateogry of up to 28 weeks. That area will have two rates of basic benefit. For people falling sick while in work, the statutory sick pay will be £52·50 a week at current rates. Others,

  211
  such as the self-employed, will receive the same rate of sickness benefit of £43·45. No dependant's allowance will be payable unless the dependant is looking after children or is under 60.
  The current rate for dependants is £26·90 a week. The potential loss during the first 28 weeks for certain categories amounts to £753·20 for someone with a dependant who would be entitled to an increase of benefit under the old rates.
  I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, did not have the benefit of listening to these arguments in Committee. I am sure that you are finding the information riveting. It is not the most declaratory speech imaginable, but none the less it is important to get this information across and on the record. It would have been useful if the Minister had given an indication of the type of cuts that are implicit within the uprated benefits. Ministers have never really accepted what they are doing here. They have argued fast and furiously against all the arguments advanced.
  The point has been made time and again, in Committee, on Second Reading and tonight, that while Members in the House may be interested in this, most of the information —probably all of it—is coming from groups who represent those who will be affected by these measures.
  These are not scare tactics. I am not trying to say something that will not happen. I am not using points for arguments sake. These are straightforward facts about the reality of this measure and what the amendments relate to.
  On top of that, we must take our minds back to the additional pension. It was stated during Second Reading and came up again in Committee, but a commitment was given by the Minister some time back. He said:
  "All the rights built up in the years up to and including the 1990–91 tax year will be preserved, whenever the claim for invalidity pension is made, however far in the future that may be. Moreover, such additional pension will continue to be subject to revaluation uprating in exactly the same way as at present"— [Official Report, 3 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1115.]
  We are not very far in the future and the Government are not announcing anything tonight to ensure that that commitment will be adhered to. That adds up to a substantial loss for a particular category of claimants.
  Every category, group and individual who is affected by someone in the family or who is conditioned by a disability will lose out under the new incapacity benefit if they become incapable of work after April 1995. I am grateful that the Minister is nodding. I hope that at some stage during this part of consideration of the Bill he will stand up and admit the extent of the cuts.
  We have talked extensively in previous debates about the global sums—savings of £550 million in the first year and gross savings of £1·4 billion. in year two. Those are great sums, but individuals and families will suffer as a consequence. They will not lose £1·4 billion, but they will lose a lot of important pound coins each week, which allow them to survive, keep them going, give them a bit of dignity and, if they have children, allow them to look after them with some measure of confidence. All that will go.
  As I was considering the uprating figures, a particular phrase came to mind of my right hon. Friend the Member of Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). It was an extensive speech, but I shall take just one small part of it. In 1983, he said that he warned the people of Britain not to become sick, disabled under this Government. Those were prophetic words, because what we are now considering in this measure and in rates that I listed show what he meant by that. Those words are coming home with a vengeance to
  212
  those people who will become incapacitated for work after April 1995. Indeed, in the longer term, it may mean the same for those receiving invalidity benefit.
  7.45 pm
  We have asked the Minister before whether he is prepared to say that those currently receiving invalidity benefit will continue to receive those amounts uprated for ever more. It is unlikely that he will say that, but throughout the Bill's Committee stage, the Minister and his hon. Friends kept asking Labour Members what commitments a future Labour Government would give. We are not in government at the moment. The Minister is part of the Government. What commitments can he give for people in receipt of invalidity benefits? Will they always receive the same rates? Are there no plans to bring them into line with those who will receive the new incapacity benefit rates after April 1995? I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about that.
  Having set out the details of what the new rates mean, it is appropriate to set out how we will react to them. It would be nice to vote against the Government—it is populist in some parts of politics to vote constantly against the Government—but that would be doing a major disservice to those who will receive the new benefits. Although they will receive major cuts as a consequence of these benefits, none the less it would be wrong for the Opposition to vote against what is proposed. Any small amount is to be welcomed, but it is a small amount on a much reduced amount. That is the main thrust of the criticism that I put to the Minister tonight.
  We will not be calling an official vote on these amendments, because it is important that we get a bit more than was previously written down in the original Bill. All of the facts and the information needs careful examination and consideration. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends will want to elaborate and add to what I have said. That will all be on record for the future. When Conservative Members consider the matter in future, they cannot complain that they did not know.
  Mr. Ted Lowlands: I draw the attention of the House to the potential problems that will arise in a community such as mine from the vivid and frightening account that my hon. Friend has just given of the potential and future cuts in invalidity benefit that will occur. I make no apology for returning to an aspect of the problem that I raised briefly on the money resolution after Second Reading—the impact that the changes that the Bill might foreshadow not only for individual families but collectively on the purchasing power of a community.
  In that context, I draw the attention of the House and of Ministers in particular to the role that invalidity benefit has played in sustaining that purchasing power and to the impact that any future cuts of the kind envisaged and described so vividly by my hon. Friend will have on the future purchasing power of a community such as mine.
  I draw the attention of Ministers to the context in which those changes can take place in a community such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. In 1981, 20,800 people were in employment in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil. Of those, 13,100 were men, 400 of whom were formerly part time. There were 7,700 women in work, of whom nearly 50 per cent.—3,200—were part-time. A decade later, in 1991, only 16,700 people, men and women, were working—

  213
  16,700 out of 60,000, in the area where the industrial revolution began. Of those 16,700, only 8,700 men were in work. Those figures take us back to the 1930s; indeed, in terms of the insured population, they are the equivalent of figures for the late 1930s. we should consider the cuts and changes introduced by the Bill in that context.
  In communities such as mine, the employment base and the labour force have shrunk, and the number of people in work has not risen but fallen dramatically over the past decade. It is in that connection that we should consider the impact of any future changes in invalidity benefit on, for instance, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley and Rhymney.
  Unfortunately, we cannot produce figures for the number of people receiving invalidity benefit on a borough or even a constituency basis. One must therefore make certain extrapolations. At present, 28,000 people in Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley and Rhymney are receiving invalidity benefit. According to a letter from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, the arrangements for the Merthyr Tydfil district are not coterminous with those relating to the Merthyr borough, where the number of claimants was 11,946. In Wales as a whole, more than 156,000 people are receiving invalidity benefit.
  It is just possible that roughly as many people in the Merthyr borough now receive invalidity benefit as there are men in work. That is a frightening, horrific and wicked situation. Occasionally at Tory party conferences Ministers make speeches implying that we wallow in dependency —that we believe in the dependency culture revealed in the figures that I have quoted. That is nonsense. I do not want to depend on the state, and nor does Merthyr Tydfil. We know—and the Bill demonstrates—just how capricious Governments can be when it comes to sustaining and supporting people in need.
  For a combination of reasons, we have been driven into a more dependent society in the past 10 or 15 years. As I have said, because so many people have fallen ill in work and had to stop working, the number of people receiving invalidity benefit is probably nearly as great as the number of men in employment. I am sure that the Government do not welcome that position any more than we do.
  Nevertheless, the benefit has been vital. There is one major difference between the recessions of the 1980s and early 1990s and the recessions that hit our area in the 1930s. Up to a point, purchasing power has been sustained in communities such as ours; we have not experienced the absolute deprivation that was so characteristic of south Wales mining communities such as the one that I come from and now represent. The difference lies in the contributory benefits created by a post-war generation who experienced regular employment for the first time and who established a series of rights deriving from that experience, including sickness and invalidity benefits.
  That has been an extremely important factor in sustaining the purchasing power of the community. While the number of people in employment has shrunk, invalidity and other contributory benefits have developed for the reasons that I have given. What will happen if we cannot rapidly reverse the decline in employment, and if the cuts described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) are introduced in the next year or two? What will happen to those who have accrued rights to invalidity benefit as a result of their employment over the past 10, 15
  214
  or 20 years and who, having fallen ill and requiring the prop of that benefit, receive a much reduced amount? The result must involve a potential reduction in the purchasing power of communities such as Merthyr Tydfil, Rhymney and Cynon Valley.
  I ask the Minister, as I did when we discussed the money motion, to consider the ripple effect of the changes made by the Bill. On the money motion, I mentioned the number of people who would receive no benefit of any kind. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, future beneficiaries will receive much less than those who receive invalidity benefit now.
  There is another aspect. Can hon. Members imagine the envies and jealousies that will grow up between neighbours in every street in close-knit communities of the kind that I represent? There will be two distinct classes of invalidity beneficiary: those receiving existing rates, and those who will receive the much lower rates. I do not know what kind of society the Minister represents, but people compare such rates in the club or on the doorstep. Word gets around. As I listened to my hon. Friend, I envisaged the pattern of my surgery work following April 1995. We have had the Child Support Agency this year; next year, it will be invalidity benefit. At least hon. Members will not be short of work, at least in our surgeries. The difference between beneficiaries will not be merely marginal.
  As I said when I spoke on the money motion, the changes made by the Bill will affect not only the individuals and families of the future who may depend on invalidity benefit, but the purchasing power and therefore the economic health of societies such as ours in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
  Mr. Jamie Cann: I, too, welcome the uprating—albeit small—in the amendment. I must add, however, that I see it in the context of what has passed before my wondering eyes during the past few weeks, in my first Standing Committee. What has happened to a scheme that will be very important to hundreds of thousands of people has been largely unreported by the press and, judging by the appearance of the Press Gallery, it will be largely unreported today.
  Cut after cut has been made in the existing invalidity benefit scheme, and time periods have been extended to save money. When we ask for reasons, we are confronted by the smokescreen erected by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—but particularly by the Prime Minister. In June last year, he said that it beggared belief that the number of people receiving invalidity benefit could have increased from 700,000 to 1·5 million over, I think, five years. The implication was that many recipients of such benefit did not really deserve it.
  There is no evidence to support that view, especially in the five reports commissioned by the Department of Social Security. According to the most authoritative report that I have seen—from the Policy Studies Institute—29 per cent. of the extra cases have been people of pensionable age, drawing the benefit instead of pension for tax reasons, 16 per cent. results from the increase in the number of women in the labour market, 13 per cent. result from the gradual increase in the number of disabled people in the relevant age groups—another demographic factor—and only 42 per cent. relate to a genuine growth in the rate of claims in a stable population of disabled people.
  We must ask ourselves why. Is it because more people are receiving sick notes who should not be, or is it because

  215
  people on invalidity benefit are finding it increasingly difficult to get back into the job market? Everyone whom I have read on the subject has found that it is the latter, not the former.
  8 pm
  Why are we introducing the new medical test that will apply to new applicants? There is no logic to it, because it does not apply to previous applicants. The Government apparently believe that half of them are scroungers but they will continue to get invalidity benefit at the previous rate, whereas people who pass a new and more difficult test will receive less. What equity or fairness is there in that? It is nonsense and it is a smokescreen.
  The truth is that the Bill is about reducing public expenditure to pay for the Government's mistakes. It will gross the Government £550 million in the next financial year starting in April 1995 and £1,450,000 in 1996–97. It is not only I who say that. Every voluntary organisation that deals with invalidity benefit and disabled people says that. It is best encapsulated in a brief quotation from Ann Robinson, the chief executive of the Spastics Society. She said:
  "The Government claims to be scrapping Invalidity Benefit on the basis that many people who can work are claiming it, but we've yet to see any evidence of this. This legislation is about reducing public expenditure, not ensuring the right benefits reach the right people. Once again, disabled people seem to be getting a rough deal as a result of Government cost-cutting. This new benefit will not meet the needs of disabled people who cannot work."
  I know it, the House knows it, the voluntary organisations know it and, very soon, the country will know it.
  Mr. Mudie: It is a pity that the Chamber, like the Standing Committee, is devoid of Government Back Benchers as they are the people who will enable the measure to be passed and put into effect. It is a shame that the Benches are empty now but at 10 pm the Lobbies will be full and the measure will be passed.
  The devastating figures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) show the effect of the measure on ordinary families in which the breadwinner has the misfortune to fall ill, have an accident or suffer from long-term sickness. The figures are also devastating to the Government's integrity.
  Let us remember the origins of the Bill. They are similar to those of the Child Support Agency, which has been mentioned so often. That agency was formed on the basis of the then Prime Minister deciding in an off-the-cuff speech that we should chase errant fathers, thus pushing hard-working people into bankruptcy. The situation now—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are discussing Government amendment No. 1, which does not refer to the Child Support Agency.
  Mr. Mudie: I had just finished with the Child Support Agency because I realised that you would quickly decide, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment did not relate to it. However, this measure is similar, especially as we are dealing with amendments to the uprating of benefits.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) said, it was the present Prime Minister who said that it beggared belief that the number of those in receipt of invalidity benefit had jumped from 600,000 to 1·4 million in the space of 10 or 12 years. The Prime Minister's remarks gave the impression that a number of people in a
  216
  healthy nation—as the Prime Minister put it—were wrongly in receipt of the benefit. That may be so; if it is, it should be considered and legislated on. No one would complain about that.
  However, in the first five paragraphs of his Second Reading speech, trying to sell this ugly, nasty and mean measure to his Back Benchers and to the House, the Secretary of State said that the review of the social security system was intended to
  "safeguard the position of the most vulnerable".
  That is important because it establishes the fact that the Secretary of State understands that those in receipt of long-term benefit are the most vulnerable. However, still within the first five paragraphs of his speech, he said that the
  "sums devoted to sickness benefits"
  should be
  "properly focused on those who are genuinely too unwell to work".
  "Focused" and "genuinely"—there will be no difference between the two sides of the House about the use of the words. Any money available should, in the Secretary of State's words, be focused on those who are genuinely vulnerable and genuinely unwell.
  I dare not ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you cannot participate in the debate, but I wonder what picture is forming in your mind. Someone listening, perhaps naively, to the Secretary of State would believe that some people were receiving money unfairly and not according to the rules so they were to be weeded out and benefit focused on genuine cases.
  In the same part of his speech, the Secretary of State also said:
  "The Bill is not an attack on the sick and disabled; it is the very reverse. It is designed to protect their benefit against those who abuse it. As a result, it will make their benefits sustainable despite the other pressures on the social security system."—[Official Report, 24 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 35.]
  If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall emphasise the key notion, which is that the available money should be devoted to, and focused on, the vulnerable and genuinely unwell, that their benefit should be protected so—this is most important in terms of the amendments—that their benefits are sustained. That presents a picture of weeding out those who wrongly receive benefit but protecting the genuine.
  I challenge the Minister not to acknowledge that a person who is long-term disabled and who will be eligible for incapacity benefit under the operation of this legislation in 1995 will not be worse off in benefit terms than a person receiving benefit before the operation of the legislation in 1995. In other words, there will be two types of disabled people.
  We accepted a given level of benefit for some people before 1995. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride spelt out the amounts but I am not sure whether you were in the Chamber at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I believe that Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair. My hon. Friend said that a married man under 40 with two children in the last six months of his first year of benefit loses £1,095. Is that protecting and sustaining the most vulnerable?
  I see that the Government Whip is raising his eyebrows, but I am quoting the Secretary of State. It was on that basis that the Bill was sold to the House. Does it sound as if the

  217
  Secretary of State is protecting and sustaining the most vulnerable? A married man of 50 with no children will lose £1,132 if he has been ill for more than six months—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having a little difficulty in discovering to which amendment the hon. Gentleman's figures relate; perhaps he can advise me.
  Mr. Mudie: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am nearing the end of my remarks so I hope that you will not be unduly worried. The fact is that my comments are in order. The amendments deal with the uprating of benefits. The figures were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and were unchallenged by Madam Deputy Speaker because they were a comparison of invalidity benefit currently paid to an individual and what will happen when the Bill becomes an Act.
  You will now see the relevance of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ministers may say that they will sustain the most vulnerable, but the figures expressed by my hon. Friend show that Ministers will do nothing of the sort. The Bill is not an attack on wasters or on abusers. It is a deliberate attack on the most vulnerable.
  As we said in Committee, our treatment of those who have the misfortune to be off work due to illness for a long period of time is a mark of our society. That illness affects them physically and financially and it affects their family. My hon. Friend has done a service to those people. The only trouble is that Conservative Members, who are not in the Chamber, will troop through the Lobby and will vote for those rates of benefit.
  As has been said, in a couple of years' time, when the disabled and the ill are in our surgeries, they will say that they do not know how the legislation was passed. They have no excuse not to know because the rates have been spelled out. The grand idea is that the Bill attacks abusers, but it has been shown for what it is—a nasty, mean measure that attacks the most vulnerable in our society.
  Mr. Scott: In drawing this short debate to a conclusion, I acknowledge that it was right and fair of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) to set out in detail the impact of the changes to provision for incapacity benefit which the Government are making through the Bill. I make no complaint about that. It put the Bill in an acutely personal light and it is right that we should all be aware of that impact. Obviously, those of us who were responsible for drawing up the new proposals were aware of that. The hon. Gentleman has brought it to a wider audience, and I cannot complain.
  When we came to consider the scope and the role for incapacity benefit as opposed to invalidity benefit, which will be removed in 1995 except for the existing caseload, it was also right to consider the level of benefit, especially the add-on bits which formed parts of invalidity benefit over the years. In part at least we carry the sentiments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) with us, because the main factor in the reduction in invalidity benefit for new entrants after April 1995 will be the absence of additional pension. The House will remember only too well the remarks of the hon. Member for Garscadden in that debate when he acknowledged, at least in passing—I do not suggest that it was a considered view on that benefit—that additional pension was perhaps an anomaly in the present-day social security system.
  218
  I believe that that is an anomaly because additional pension was introduced at a time when the ability of people to make other provision for their future was much less common than it is today. A substantial percentage of those in receipt of invalidity benefit today have other resources, in savings or in income from their previous employment. Additional pension in those circumstances had become an anomaly. Many others will have other resources available to them.
  Although everybody who was in Committee is aware of the fact, it is worth emphasising that there will be no loss to the existing beneficiaries at the point of change for so long as they continue to qualify for the benefit. I have made it clear before, but I reiterate it if the hon. Member for East Kilbride would like me to, that it is the intention to continue to uprate that entitlement in the usual way in subsequent years.
  8.15 pm
  Let me turn to the basic principle of the Bill. The hon. Member for East Kilbride spoke only from the Front Bench and therefore it is not entirely unreasonable to make a point that I know was made frequently in Committee. I do not want of tease him too much about it, but, in criticising our efforts and intention to constrain the growth of the social security system, by constraining invalidity benefit in particular, by altering its scope, by introducing the objective medical test and by taking away some of the add-ons to the existing benefit, is he making a commitment to restore the present situation in future years if there should ever be again a Labour Government?
  The Government believe that we have a clear duty to contain the growth in spending on sickness benefits and to introduce an affordable system which focuses benefits on those most in need. Our proposals for restructuring will provide a basic income for all those who cannot work and they will focus resources on the genuinely long-term sick. That is the right way to tackle the situation, as long as we ensure that no one suffers a reduction in benefit when the new proposals are introduced. The Government are determined to make provision affordable in that area.
  Before I sit down, I wish to deal with a point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride on the terminally ill. As he knows, the terminally and seriously ill will receive benefit for the first 52 weeks. Those receiving the lower rate of short-term benefit will receive a significant increase after 28 weeks; and incapacity benefit, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not intended to meet the extra costs of the terminally ill or severely disabled. Disability living allowance is available to help with extra care need, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the care component is payable immediately to the terminally ill. We have set out what I think are satisfactory and well-regarded arrangements to ensure that applicants are put on a fast track.
  I said in Committee that I would consider the arguments for bringing forward the longer-term rates of benefit. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, we are considering the points that were made and we hope to reach conclusions on them in the near future. Obviously we shall ensure that everyone is informed as and when we reach those conclusions.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reiterated, perhaps at slightly greater length, the points that he made in Committee. I understand the economic impact on his constituency. I make two points in response to his comments. In the first instance, all

  219
  the existing caseload will continue to be entitled to their existing benefit, uprated as usual, so that there should be no immediate impact on purchasing power in his constituency. It is perfectly proper for him, as a constituency Member of Parliament, to put forward the impact of any Government policy on his constituency's economic prospects, but it is not the purpose of invalidity or of future incapacity benefit to underwrite, as it were, the prosperity of all those living in that area.
  I made it clear when I responded to the hon. Gentleman's questions on the money resolution that I understand the role that invalidity benefit played at a difficult time in Merthyr Tydfil, in other parts of Wales and elsewhere. However, I do not believe that, in the long run, that is the purpose of invalidity benefit.
  Mr. Rowlands: A little earlier, the right hon. Gentleman rested his case for the change on the ground that the benefits were created when people could not create occupational benefit rights. The point that I was trying to make, further to those on the money resolution, was that, as a result of the shrinking number of people in employment in our area, we shall not have a new generation creating those rights. At the same time, the available benefit will reduce for those who are entitled to it. It worries me that we are being driven backward into more of a dependency culture than ever before.
  Mr. Scott: I do not wish to stray too wide of the debate, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take all sorts of opportunities to impress upon other parts of the Government the contribution that they can make to the economic health of his area. I must also emphasise the fact that, although existing beneficiaries may lose entitlement under what will in future be incapacity beneift—in essence, it will be the continuation of their invalidity benefit after 1995—if they come off benefit, they may be able to get back into work or they may qualify for other benefits. Nobody will be left with no resources whatever.
  I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about the problems that can arise, especially in small, tight-knit communities, when people in similar circumstances are on two different rates of benefit. However, to avoid that, unless we were to leave the whole system intact for ever —that would not be realistic, sensible or prudent—we should have had to take their entitlement away from existing beneficiaries and reduce their benefit to the level of incapacity benefit that was being introduced. In recent years that has been virtually unheard of, because when there are changes in social security provision we have always endeavoured to ensure that people's existing entitlement is not reduced at the point of change, even though those who become entitled in future will have a lower entitlement.
  The amendments provide an uprating for the range of benefits now and make provision for benefits to be upgraded again in April 1995. I understand that Opposition Members may feel that the benefits are inadequate, but I welcome their undertaking not to vote against the amendments.
  Mr. Ingram: We started out not knowing whether this would be a lengthy debate. The Minister said that it would be short, but I suspect that it has probably grown longer than he expected when he gave his one-minute introduction to the amendments.
  220
  The debate has been useful because it has drawn out much of the principle underlying the Bill, and we shall pick up the different messages that the Minister put out about that. He made a sterling defence of many aspects of the Bill, but some of us can read between the lines and see some of the other approaches that he might have liked to be used in defence of disabled people.
  No one denies that it is the role of Government constantly to examine the way in which benefits are paid and the overall budget for social security provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) set out the Opposition's position on that clearly on Second Reading. The Minister tried to tease me a little by asking whether what we had said amounted to a commitment on my part to restore the benefit. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to be teased in that way. That is no part of the purpose of the debate or of our approach to the Bill.
  We have exposed the full effects of the measure. Indeed, the debate has brought them into sharp focus. The Minister recognised that it had served that purpose, and in doing so it has served the nation well, because now people will know what is coming next year and beyond.
  The Minister gave me the assurance that I sought on the overall question of maintaining the uprating and the present level of invalidity benefit. I accept that assurance in the spirit in which it was given, but others may tell me that the Minister made the same commitment on additional pensions. I hope that in two or three years' time we shall not be back with the same criticism on invalidity benefit as we have had to make on additional pensions.
  The Minister is right to say that it is not our intention to vote against the amendments, because they give a little more money than before, although still a lot less than current levels of invalidity benefit. For that reason, it would be wrong for us to vote against the amendments, and we accordingly accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 25, leave out '£56·10' and insert ' £57·60 '.
  No. 3, in page 4, line 10, leave out '£26·40' and insert '£26·90'.
  No. 4, in page 4, line 12, leave out '£10·95' and insert '£11·00'.
  No. 5, in page 4, line 12, leave out '£32·30' and insert '£33·10'.
  No. 6, in page 4, line 14, leave out '£10·95' and insert '£11·00'.
  No. 7, in page 4, line 14, leave out '£33·70' and insert '£34·50'.
  No. 8, in page 4, line 14, at end add—
  '(7) Any order under section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (up-rating orders) made by the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section shall include provision—

  (a) making such increase (if any) in the sum specified in the provision inserted by subsection (2) above as the amount of short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate as is necessary to make that sum equal to the higher rate or, if there is only one such rate, to the rate of statutory sick pay payable after the order comes into force; and

  (b) making such increases in the other sums specified in the provisions inserted by subsections (2) and (6) above in Schedule 4 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 as would have been required if the provisions in question had been in force at all material times.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

  Clause 4

    POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSITION TO INCAPACITY BENEFIT
    Mr. Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (11) and insert
    '(11) For the period of three years from Royal Assent a statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
    (12) A statutory instrument—

    (a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) any regulations made under this section, and

    (b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

    shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 10 to 13.
    Mr. Burt: These amendments relate to the regulation-making powers. Members on the Standing Committee will recall that during discussions on clause 4 a commitment was given to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) to look again at the period for which those regulation-making powers would be subject to affirmative resolution. It was suggested at that time that a period of three years might be more appropriate.
    New clause 1, which we dealt with earlier, introduced the three-year period for regulations covering the transition to the new test of incapacity. Amendment No. 9 now gives effect to that for regulations made under clause 4. New subsection (11) will ensure that the regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution for three years from the date of Royal Assent. Additionally, new subsection (12) provides that where the regulations under clause 4 are contained in a statutory instrument that is not subject to affirmative resolution, negative resolution will apply—that is, after the three-year period. That was omitted during the original drafting of the clause.
    Hon. Members may ask why we have decided on a period of three years. Why not, for example, make regulations always subject to the affirmative procedure? [Interruption.] Indeed, I hear that question spilling from the lips of Opposition Members.
    We recognise that there will be a great deal of interest in the regulations made under the Bill. They are likely to be complex—the very reason for enshrining such matters in secondary legislation—and modifications may need to be made to deal with problems that emerge. In the light of that interest we think it right that the amending regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
    Eventually the new system will settle down—three years is a reasonable estimate for the transitional period —and, I hope, will find acceptance on all sides. From time to time there may need to be small sets of amending regulations dealing with what we expect to be relatively minor matters. We do not think that, given a choice, the House would want to debate these. There would, however, have to be a debate if the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure. If we place amendment under negative procedure after three years, the House will have a choice whether the issues are important enough to merit a full debate.
    222
    In addition to extending the period for application of affirmative resolution to the transitional regulations, I have tabled amendments Nos. 10 and 11 to do the same with the regulations covering the test of incapacity. Because of their complexity, it is quite possible that we shall not get the regulations right first time and that amendments will be required both before commencement of the Act and in the early days of operating the new test. The regulations will now be subject to affirmative resolution for the period of three years from the date of Royal Assent.
    Amendment No. 12 corrects an omission in the current draft of the Bill. Subsection ((3) of clause 6 lists all the regulation-making powers included in clauses 5 and 6 that are to be subject to affirmative resolution. However, subsection (7) of new section 171A has been excluded from the list. The amendment corrects that situation.
    Amendment No. 13 clarifies the reference to new section 171D. Subsection (2) of the new section merely sets out a particular case of the power given by subsection (1).
    The amendments are largely technical and give effect to a more sensible treatment of the regulation-making powers. I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Bradley: I welcome the fact that the Government have used the affirmative resolution procedure for the regulations, as promised in Committee. I am especially pleased that the Minister spotted the omission of subsection (7). We would have tabled an amendment to that effect ourselves if the Government had not done so.
    Mr. Burt: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman certainly would have done.
    Mr. Bradley: However, we must place on the record yet again our opposition to the way in which the legislation is being dealt with by regulation. I shall not rehearse the arguments on that subject, but in a sense the Government have made the case for us. The Minister said that the regulations would be complex and that the Government do not expect to get them right, but expect to have to amend them. What a way to introduce legislation. They admit that they do not know what they are doing; yet they legislate by regulation which we cannot amend and to which we can only vote yes or no even if we know that the Government have got it wrong. That is an extraordinary procedure to adopt and the Government have condemned themselves out of the Minister's own mouth.
    However, we welcome the fact that a three-year period will apply to the regulations. All my hon. Friends will welcome that, because, unless the Government change the law on elections, three years should take us through until after the next general election, when we shall have the pleasure of introducing sensible regulations and legislation to deal with the real needs of disabled people in this country.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 6

    TEST OF INCAPACITY FOR WORK: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 44, at end insert
    'but any such regulations shall take into account that it is in the public interest for disabled persons to make available their special knowledge through voluntary work and through appointment to relevant bodies and committees.'
    We feel that this amendment is very important. We hope that the Government will treat it seriously. Throughout proceedings on the Bill, they have treated many of our arguments in a genuinely serious way and we ask that this amendment be given the same balanced approach. We also ask that it be judged not merely on its cost implications —I suspect that the overall cost of implementing the amendment will be small in terms of the cost of the overall Bill. I hope that we will not get into a cost implication argument.
    The amendment simply calls on the Government to provide in regulation a means by which people in receipt of incapacity benefit—the new benefit—or the existing invalidity benefit will be allowed to do voluntary work or work in a user body or committee without fear of their entitlement to benefit being affected. The Bill as it stands already provides an exemption for local authority councillors. Their work as elected representatives will not debar them from entitlement to invalidity benefit or the new incapacity benefit.
    That principle must be right because to do otherwise would undermine the fundamental democratic right that disabled people should not be debarred from fully participating in local authorities on the ground of cost. I hope that that is one right that will never be dispatched to the dustbin of history by the Government but will be constantly protected and supported by them.
    In Committee, the Under-Secretary made a further concession—that the disregard that will apply to members of disability appeals tribunals will be extended to members of the advisory board which deals with the disability living allowance. That concession is welcome. However, it does not go far enough, and that is why we have tabled this amendment. It is right to extend that concession, but why will the Government not go one step further—we argue that it is a small step further—and concede a similar disregard for those people with disabilities who carry out such useful voluntary work on a range of committees and bodies, which benefit from the input of a disabled person?
    We can all give examples of organisations, bodies and committees which would benefit greatly from the input of a disabled person. Disabled persons should be able to serve on any committee as of right but there are specific bodies, organisations and committees which would benefit greatly from the input of a disabled person because they understand the problems associated with not only their own disability but disabilities in general.
    Clearly, bodies such as school governing bodies, community health councils and the boards of voluntary organisations which have been assisting Labour Members to understand the underlying importance and effect of this Bill would benefit from having disabled people serving on them and giving advice in that specific way. That would cover the whole breadth of voluntary organisations.
    224
    As I said, many boards, committees and groups would benefit from having disabled people serving on them. Of course, the argument will be that they should be debarred by virtue of the fact that they will lose their benefit.
    By allowing the disregard for those serving on the DLA advisory board, the Government have partly accepted that argument. However, they do not go far enough—they do not take the logic of the argument and extend it further. If it is appropriate to allow the disregard for those serving on the DLA advisory board, why is it not appropriate for those serving on the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council?
    That question was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). It was interesting to see the Minister's response. He said:
    "We have made a concession tonight. It is a little hurtful for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we should go further. There is an end point and one can only go so far."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 22 February 1993; c. 364.]
    The concession did not go very far at all. I do not know why the Minister was hurt by our questions, other than the fact that he accepted and understood the point that we were making and the need for the concession to be extended. The end point has been reached much too quickly. It is not that we wanted it to be reached in the way that it was in Committee but our arguments were dismissed. I am sorry that we hurt the Under-Secretary's feelings; however, it was not our intention to bother about his feelings but to have our argument accepted by the Government.
    We must examine the existing legislation which deals with certain aspects of the principle of those with disabilities serving on various committees. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 lists a number of bodies on which it is desirable to have someone who has a knowledge of disability or who is disabled. These include the housing advisory committees, the social security advisory committee, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Transport Users Consultative Committee and other relevant advisory committees which deal with the range of utilities and other bodies. The 1970 Act is reinforced by the Disabled Persons Act 1986 which set out the need to include the experiences of people with disabilities on councils, committees and other bodies.
    Why should we ignore the purposes of those Acts of Parliament? The Acts were laid down after careful debate and consideration in the House. There was a genuine recognition that disabled people needed much more positive discrimination and much more support in coming into the wider community, without feeling in any way that they would be debarred or suffer as a consequence.
    That is why I ask the Government why they will not go further with the concession that they made in Committee about those who serve on the DLA advisory board. Why not take the concession a step further? If it is on the basis of cost, let us be told that. If it is not on that basis, where is the principle?
    Why will the Government not accept that there is a lot to be gained not only by disabled people but all of us for disabled people to serve on these important advisory councils and committees which advise the House, local authorities and a range of other bodies? Clearly, to go that little step further would be a great boost to disabled people who want to serve and who do not want to operate under the fear that they may lose invalidity entitlement by serving on such bodies.

    225
    In tabling this amendment, we recognise that the Government intend to introduce a new provision to allow incapacity benefit claimants to engage in up to 16 hours voluntary work a week. That was said by the Secretary of State on Second Reading and reiterated in Committee. Clearly, that provision will be welcome. However, the Government have not said that the concession will apply to existing invalidity benefit recipients—those who are in receipt of benefit at present and those who will be eligible for invalidity benefit before April 1995.
    Once again, that raises the question why the Government, having gone so far, will not go that little step further. If it is on the basis of cost, let us hear the cost arguments. If it is because of some other underlying principle, let us hear it. The House should debate why the Government have no intention of conceding that in relation to the areas in which they have made a concession, and taken it a little step further.
    The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has set out the argument well in a briefing document which I understand has been given to all hon. Members. It would be useful to set out the background that was related in the document. NACAB says that it and other agencies which depend on volunteers, such as the Volunteer Centre UK, the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux, Mencap, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and Arthritis Care, are experiencing problems with people who are claiming invalidity benefit and who wish to become volunteers.
    We know that working as a volunteer is only permitted at present if the work is considered to be therapeutic, and that is defined as medically beneficial to the claimant. However, NACAB has pointed out that many claimants suffer from medical conditions where their work as a volunteer is not medically beneficial, but neither is it harmful. Clearly, undertaking voluntary work may encourage people back into a normal work environment. It may give them confidence in themselves, and may encourage them to seek full-time employment. It gives them a sense of dignity, and an awareness of what they can and cannot do in a normal work environment. By working as a volunteer, they may be encouraged back into work; assuming that work is available to them.
    NACAB points out that, in its experience, the current rule means that recipients of invalidity benefit are reluctant to become volunteers and that those who are already volunteers are giving it up as they fear that it will affect their entitlement to benefit. It has given a couple of examples, and it is worth putting them on record so that we understand the debate in relation to the amendment.
    NACAB cites a case in the west midlands where a volunteer was asked to attend an interview with the Benefits Agency about his medical condition. That individual suffers from osteoarthritis, and clearly had some days when he had great difficulty walking. The man had previously been in industry but had to give up because of his health. He fears that he is to lose his benefit.
    Another example—again from the west midlands—is that of a volunteer who received a request to return her invalidity benefit book to the Benefits Agency because of her work at a NACAB office in the west midlands. She had previously contacted the Benefits Agency to confirm that she could do such voluntary work, and she had obtained a
    226
    note from her doctor which stated that it was therapeutic. The Benefits Agency did not even question her first, and her benefit was subsequently reinstated. However, she suffered two weeks of distress as she clearly thought that she was to lose her invalidity benefit.
    In a previous debate on the rates of benefit, we set out the level at which the rates are being paid at the moment under invalidity benefit and the rates which are to be paid. Those are not princely sums, and they do not make people feel like millionaires. They are not walking around with pound notes coming out of their pockets, but when someone feels that he is to lose benefit, it causes him great worry.
    That is the underlying import and purpose of the amendment. It is important, and I am sure that the Minister will genuinely respond to it, but we need a clear statement tonight from the Government that nobody need fear losing their entitlement to invalidity benefit, or incapacity benefit, by carrying out voluntary work. Many disabled people benefit from their work in the voluntary sector, and the voluntary sector also derives extensive benefits. It is not just a case of input from the person with the disability. Everyone else benefits greatly from working with disabled people.
    Those areas have the benefit of the disabled volunteer in terms of the valuable input which those people can make to an understanding of the wide range of issues dealt with in advisory groups and committees. Those people make major contributions, and it simply cannot be right that they have any fear hanging over them. That fear, of course, denies the rest of the community the invaluable input of an important group of our citizens.
    By accepting the amendment, the Government will send out a clear message in advance of the debate which is to take place in the House on Friday. It will be another step forward for disabled people, and they will benefit from knowing that they are to be welcomed into the voluntary sector. That would give them confidence and the understanding of their fellow workers that they are to be welcomed into the work place. It would give them an understanding that there is a future for them.
    8.45 pm
    The amendment deals with such issues, and tries to set out the way forward. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that we will hear tonight whether they are prepared to have it debated elsewhere, and to allow it to be reconsidered during the final stages of the Bill. I appreciate that Ministers are reluctant to accept amendments tabled by the Opposition but, if they are not prepared to accept it, they should at least give a message that they are prepared to accept the principle underlying it.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I welcome the Government's decision on the social security uprating that volunteers on incapacity benefit will be able to do up to 16 hours of voluntary work a week without losing their benefit. I speak personally on the matter, and on behalf of the all-party parliamentary panel on charities.
    There is no question that people have been deterred by the rules of the benefit system, which effectively discourage them from undertaking voluntary work. I will mention one instance from a report sent to the hon. Members by the Cleveland council for voluntary service. A volunteer called Anne says:

    227
    "I have had serious problems with my health and confidence. I went to Middlesbrough Volunteer Bureau because I wanted to do something that would help my confidence. I got involved with an organisation which takes aid to children in a Romanian orphanage. I really wanted to go to Romania myself to see what my fundraising had achieved. I was told that if I went my benefit would be suspended while I was away. I promised that I would take a mobile phone so that I could be contacted if a job came up but the benefit office still would not let me go and pay my benefits."
    Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride, I hope that the Government may find it possible to bring in the new concession earlier so that it applies to recipients of invalidity benefit as well as incapacity benefit. That would be a graceful and appropriate feature of the Government's new initiative, "Make a Difference", to encourage volunteering. I think that it can only have been an oversight that it was not announced when the initiative was launched last week.
    I know that an explanation was given in another place that it would be impractical to do so because the concession would depend upon the operation of the new objective test, but I do not understand why that should be so. I hope that the additional change will be made.
    Clear advice should be given at all events, to the Benefits Agency medical service to disregard voluntary work. It must be clear to all concerned that there can be no presumption that someone who undertakes those hours of voluntary work is fit for other work on account of that. There is a qualitative difference between voluntary work and paid employment. Voluntary work can be much more varied and flexible than paid employment is likely to be. The psychological frame of mind associated with voluntary work is different because there is always the feeling that if the stress and strain becomes too great, it is possible for the volunteer to withdraw.
    Nor should we insist that voluntary work must be "therapeutic", although I believe that it is—in almost every case such work enhances the well-being of the person who undertakes it.
    As has been argued, we should extend the exemptions. I welcome the extension to include people who undertake voluntary work as councillors, members of disability appeal tribunals and members of the disability living allowance advisory board, but I want the concessions to go much further and to cover the whole range of public service committees and organisations, which have been substantially extended, as we know. As long ago as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the desirability of disabled people serving on such committees was stated, but we are a quarter of a century on and we need to make better progress.
    The deregulation task force has a sub-group on volunteers and benefits. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will want to listen carefully to what it has to say, perhaps shortly.
    Charitable and voluntary activity benefits the giver and the receiver. Like the unemployed, retired people and many others, the disabled are able to give something to society in that way and to gain new skills and fulfilment. The bonds of our society are strengthened in the process. Voluntary work by the disabled is not only of direct and immediate value to society but, by enhancing their skills, morale and health, should be seen as an investment.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister may tell us, however, that a cost problem is associated with bringing the
    228
    concession forward. I very much hope that if that is the problem, he will share it with us and explain the cost-benefit analysis that his Department has made.
    A year ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
    "We must do more to recognise, support and encourage the habit of volunteering, which cements together our society and is one of the great glories of our lives."
    I agree.
    Ms Rachel Squire: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), as I entirely agree with his remarks. I also welcome the opportunity to follow the many excellent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).
    I sincerely hope that there will be no opposition to amendment No. 23 and that the Minister will feel able to support it. Clearly, it is in the public interest that disabled people should be able to give us all the benefit of their experience and abilities.
    Clause 6 takes into account that a person's incapacity for work should not prevent him from making a valuable contribution to the community as an elected representative or a councillor. All hon. Members present must know of people who are suffering from chronic illness or disability, but who serve their community as elected representatives and in many other capacities.
    Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, who are unfortunately notable by their absence from the Conservative Benches, may recall that I quoted in support of my argument a senior Member of Parliament asking the Government to consider such an amendment. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon quoted the Prime Minister, and I have here a press release issued in 1987 by the then Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, who subsequently became the Prime Minister, as hon. Members know. At that time he said
    "Experience shows that people with long-term sickness or disability can give valuable services as councillors even though they cannot undertake normal employment. It would be wrong if they were deterred by the rules of the benefit system from contributing to local democracy as elected representatives."
    I certainly hope that the Prime Minister will recognise that that is what the amendment is about. It recognises the valuable contribution that people can make through voluntary work and appointment to serve on public bodies. That involvement and that contribution should not make someone fear that he will lose his benefit because he will be judged fully capable of paid employment.
    All hon. Members have had considerable dealings with voluntary groups and community organisations in their constituencies. I am sure that hon. Members may have referred constituents with problems to the relevant voluntary group and community organisation for their support and expertise. There is no doubt in my mind that groups that deal with cancer, arthritis, heart disease and so forth can be an instant source of support. We should recognise the contribution made by volunteers who join such groups.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride has produced many valuable arguments. For example, he welcomed the Minister's announcement that volunteers who receive incapacity benefit will be able to do voluntary work for up to 16 hours per week, but said that we want that concession to be introduced as soon as possible, so that

    229
    it can apply to recipients of the existing invalidity benefit. My hon. Friend also made many splendid remarks about the range of organisations to which volunteers may contribute and the essential role that disabled people can play by advising certain committees and by being consulted in fulfilment of the terms of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride also mentioned the fact that disabled people who wish to be volunteers fear that they will lose their benefit by doing such voluntary work. He quoted some examples that were cited by citizens advice bureaux. Once again I remind the Minister that two people may well be able to get out of a chair, sit down again, perhaps walk 50 yards, use their hands and carry out what we regard as the other normal physical functions, but that there may be vast differences in the time, effort and discomfort involved. A person with chronic arthritis may need three or more attempts just to get out of a chair, whereas somebody like me can get up in 10 seconds flat without any difficulty. This distinction must be recognised when we are dealing with the contribution that people can make as volunteers, as opposed to paid employees.
    I have mentioned the public's interest in the Government's acceptance of this amendment, but there is also the personal interest of the disabled person doing voluntary work. It can only benefit individuals to have their worth and their contribution to the community recognised, reaffirmed and enhanced through voluntary work. There is no substitute for the help and support that a disabled person can provide for someone else who has recently been afflicted with the same or a similar disability. That is why there are so many voluntary groups providing specific support.
    9 pm
    The Government have made great play of attracting people to serve on public bodies. Opposition Members tend to refer to such bodies as quangos. In any case, the Government have tried to demonstrate how eager they are to attract a diverse range of people and of experience and a cross-section of the community. If the Government are serious about that, they ought to support the amendment and, thereby, ensure that no sick or disabled person will lose benefit because he or she contributes to a public body or will be deterred from serving.
    Mr. Pike: Many councils are about to devolve housing functions further down the line. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong if a disabled person were unable to play a voluntary role in that sector? Such people could make a special contribution by representing the interests of the disabled in general.
    Ms Squire: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is vital that disabled people be given an opportunity to make a full contribution to the development of housing. We have all seen new buildings that were supposed to make provision for disabled people but whose doors are not wide enough to take a wheel chair.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, I remind the Minister that on Friday of this week the House will deal with the Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I understand that, earlier today, the Prime Minister suggested that the Government might
    230
    actually support that Bill. Unfortunately, I missed the right hon. Gentleman's comment as I had to deal with other business. There is no doubt that, if the Government tell a disabled person, "Your choice is between voluntary work with no incapacity benefit and benefit with no voluntary work," they are indulging in gross discrimination.
    By doing that, the Government will deny sick or disabled people valuable opportunities to live a normal life, to rebuild their confidence and to gain the skills that could eventually help them to return to paid employment. That is discrimination of a deeply offensive nature. How can the Government claim to be caring, compassionate and committed to community care if they behave in such a way? How can they close the doors of opportunity and benefit to the individual and to the community as a whole?
    I urge the Government to recognise, encourage and applaud the unique contribution that disabled people can make to the community and to support the amendment.
    Mr. Scott: I should like to start by saying that I found the arguments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) particularly persuasive. I know that the hon. Lady has much experience of the voluntary sector and I listened carefully to her remarks.
    I shall not urge the House to accept the amendment, although I agree warmly with the principle behind most of it. The only part that gives me some concern—I shall return to that matter in the course of my remarks—is the last few words:
    "appointment to relevant bodies and committees".
    I want to enter a reservation about that.
    In practice, the regulations that we have in mind already are intended to include reference to voluntary work, so I see no reason to specify on the face of the Bill that the regulations should do that. It is our intention to provide a regulation-making power to specify that, where a person undertakes more than a prescribed amount of work, he will be treated as capable of work.
    The amendment introduces to the regulation-making power a reference to people with disabilities who are involved in voluntary work and the valuable contribution that they can make to it, through appointment to relevant bodies and committees, and states that it should be a fact to take into account when making regulations under the power. It makes no material differance to the regulation-making power as currently drafted because the regulations allow us to specify any category of work.
    Hon. Members are already aware of our intentions for the regulations made under this clause. We intend to carry forward the therapeutic work rule, allowing people to undertake work up to a limit of 16 hours and/or £43 a week, where it is accepted as beneficial to their condition. Equally, we are bringing forward special rules for both councillors and disability appeal tribunal members.
    As the House is already aware, however, we are extending the special rule for disability appeal tribunal members to members of the disability living allowance advisory board. It will allow the first day of attendance at DLAAB meetings in any one week to be disregarded. Only further days of attendance that week would affect a person's benefit. It recognises the fact that allowances paid for a day's attendance to DLAAB members would consistently take them above the therapeutic work limit.
    Mr. Pike: I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how widely he sees the therapeutic benefit being interpreted. It is possible for it to be interpreted extremely

    231
    tightly or fairly liberally. Most hon. Members, and certainly those present at the moment, would prefer a liberal interpretation.
    Mr. Scott: It generally is interpreted in a liberal way. If the hon. Gentleman has the details of particular circumstances in which he feels it is being interpreted in a more restrictive way, I would be grateful if he would contact me about them.
    Mr. Dewar: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee. I just want to follow the Minister's argument. Is he saying that this amendment is unnecessary because everything that it attempts to do is already contained in the Bill, in the regulation-making powers or in the way in which the Government intend to use those powers?
    Mr. Scott: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, with the reservation that I have entered about relevant bodies and committees. I would not want to rule out that altogether, but there would be power in the regulations to include them. At the moment we have voluntary work and therapeutic work, and we have the special arrangements for disability appeal tribunals and the disability living allowance advisory board. If we were to go beyond that in specifying relevant bodies and organisations, I should want to consider carefully the extent of it and how particularly relevant it was to the purpose of the special arrangements that we are already making to allow and indeed encourage recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance to undertake voluntary work for up to 16 hours a week without any effect on their benefit.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced at Second Reading our intention to introduce the regulations. I believe that the change is not just consistent with the Government's wider objectives to encourage voluntary work but is regarded highly and supported right across the House and in another place. The work done by charities and voluntary organisations is immensely important. As Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I am constantly in touch with a whole range of voluntary organisations.
    I may have told the House on another occasion that the previous holder of the French equivalent of my job always regarded as one of the glories of this country the infrastructure of voluntary and charitable effort and the way in which these bodies supported and worked with the Government at both national and local level in order to achieve their different objectives.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Scott: If my hon. Friend will give me a moment to end the sentence, I shall certainly give way to him.
    The work done by those organisations is immensely important and it has a second role that is important, in that it can be an important and significant way of helping people to make a gradual transition back to full-time work.
    Mr. Howarth: May I ask my right hon. Friend for additional clarification? He said that it was the Government's intention to ensure that recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance would benefit from those concessions. Is it also their intention that the concessions should be applied to recipients of
    232
    invalidity benefit or, if he is not able to say that immediately, will he say that the Government are prepared to look sympathetically at that possibility?
    Mr. Scott: At the point of change, although people who are on invalidity benefit at the moment will continue with their existing entitlement to the rate of invalidity benefit that they at present draw, they will be in receipt of incapacity benefit at that point, so they will qualify under the new arrangements. I hope that that deals with my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Howarth: I am simply asking, are the Government prepared to bring forward that concession?
    Mr. Scott: I have had a number of representations about bringing forward the scheme in advance of the April 1995 date. In part for the reason that I have just mentioned, I would want to give careful consideration to the implications. We are studying the scheme. I am not without sympathy for the idea, but I cannot give my hon. Friend a straight answer at this moment.
    Certainly, the role of the provision is immensely important to the individuals concerned and to the charities and voluntary organisations that benefit from their important contribution to their work. It is also, I think, important in enabling people to make a gradual transition back to work. I hope very much that recipients of incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance will be able to take advantage of the new provision to build up their confidence and experience in a range of ways.
    I therefore hope that, acknowledging the Government's altitude towards voluntary work, the concessions that we have already made and the fact that I have shown that we are perhaps open to persuasion on a number of other points that might be included if we accepted the amendment as a whole, the Opposition will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
    Mr. Ingram: I reiterate and reinforce the compliment that the Minister of State paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her contribution to the debate. I hope that the many strong points that she made will force him just that little bit further —perhaps not tonight, but in his further deliberations.
    It was a pity that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was not on the Committee with us; we would have welcomed his contributions to our proceedings. It is a mystery that he was not a member, given his expertise and knowledge.
    Mr. Scott: It is nothing to do with me.
    Mr. Ingram: I notice that the Minister says that it is nothing to do with him, so we can perhaps point the finger elsewhere.
    The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon told us about the deregulation task force. That is a group dealing with volunteers and benefits. I do not know whether it is an expert group of 80 or indeed whether its members are experts at all, but I am apprehensive about what it is likely to come out with at the end of the day. My mother always said to me, "If you can learn something new each day, you are progressing," and I have learnt something new today about the deregulation task force and the group dealing with that area. It is something that I will have to consider further.

    233
    I am perplexed by the Minister's reluctance on the issue. Obviously he supports the weight of the argument. He understands the logic of it. He understands the principle underlying it. We pressed him on the subject of costs. He did not come back and say that there were significant costs there, and obviously it is not a cost argument that is debarring him from accepting the amendment. I listened carefully to what he said about the final part of the amendment, which gives him some cause for worry and concern, and I appreciate that he perhaps needs further time to examine it.
    While listening to the Minister's response, we considered whether it would be worth while to push the amendment to a vote. Many groups and individuals outside the House would be glad to know that we were prepared to argue for it and vote accordingly. However, we are prepared to give the Minister a little longer to consider the points that have been advanced, not just in this debate but in all the representations that have been made to him by voluntary groups, his hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and others involved with disabled people.
    I hope that what we have argued will become a matter of fact. If the power exists in current regulations, I hope that in the near future we shall see a change accordingly.
    Mr. Scott: As the Opposition have been consistently critical of regulation-making powers, I make the point that if we wished to make the change, it would be comparatively easy to do so.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Ingram: We have been critical about how the Government use regulations, not about regulatory powers. I do not want to go back over the 48 references to regulations in 11 pages of a 17-page Bill or the increase in statutory instruments since 1985. Until then, an average of 2,000 statutory instruments were used by Labour and Conservative Governments, but, since 1985, there has been an exponential growth and the current figure is now well in excess of 3,000 and we expect that figure to continue to rise.
    If the power exists, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give genuine consideration to changing the regulations. But it still leaves hanging the question of those on invalidity benefit until April 1995. Why cannot they be given that small concession? I hope that the Minister will be prepared to go back and talk to those who hold the purse strings and will make the final decision, and that we shall see a positive development in that regard.
    The debate has added to the weight of knowledge on the subject, and I hope that the Minister can use it to good advantage in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 10, in page 13, line 27, after `(3)' insert
    'For the period of three years from Royal Assent'.
    No. 11, in page 13, line 28, leave out 'the first' and insert `any'.
    No. 12, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'or (6)' and insert '(6) or (7)'.
    No. 13, in page 13, line 35, leave out '(1)'.—[Mr. Scott.]

  Clause 7

    RATE OF STATUTORY SICK PAY
    Amendment made: No. 14, in page 13, line 42, at end insert—
    "(1A) Any order under section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (up-rating orders) made by the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section shall include provision making such increase (if any) in the sum specified in the amendment made by subsection (1) above as the amount of statutory sick pay as is necessary to make that sum equal to the higher rate of statutory sick pay payable after the order comes into force.".—[Mr. Scott.]

  Clause 11

    TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION
    Amendments made: No. 15, in page 15, line 36, at end insert—
    "(1A) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is not exercisable in respect of any matter for which provision may be made under section 4 (power to provide for transition to incapacity benefit) or section (Power to provide for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work) (power to provide for the transition to new test of incapacity for work).";
    No. 16, in page 15, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Scott.]
    Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 16, line 7, at end insert—
    "(2A) Where a person is entitled to a disability premium by virtue only of satisfying the test of incapacity for work—

    (a) those so entitled on the day of commencement shall be entitled to a transitional award of income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit, as appropriate on the same basis as awards of incapacity benefit under section 4 of this Act;

    (b) after commencement, he shall be entitled to such a premium from the date of claim, provided that he can produce medical evidence of incapacity for work during the previous 364 days.".

    This is the final amendment on Report, and I hope that the way in which the Minister dealt with the previous amendment will flow through to this amendment as it deals with an aspect of transition arrangements which the Government have not dealt with fully to date. I feel confident that the Minister will be able to support it. The amendment seeks to enable people receiving the disability premium to have the same transitional protection as those on incapacity benefit and to allow for immediate entitlement to premiums through backdating.
    Some people now claim a disability premium with one of the means-tested benefits without receiving one of the qualifying benefits such as disability living allowance. In such cases, people may be entitled to the premium, provided that they can show that they are incapable of work. The incapacity test is the same as is now used with the invalidity benefit.
    The Bill introduces a new test of incapacity to work to be applied across all relevant incapacity benefits. That, of course, will include disability premium. The amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure, first, that there is transitional protection for people on the disability premium at the time of change and, secondly, that an immediate entitlement to the premium is possible, provided that medical evidence is submitted.
    I am sure that the Minister is aware that, according to the 1992 figure, the benefits of 424,600 income support recipients include the disability premium, but no mention has been made of transitional protection for claimants of the disability premium.

    235
    Many people qualify for the disability premium through a qualifying benefit, or if they are registered blind, but those most likely to be affected by the introduciton of incapacity benefit are those who qualify only on grounds of the incapacity condition and who have submitted medical certificates to the Benefits Agency. They include people who are unable to qualify for national insurance benefits or who cannot qualify for severe disablement allowance, perhaps because they are not 80 per cent. disabled. Access to the premium via the incapacity condition is therefore particularly important for women.
    The amendment seeks to clarify what arrangements are being made to protect, at the time of change, people who receive the disability premium by way of the incapacity condition. We also seek clarification about the full year's wait for benefit. Currently, the disability premium is payable after 28 weeks of incapacity for work. With the introduction of incapacity benefit, which in effect extends the definition of short-term incapacity to 364 days, the qualifying period for the disability premium has likewise been extended to a year. Using the 1994–95 figures, someone under the age of 60 faces a loss of £19·45 per week, which amounts to a loss of £466·80 during the period from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. It is estimated that the change will save £20 million in 1995–96 and £25 million in 1996–97. Those figures were given in column 598 of Hansard on 14 February 1994.
    At the moment, certificates from a general practitioner have to be presented as evidence, which can include the backdated medical certificate—Med 5—to prove incapacity to work in a previous period. That could happen when claimants are not aware of their entitlement. Will the Minister clarify whether, as no premium will in future be payable for 52 weeks, there will be provision for backdating, by a Med 5 certificate, for 52 weeks?
    At what point will people applying for the disability premium have to undergo the new functional test? Will they have to undergo it immediately? Will they then have to wait a full year before they receive benefit? Will the test be at the 28th week? Will claimants then have to wait a year for payment?
    At what intervals is it anticipated that someone will have to be tested or re-tested? Have the Government any estimate of how often the condition of claimants who pass the medical test and who are in receipt of incapacity benefit will be subject to reassessment or be requested to fill in a new questionnaire? Have the Government given general consideration to the review of incapacity cases?
    Evidence from citizens advice bureaux already shows that many claimants are not identified by the Benefits Agency at 28 weeks and lose out on the disability premium. How would the Benefits Agency ensure that people on income support were identified and put in the queue for any medical assessment after the first 28 weeks?
    We are trying to flag up the anomalies that we believe are in the system. I recognise that the Government have already indicated that they recognise that there will be anomalies. In this case, while some people will have to wait a full year before receiving the premium, those who qualify because they receive severe disablement allowance will get the premium from the 28th week. Are there any plans to iron out anomalies in the new incapacity benefit?
    The Government have already conceded that they will have carefully to consider transitional arrangements in their framing of the regulations. They have admitted that they may not get them right first time and may have to
    236
    amend the regulations. Having considered the complexities of transitional arrangements, I have some sympathy with the Government.
    It is important, however, that the amendment identifies a particular issue, and I hope that the Government will respond to it. I see that they may well do so soon and I shall speak slowly to ensure that we get some response. It is an important issue and may be typical of the range of potential difficulties on transitional arrangements because of the complexities of the current system, the interrelation of benefits and the additions to those benefits that apply to disabled people.
    Having made those rather brief and technical remarks on the amendment, I should welcome the Minister's comments on the amendment and perhaps some more general comments on the time scale and the way in which he hopes to handle the transitional arrangements.
    Mr. Scott: As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has acknowledged, this is a complex matter. I understand that the amendment seeks to protect access to the disability premium for the long-term sick.
    I should assure the House that it is very much the Government's intention that there should be consistency of treatment in the application of the new and transitional incapacity arrangements.
    Existing cases will be protected at the point of change. For sickness and invalidity benefit recipients, protection will take the form of transitional awards of the new incapacity benefit. I do not believe that such a mechanism is necessary or desirable for the income-related benefits. We are not changing the amounts of the income-related benefits in general or the disability premium in particular. The benefits will remain the same; there will still be a disability premium. We shall simply be amending the rules for the premium to reflect the new incapacity provisions.
    We are talking about those who qualify for the disability premium on incapacity grounds alone. The long-term rate of incapacity benefit will replace invalidity benefit as a passport to the premium. It will include those with transitional awards of long-term incapacity benefit.
    The new medical test will apply to existing disability premium cases on the same basis for existing contributory benefit cases. It is a test that applies across the benefits system wherever incapacity is an issue.
    The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the reassessment of reviews of people who undertake the medical test. It will depend in essence upon the advice given by a departmental doctor to adjudication officers on the period in which the effects of the disability are likely to persist unchanged. For some people it may be for life; for others for a relatively short period. It would depend very much on the assessment of the impact of their particular condition on them, and it would be for adjudication officers to decide when any such case might be called forward for review for a reassessment of their entitlement.
    Exemptions from the medical test for income-related benefits will broadly be on the same basis as that applicable to incapacity benefit cases. Those aged 58 or over at the point of change, the terminally ill, those suffering from a list of specified conditions or those receiving the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance will not be required to undergo the new medical test. Those who have the premium because they have been incapable

    237
    of work for 28 weeks will be treated as satisfying the new test and will continue to qualify for the premium while they are incapable. If an adjudication officer decides that they are capable of work, the premium will be withdrawn, as now, unless payable on other grounds.
    9.30 pm
    I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a period of incapacity occurring immediately before a claim for income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will, as now, count towards the qualifying period for the premium. Such a claim would, of course, be considered in the light of the rules applying at the time. For a claim to be made after the introduction of the new arrangements, the new test will apply. Our aim is to protect existing benefit recipients from a drop in benefit at the time when the new arrangements are introduced. That clearly does not apply where a claim starts after the date of change. There is no reason to give the same protection to them as for existing cases.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about the possibility of backdating. If backdating evidence is provided, immediate entitlement will still be possible. The new all-work test, however, will still be possible. The new all-work test, however, will need to be satisfied at the start of the income support claim. The Benefits Agency medical service judgment will be needed to judge that the person was incapable of all work for the previous six months. That is in addition to the GP's evidence for the six months before that. Pending that evidence, the premium will be paid from the outset of the claim.
    I hope that I have covered most of the points of this particularly complex issue. I do not think that our intentions vary widely from those of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bradley: I welcome the Minister's comprehensive explanation. This is an extremely technical matter, and it is incumbent on all of us on the Opposition Benches to look carefully at his explanation to ensure that it covers all the different angles of the complex nature of income-related benefits and their interrelationship with disability premiums and other premiums that may be applicable to them. It would be sensible for us to look carefully at them and to see how they relate to the other transitional arrangements that will be introduced at later stages.
    I am sure that when the Bill leaves this House and is considered in the other place, their Lordships also will be concerned to ensure that protection at the point of change is forthcoming on a whole range of complicated individual cases. It would be sensible at this stage to look carefully at this and similar complex matters. In that light, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    9.33 pm
    Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I have no intention of making a lengthy speech at this late hour. I believe that we have had a good and constructive Committee stage, and today we have had a
    238
    good and constructive Report. I am sure that further proceedings on the Bill will be characterised in the same way.
    Opposition Members and, indeed, some of my hon. Friends, have pressed me today on a number of commitments that I gave in Committee to consider a number of specific issues, such as linking rules, treatment of the terminally ill and broadening the definition of training, and we had specific mention today of the importance of voluntary work. I warned the Committee that a number of these matters were complex, and would necessarily take some time to explore.
    I share the disappointment of hon. Members who have taken a particular interest in the Bill that it has not been possible to complete that consideration in time for today's proceedings, but I repeat my commitment to continue to consider the issues carefully and constructively. Let me also remind the House that, if amendments are required, there will be a suitable opportunity for them to be moved in another place; the House of Commons would then have an opportunity to consider the issues again.
    The Bill fundamentally reforms benefits paid to those who are incapacitated for work. First, it introduces a new, more objective medical test. As the House knows, the Government are committed to a test that focuses only on medical factors in determining entitlement to a benefit paid on the grounds of medical incapacity. We consider that logical, right and proper.
    Opposition Members have complained that they have been unable to debate the detail of the test; I think they are aware, however, that the detail is subject to wide-ranging, on-going consultation and evaluation, and in due course will be set out in regulations. What we have been able to do—I pay tribute to the constructive approach adopted by both sides, in Committee and today—is consider the principles underlying the new test. The genuinely sick will satisfy the requirements of the test.
    The second element of the reform is consideration of the appropriate level of provision. In Committee and again today, we have debated each component of the benefit. I know that Opposition Members hold different views about the appropriate level, but I believe—and the Government believe—that, with the passage of time, some elements of invalidity benefit, such as additional pension or dependency increases for adults when there are no children to care for, have become anomalous. On the question of additional pension, there is at least some agreement between the Government and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
    We have also introduced a new definition of long-term incapacity—52 weeks, which I consider a more appropriate measure and a reasonable definition. It is important to emphasise at this stage, lest there be any misunderstanding outside the House, that the Government have fully protected existing recipients of invalidity benefit: there will be no cash losers at the point of change.
    Mr. Flynn: Does not the Minister agree that, although the Bill has been sold as an attempt to rid the system of abuse, it reduces in three ways the amount that people will receive in future—people who, as the Government admit, are incapable of work?
    Mr. Scott: I have just said that there will be no cash losers at the point of change. That is very important. A number of speeches made in Committee may well have

    239
    misled people outside the House into believing that they will lose money at that point, which is why I wanted to emphasise on Third Reading that they would not.
    We remain committed to a contributory income replacement benefit paid on the ground of sickness. I believe that our reforms will help to make benefits for those who are incapacitated for work affordable and sustainable into the next century. I also believe that the Opposition's approach to the Bill manifests their lack of will to achieve that aim.
    Without the Bill, expenditure would continue to grow without being clearly focused on the long-term sick. I remind the House that, in 1979, expenditure on invalidity benefit was £2·4 billion; in 1993, it was £6·1 billion. It is forecast to rise to £8 billion by 1997. Governments across Europe, in North America and in Australasia are all considering or implementing reforms in this regard.
    I believe that any responsible Government would have to take steps to deal with the rapid and sustained growth in expenditure and the number of recipients, and the fact that the benefit is no longer focused solely on those who are sick. I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.39 pm
    Mr. Wallace: I shall be brief. The Minister said that there will be savings for the Treasury, and the Opposition parties understand that that is the whole purpose of the Bill. He said that there will be no cash loss during the period of change for those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit but, as I understand it, those who are not today incapacitated for work but who are so incapacitated after 1995 will be worse off as a result of the introduction of the new benefit than they would otherwise have been.
    As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said in his intervention on the Minister, we are talking about people whom, even under the new strict test, the Government accept are incapacitated for work.
    It is interesting to note that, although it is an undeniable fact that the number of people currently receiving invalidity benefit has increased threefold since 1975, work done by the Policy Studies Institute has shown that, among men of working age, the number starting a period of invalidity benefit has fallen from 465,000 in 1977–78 to just under 200,000 a year in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
    One of the explanations for the overall increase is the number of people who continue on invalidity benefit longer than they would have done in earlier times. Of course, one of the big differences between 1975 and 1994 is the unemployment rate.
    We now fear that, under what the Minister called a "medical" test, which is more like a mechanistic test, more people will be deemed capable of work but will nevertheless not be able to find it. I believe that we shall be condemning the most vulnerable members of our community to suffer as a result; and, as has been said, this measure will bring people to our constituency surgeries in 1995 and beyond.
    We shall do our best for them, but we shall at least be able to say that we warned the Government what would happen; I hope that Conservative Members who vote for Third Reading tonight will be able to look their constituents in the eye with an easy conscience when the time comes.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Flynn: There are three methods by which the Government are introducing massive cuts—and they are cuts, because the Bill is about saving £1·5 billion.
    The first method is the change in the second six months, the reduction of benefit from the 29th to the 52nd week. It will affect people who have passed the Government's incapacity test. They will lose up to £1,000 in that time during the second six months.
    The second method involves the abolition of the earnings-related additional benefit. It is not a handout, but an insured benefit, for which people paid from 1978 to 1991. They are entitled to it. If an insurance company announced that it was not going to pay out its premiums, it would be in court on a charge of fraud. The Government are perpetrating a deceit.
    The third method is the introduction of the new test. Having listened to the debate in Committee and here today, I do not see how it could possibly work, as it is wholly impractical. It is impossible for a set test to ascertain whether a person—a bricklayer, barrister or brain surgeon —is incapacitated for work. Such a system cannot possibly work.
    9.43 pm
    Mr. Bradley: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill and advanced their views in Committee. Clearly, we have been disappointed throughout the various stages that the Government chose not to allow that constructive debate through their own Back Benchers in Committee—although, as always, the Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State treated constructively the issues that the Opposition raised in Committee.
    It is important to note that, in Committee, the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues gave assurances that they would introduce by way of regulations some of the key issues, only some of which we have had the opportunity to debate this evening. I flag issues such as fast-tracking on to long-term benefit, the linking rules and, crucially, training.
    We have not had an opportunity to debate training, and the way in which that will impinge on people's benefits. Again, the Minister gave assurances at earlier stages of the Bill that he would carefully consider that, as well as the definitions of "own occupation", all-work tests, "therapeutic earnings" and the other issues that we have managed to raise. It is important that we make it absolutely clear that we will be pursuing those matters carefully when the regulations are made on those points. We shall not forget the concessions that the Government made in Committee, and we shall ensure that they are brought forward.
    As the Bill leaves the House, I am absolutely certain that a vigorous and detailed examination of it will occur in another place. I look forward to dealing with a considerable number of amendments that may be tabled to reinforce our opposition to the Bill. I warn the Government that our opposition to the Bill does not end this evening. As we have highlighted, it will be a boomerang, like the Child Support Agency, which will come back to thwack the Minister on the head in about 12 months' time, when the real implications of the legislation are seen by the public.
    I am sure that the Minister will support the sentiment that, as consideration comes to an end, it is important to pay tribute, as we did in Committee, to the voluntary organisations which represent disabled people in the

    241
    country. On a day-to-day basis, they represent the interests of disabled people so thoroughly and effectively, and when a major piece of legislation such as this comes before Parliament, it is apparent how effective and important they are in providing all hon. Members with detailed information so that we may effectively debate crucial parts of that Bill.
    I pay tribute to organisations such as the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, the Spastics Society, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Arthritis Care, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the all-party alliance, the all-party disabled group and many others too numerous to mention. They have worked extremely hard on our behalf over the past few months to ensure that Parliament has been able to debate the measure as effectively as possible.
    The quality of the debate has been down to them, and we should put our tribute on record. I know that hon. Members have received invaluable information from voluntary groups which represent disabled people in their constituencies, which have been able to pinpoint how it will affect constituents specifically. That case work will come back to haunt the Government when the Bill becomes law in April 1995.
    What is absolutely clear, and what has formed the backcloth to the deliberations, is that the Bill has been introduced not because the Government believe that they have to consider carefully and to rationalise benefit to disabled people, but because they have been told clearly and brutally by the Treasury that they have to make cuts in their departmental budget, and they have seen disabled people as a soft target.
    They have used the invalidity benefit scheme without proper analysis or proper understanding of the needs of disabled people who are currently in receipt of invalidity benefit. They did not have a complete understanding of the nature of someone going on to invalidity benefit, or of the disjointed nature of those people's opportunities to return to the employment market.
    There has been no recognition by the Government that, in the current climate of 3 million to 4 million unemployed people, having a medical test which enables a functional assessment of whether people can cope, not only with their current career, but with a sudden exposure to the all-work test, will mean that any job which may become available —I stress may—will, somehow, become available. In reality, with mass unemployment, that hope will not come to fruition for disabled people.
    People will be denied incapacity benefit; and not only will they have to go on to the unemployment register but, as analysis of the legislation over the coming years will show, it is most likely that they will become the long-term unemployed of the future. There will not be opportunities for them in the employment market, despite any attempts that the Government may make on access schemes for returning to work.
    When employers are looking for flexibility, and want to drive down wages because of the additional costs and burdens arising from the shift of sick pay on to their budgets, they will not want to employ people with disabilities.
    Mr. Wicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would take a comprehensive Government programme across
    242
    Departments to ensure that people with disabilities, many of whom will fail the new medical test, receive training for work in the current difficult economic circumstances? Does he further agree that there has been no sign whatever of the Government's taking a comprehensive approach to that important problem?
    Mr. Bradley: I fully support what my hon. Friend says. The Government ask the Opposition what we would do. We are conducting a review within a comprehensive framework. One cannot consider benefits in isolation: one must consider training and employment as a whole, and the economy in general. That is what the Labour party is undertaking, and we shall make our proposals for the benefits system, including benefits for disabled people, in due course when the overall review is completed.
    Our purpose now is to oppose what the Government are introducing—to oppose not only the medical tests, which are nonsense in the context of the real world of employment, but the cuts in benefits. We have emphasised, and the Minister has honestly admitted, that the Bill is about more than ensuring that the new incapacity benefit goes only to people who pass the medical test. As the Minister has readily confessed, it is also about reducing the amount of money available for people on the new benefit.
    Conservative Members must be absolutely clear what they will be voting for. They will be voting to introduce a new benefit for people with disabilities that will be paid at a lower rate than that received by people currently in receipt, and genuinely in need, of invalidity benefit.
    When their constituents ask them why they are receiving less money than someone else who has genuinely been assessed as entitled to the previous invalidity benefit, Conservative Members must not say that they did not know that that would happen. It has been made perfectly clear that, having got through the hoop of the medical test, people will still receive the new incapacity benefit at a lower rate, and there will be other significant changes.
    We have touched on the subject of additional pensions. We can argue about their role within the overall contributory benefits system, but we must stress that the new benefit will include no age allowance for women claimants between 45 and 55—or up to 60 for men. There will also be a lower level of benefit between the 28th and the 52nd week of the claim, and there will be no dependant's allowance for people under 60 without children.
    It must be clear to Conservative Members that they are voting for that cut in benefits. They must also be clear that they are voting for medical tests that neither hon. Members nor you, Madam Speaker, have yet had the opportunity to see. We do not know how the medical tests will work in practice. When he opened the debate, the Minister said that it was unfortunate that we were having to debate the legislation before the consultation on the medical tests had been completed.
    It was in the Government's hands how they timetabled the legislation. Surely it would have been more sensible to complete the consultation on the medical test, and allow all hon. Members to review it and give their views in the normal way. The Government could then have brought forward the final decisions on the medical test, so that the test could have been debated in the light of the other changes that they wish to make on incapacity benefit.
    It was in the Government's hands to bring forward the medical test in that manner, rather than steamroller the Bill

    243
    through in unseemly haste, without any real understanding of its implications, and having to rely on regulation after regulation being tabled in the coming months and years to ensure that in some way they can skew the new benefit to meet their financial targets. That will be the purpose of the medical test.
    The Government claim to have a proud record on increases in the money available for disabled people. That may have been true at one time, but the sorry story is that, over the past few months, the Government have set about dismantling the support for disabled people and the benefits generally available through the welfare state.
    Mr. Scott indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bradley: The Minister shakes his head. He proudly introduced—we supported him on this—the independent living fund. Because of the financial success of the fund, because of the number of claimants who are benefiting from it, and because of the number of people who are able to live more independently in their own homes as a result of a cash contribution from the fund, what did the Government do? The Treasury said that the fund was successful, but it was costing money, so the Government would have to cut it. That was the first stage in the process of dismantling benefits for disabled people. This Bill is the next stage.
    I know that the Minister sits there with a heavy hear having to listen to this debate. I believe that he would have liked to fight the Treasury, but he was overruled because of the Government's economic incompetence and the promises they made at the last general election—they believed that they would be able to fool the electorate into believing this—that the economy was sound and public finances were sound.
    We knew that that was not the case, and now we must suffer the consequences of their decisions. But we are not the ones who will suffer—the people with disabilities will suffer. The most vulnerable people in our society will suffer from the Government's incompetence.
    It must be clear to all hon. Members that, when they vote to implement the legislation, they are voting to cut the amount of money that will be available for disabled people in their constituencies. Hon. Members should not believe that work will be found for disabled people. They know from the cases they deal with, and from the high levels of unemployment throughout the country, that job opportunities for people with disabilities are at the very least tenuous.
    Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, we continued vigorously to oppose what the Government are doing. We were determined to tell the British people that the defence of benefits, the defence of the needs of the most vulnerable and the defence of disability benefits is in the hands of the Labour party.
    People cannot trust the Government. The dismantling of disability benefit will continue.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary will be the first to start screaming when his constituents in Bury, North come to him about this matter. He will be the one on local television and in the local media saying, "It wasn't me. I didn't know what I was doing. I apologise to my constituents." However, they know who the guilty people are. We will continue to oppose the Bill, root and branch, and ensure that the defence of disabled people remains in the safe hands of the Labour party.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
    The House divided:Ayes 302, Noes 276

    Division No. 156]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Dover, Den

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Duncan, Alan

    Alexander, Richard

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dunn, Bob

    Amess, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ancram, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arbuthnot, James

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Elletson, Harold

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Atkins, Robert

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evennett, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Faber, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bates, Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forman, Nigel

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forth, Eric

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Booth, Hartley

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gale, Roger

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gallie, Phil

    Bowis, John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Garnier, Edward

    Brazier, Julian

    Gill, Christopher

    Bright, Graham

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gorst, John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butcher, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butler, Peter

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Cash, William

    Hannam, Sir John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Hendry, Charles

    Conway, Derek

    Hicks, Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Horam, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Couchman, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Devlin, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jones, Gwillym (Cardiff N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)

    245

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sackville, Tom

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knox, Sir David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sims, Roger

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Legg, Barry

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lidington, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lightbown, David

    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

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Stewart, Allan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Streeter, Gary

    Malone, Gerald

    Sumberg, David

    Mans, Keith

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marland, Paul

    Sykes, John

    Marlow, Tony

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, John M.(Solihull)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mates, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thomason, Roy

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mills, Iain

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tredinnick, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trend, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Needham, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nelson, Anthony

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walden, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Ward, John

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waterson, Nigel

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Watts, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Page, Richard

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Paice, James

    Whitney, Ray

    Patnick, Irvine

    Whittingdale, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pawsey, James

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wilkinson, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Willetts, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wilshire, David

    Rathbone, Tim

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wolfson, Mark

    Richards, Rod

    Wood, Timothy

    Riddick, Graham

    Yeo, Tim

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robathan, Andrew

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    246

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dowd, Jim

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Ainger, Nick

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Allen, Graham

    Eastham, Ken

    Alton, David

    Enright, Derek

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Etherington, Bill

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Fatchett, Derek

    Ashton, Joe

    Faulds, Andrew

    Austin-Walker, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fisher, Mark

    Bames, Harry

    Flynn, Paul

    Barron, Kevin

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Battle, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foulkes, George

    Beggs, Roy

    Fraser, John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bell, Stuart

    Galbraith, Sam

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Galloway, George

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Gapes, Mike

    Benton, Joe

    Garrett, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gerrard, Neil

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Betts, Clive

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Blunkett, David

    Godsiff, Roger

    Boateng, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boyes, Roland

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bradley, Keith

    Gould, Bryan

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Graham, Thomas

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Burden, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Byers, Stephen

    Gunnell, John

    Caborn Richard

    Hain, Peter

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harvey, Nick

    Cann, Jamie

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Henderson, Doug

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Heppell, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clelland, David

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Cox, Tom

    Ingram, Adam

    Cryer, Bob

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'd, H)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Janner, Greville

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Keen, Alan

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

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Denham, John

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dewar, Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dixon, Don

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Terry

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Litherland, Robert

    247

    Livingstone, Ken

    Patchett, Terry

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Pendry, Tom

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Pickthall, Colin

    Loyden, Eddie

    Pike, Peter L.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Pope, Greg

    McAllion, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    McCartney, Ian

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Prescott, John

    McFall, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    McKelvey, William

    Purchase, Ken

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Radice, Giles

    McLeish, Henry

    Randall, Stuart

    McMaster, Gordon

    Raynsford, Nick

    McNamara, Kevin

    Redmond, Martin

    McWilliam, John

    Reid, Dr John

    Madden, Max

    Rendel, David

    Mahon, Alice

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Marek, Dr John

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Rogers, Allan

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

    Rooney, Terry

    Martlew, Eric

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Maxton, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    Meacher, Michael

    Ruddock, Joan

    Meale, Alan

    Salmond, Alex

    Michael, Alun

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Milburn, Alan

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Short, Clare

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Simpson, Alan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Skinner, Dennis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morley, Elliot

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

    Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)

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

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

    Snape, Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Soley, Clive

    Mudie, George

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mullin, Chris

    Spellar, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Stevenson, George

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Stott, Roger

    O'Hara, Edward

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Olner, William

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Turner, Dennis

    Parry, Robert

    Tyler, Paul

    248

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Winnick, David

    Wallace, James

    Wise, Audrey

    Walley, Joan

    Worthington, Tony

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Watson, Mike

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
    Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to raise with you the question of lying. I understand that lying in the House is totally out of order, and any hon. Member who accused another hon. Member of lying would immediately be asked to withdraw the remark or to leave the House. Today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that Ministers are sometimes entitled to lie to the House. Would you deprecate any lying, whether by a Minister or anyone else? If there were lying, would we be in a position to say so?
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recall that whatever took place today did so in Committee. I have already made it clear today on another issue that this is an internal affair in that Committee. If anything has gone wrong in the Committee, it is for the Committee to report to the entire House, in which case I will deal with it; but it is for the Committee to deal with anything at this stage.
    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In the event that you were to investigate the point of order raised by the hon. Gentlemen, no doubt you would realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy, far from condoning the practice mentioned, said that the only circumstances in which he could envisage its being justified were when a Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with difficulties in the market; and he quoted a number of Labour Chancellors.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow discussion on this. I have made my ruling and explained the procedure to the House.

  Pastoral (Amendment) Measure
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I beg to move,
  That the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  The Measure consists of a number of detailed amendments to the Pastoral Measure 1983; hence its short title. The common thread that runs through all those amendments is that they bear upon the disposal of redundant Church of England churches. I hope too that it will be a common thread uniting us all in the House that the future of our church buildings in England is not merely of concern to the Church of England but affects our wider English society as a whole.
  Our parish churches are part of our national heritage and are often highly valued as a focus for the life of many local communities. The Measure would make the best possible arrangement for the future of those buildings and everything associated with them in the very few cases where they can no longer be used for their original purpose. To put matters in perspective, I should inform the House that, of some 16,000 Church of England churches, some 20 to 30 are declared redundant each year and 10 to 20 new places of worship are opened each year.
  Both the Church of England General Synod and our own Ecclesiastical Committee saw the Measure as acceptable, desirable and non-controversial. Many of its new provisions stem from a report produced by Mr. Richard Wilding in 1990 at the joint request of the Government and the Church Commissioners. Those provisions, together with other parts of the Measure, are explained in detail in the comments and explanations furnished by the General Synod and annexed to our Ecclesiastical Committee's report. In view of the comparatively late hour I shall not attempt to expound all the provisions in detail, but it may be helpful if I highlight two or three aspects of the Measure.
  The Measure contains positive provisions for safeguarding what the Pastoral Measure 1983 called "redundant" churches. For example, it provides for a new source of finance to help dioceses with the interim repair and maintenance of those buildings, when declared redundant, until a final decision is taken about their future, and it strengthens the covenants that protect the building in the hands of any new owner. A number of sections deal with the redundant churches fund, the body that exists to preserve carefully selected churches for which a new use cannot be found but which are of such historical and archaeological interest and/or architectural quality that they ought to be preserved, in the interests of the nation and of the Church of England.
  That fund is financed partly by the Church Commissioners and partly by the Government, so it exemplifies the partnership between Church and state in dealing with that part of our heritage. The fund now has almost 300 churches in its care and it is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. As well as helping the fund to perform its functions even more effectively and to make the best possible use of its resources, the Measure also gives the fund a new name—the Churches Conservation Trust—which emphasises more positively the nature of its work and the fact that the buildings under its care are no longer "redundant" but have taken on new leases of life as assets
  250
  in perpetuity for the benefit of the Church, the nation and the relevant local community. I am sure that the House will agree that the churches conservation trust is a more positive-sounding title than the redundant churches fund.
  Our Ecclesiastical Committee, in its report on the Measure, draws attention to the ecological importance of churchyards and burial grounds. Although their primary purpose is obviously as a resting place for the bodies of the deceased, it is very much in accordance with the Christian view of things that they should be places not only of death, but of life.
  It may surprise some of my honourable colleagues to learn that many of our churchyards are sanctuaries for a rich variety of wildlife, which is finding it ever more difficult to survive elsewhere, especially in urban environments. I am glad to be able to assure the House that the Measure takes care to ensure that nothing threatens or undermines that living dimension of churchyards. Indeed, the Church of England and organisations associated with it are taking active steps to encourage wildlife conservation in our churchyards and to provide relevant information and advice. I have placed a few examples of the material that is now available in the Library for those Members who wish to pursue the subject.
  As I have already explained, the Measure is positive, forward-looking and uncontroversial and deals with something that is of concern to the Church of England and the wider community. I therefore commend it warmly to the House and invite my colleagues to supprt the Measure and the motion standing in my name.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He has presented the measure to the House in fair and reasonable terms and I think that the House will give him cause to feel justified that he can secure majority support for the Measure. Without being excessively partisan, I might say that there will be more Conservative Members attending a debate about redundant churches than there would be for a debate about human redundancies, but that would be to stray into areas of conjecture and argument which may not be appropriate. Suffice it to say that the measure deserves to be accepted.
  It is right that we should be concerned about the future of those churches which are surplus to requirement, whether it be because of a shift in population or a marked decline in attendance, but the right hon. Member for Selby was right to remind us that new churches are being established even when old ones are redundant. Churches are important, as the right hon. Gentleman says: not merely do they serve as places of worship, often for centuries, but they are of enormous architectural merit and even with declining attendances their importance in the local community remains significant.
  The Government sometimes have most peculiar views about the teaching of history. It seems to be rather less fashionable than it used to be and some of the things that the Government want children to start studying are rather quaint. I know that one or two Conservative Members who were involved closely in education will share my view that history which does not place the local community at its heart is not necessarily relevant to the child or to the community.

  251
  The parish church is often extremely important in any study of local history, not merely because of the memorials to the locally great and good that can be found on the church fabric, but because the church was the heart of community life. It was the centre of local administration in the past. Architecturally, it was important not merely because of its aesthetic qualities but because the community, through sacrifice, often ensured that the building was created as a work of art and a landmark.
  Without the spires and towers of parish churches in the east of England where the land is flat and relatively featureless, the landscape would seem much more barren and less pleasing to the eye. Although the population in some of those districts may have departed, to be replaced in some cases by occupants of holiday caravans in the summer, the church is still important because it serves as a landmark, a focal point and something to grace the landscape.
  Churches exists not simply to adorn our countryside, although it is useful that every three or four miles a parish church stands with spire or tower as an attractive part of our heritage. I only regret that the House has not afforded a Second Reading to my hedgerows measure, which would have complemented parish churches. Some Conservative Members may come to regret their decision to block my Bill.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is deviating from the subject.
  Mr. Hardy: I regret that deviation, Madam Speaker.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Selby referred to the change in title, because it is entirely appropriate. I am also glad that I took part in the discussion on the Ecclesiastical Committee, when I spoke in recognition of the fact that the buildings and land around churchyards are important.
  As more wealthy members of our community move away from towns and into the countryside, derelict farm buildings are rapidly becoming less derelict and are likely to be modernised. The habitat of ruined barns or derelict farm buildings is disappearing fast, as is the population of barn owls. Redundant churches and parish churches that remain a vibrant part of the community may soon provide the only habitat for the barn owls that remain. Their population has dramatically diminished in many parts of England in the past few years, perhaps because of the shift of Conservative supporters from town to countryside. To some extent, the Measure makes up for that shift in population, which may sometimes be regarded as regrettable.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, churchyards are not merely repositories for the dead or places where the bones of the "village Hampden" remain interred, if I may quote Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard", which remains one of the finest poems written in the English language. It gives a flavour to the historic and social importance of the land around our churches. It is right that the fund should have a new title so that those responsible for it will be reminded of the value of our churchyards.
  As the right hon. Gentleman recognised, the natural history aspect of redundant churches can be vital. Those that are redundant in the middle of a town provide peace and sanctuary, and are commendable. In the countryside,
  252
  which is often featureless, barren and, in some areas, increasingly deprived of natural historic interest, the remaining churches can be extremely useful.
  The change in the title and the amended arrangements included in the Measure deserve to be approved. I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the Measure to the House.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I gladly support what the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has said. Indeed, he uttered hardly a word with which I did not totally agree.
  This is a good Measure and it is important that the House approves it. But this may be an appropriate opportunity to recognise the fact that we shall face increasing problems in the coming years in maintaining the fabric of our historic churches. As the hon. Member for Wentworth just said, they are frequently the central buildings in villages and towns, a focal point and, collectively, the glory of English architecture. But they are incredibly expensive to maintain. The drift away from many town centres and villages means that more and more churches will be considered for redundancy. I hate to use the word in this context, but it is now a familiar one.
  The problem at its most acute is to be seen in the recent report on London churches. The city contains some of the greatest churches in the country, a number of which—if the report recently produced by Lord Templeman is implemented—will cease to exist. It is an appropriate time to recognise that, as well as the fact that the House will have to return to the subject on numerous occasions.
  We now have state aid for churches that are in use, which is good, but insufficient. If we believe that we are dealing with some of the glories of English architecture and accept, as I certainly do, that no nation that allows Salisbury cathedral or Sherborne abbey to crumble deserves to call itself civilised, we must recognise our obligation. That duty has been increased by the financial mismanagement of the Church of England in recent months. There has been an appalling waste of resources.[ Interruption.] My hon. Friends on the Front Bench might find not the subject either interesting nor important, but some of us do. The financial problems of the Church of England will make the difficulty of maintaining our historic churches that much greater.
  There are other problems. I fervently hope that the concept of the two integrities works and that both those who welcome the ordination of women and those who do not can still continue to worship side by side in the Church of England. But we are already beginning to see a drift from the Church. Although the hon. Member for Wentworth and I took different sides of that argument in the Ecclesiastical Committee, we recognise the common problem. If there is a drift away from the Church, it will accentuate the difficulties that the Church faces in maintaining its historic buildings.
  I wanted to put down one or two markers this evening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who introduced the Measure with commendable brevity and his usual lucidity, will, I hope, talk with his fellow Commissioners about the difficulties and ensure that we have opportunities to debate them again in future. The change of title of the redundant churches fund is entirely appropriate, and I welcome it. But that will not solve the

  253
  problem of the maintenance of the fabric of our historic churches. It is merely a contribution which, although important, will not ensure that the buildings that grace so many of our towns and villages are secure into the next century. Without further assistance from Church and state they will not exist.
  In approving the Measure tonight, I hope that we will not think that we are solving the problem. We are contributing towards its solution, but the problem will grow as the years pass. We shall see the problem at its most acute in the city of London. The way in which it is tackled there will be tremendously important for the future of the Church of England and its buildings.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I should declare an interest, albeit not a financially beneficial one, as a trustee of the Historic Chapels Trust, which is referred to in embryo form in the appendix to the Ecclesiastical Committee's report that accompanies the Measure. That report recomends that there should be a parallel organisation to the redundant churches fund to exercise a similar role in relation to places of worship other than those of the established Church. I serve under our former colleague Sir Hugh Rossi on that trust, which was set up to do precisely that job.
  I and my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the Measure and the useful development in the framework within which the redundant churches fund operates. We welcome the fact that one feature of the Measure is that it can co-operate more fully with the Historic Chapels Trust.
  The Historic Chapels Trust is in a more difficult position than the historic churches fund because it does not have the procedures for acquiring churches—we have no purchase price—which the redundant churches fund has. In certain circumstances, a church is made over to the redundant churches fund for care; it must then care for it using funds that come jointly from Church and state. It does an extremely good job. The fact that our trust has been formed on the basis of an analogy of that body is a tribute to its good work over the years and the respect in which it is held.
  I have visited many of the churches held in trust by the redundant churches fund and it does a first-class job. We have to find funds with which to acquire important historic chapels; we have either to raise money to do so or to hope that they will be handed on.
  Some denominations do not consider themselves to be in a position to hand over their buildings; indeed, they need to realise the sale price of the building or land to finance other developments. So they are in a position even more intense than that described in the City of London, where to some extent the other churches in the diocese are looking to benefit from the endowments of those churches. In the case of Nonconformist chapels, the actual value of the land and building is also at stake.
  I welcome the change of name included in the Measure. The new name more accurately reflects the work which the former redundant churches fund has done and I welcome the greater flexibility and smoother handover of churches for which the Measure provides.
  The redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust share responsibility for buildings which deserve to be
  254
  maintained without drastic alteration. There are quite a few churches which, if made redundant, can be put to another use and can be adapted. Some good and sensitive schemes have maintained particularly the external appearance of a building. There are several in my constituency. We might regret seeing a church passing out of use, but those schemes represent a sensible alternative.
  The churches which the fund is dealing with and the chapels that gradually will be acquired by the Historic Chapels Trust need to be kept as they are. They reflect traditions and styles of worship; they contain fitments and works of such quality that ought to be retained; they illustrate much of our history; they are archaeologically significant. Therefore, to convert them would be unacceptable. That is the common thread which runs through the work of both bodies.
  Clause 2(2)(c) specifically opens the way to co-operation between the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust. For example, we might ask the Churches Conservation Trust—the former RCF—to help us in the management of a particular building if it had others in the immediate neighbourhood, and it would be a more practical arrangement for it to keep an eye on the building for us. Such mutual agreement and understanding is much facilitated by the measure. Therefore, I am pleased that it is gaining support in the House.
  Let me refer to one or two specific problems. The first lies precisely at the bridge between our two bodies—the problem of private chapels, where worship has been according to the rites of the Church of England.
  Chapels of ease, or privately owned places of worship, are firmly part of the history and tradition of the Church of England. However, they are not eligible to be transferred to the redundant churches fund because they are private chapels. They are not really a priority for the historic chapels fund, as it has the charge of all the other denominations, including Jewish synagogues, to consider. Chapels which have been places of Church of England worship would be a strange application of priorities for a body with such limited resources.
  In the first few months of the Historic Chapels Trust, we had just such a case; the Church of St. John the Baptist, Matlock, Bath, which is a notable building and very much part of the Church of England, but which happened to be a private chapel—a chapel of ease. Thankfully, it has been taken on by the Friends of Friendless Churches—another invaluable organisation. But it fell between our two bodies. The redundant churches fund must look again at the problem of the chapels of ease, which form part of the Church of England tradition. Because the redundant churches fund has the best accumulation of experience and understanding, it should take care of them. It is not appropriately a job for the historic chapels fund.
  The issue of City churches was referred to by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I was surprised to find that the redundant churches fund was so rarely mentioned in debates and discussions following the publication of the Templeman report. That might have been because quite a lot of the initial criticism of the report came from those who hoped that not so many churches as is envisaged would be made redundant.
  I share the hope that a larger number will remain in use for worship. I particularly hope that arrangements that now exist for the use of some of those City churches by other denominations will continue—for example, St. Nicholas's by the Free Presbyterians; St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf for

  255
  Welsh services; and St. Anne and St. Agnes for Lutheran services. I very much hope that those arrangements will continue, perhaps in some new form, if the status of those churches changes.
  If it is anything to go by, the list of churches falls precisely into the category that I mentioned earlier; churches that must not be significantly altered, because their interiors as well as exteriors are so important, partly because of the sheer quality of the work that they contain, but partly also because they represent a style, tradition and layout of buildings for worship which was so much swept away by the Oxford movement, the "Ecclesiologist" magazine and all that flowed from that, and which is therefore so little apparent.
  Anyone who looks at the physical appearance of Church of England buildings sees it through a Victorian glass. It is seen through what happened in the 19th century. One has to pick out a limited number of churches, many of them concentrated in the City, to have any understanding of what the Church of England was like in the two preceding centuries. Therefore, those buildings and their interiors are particularly important.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: One of the things that knits the architectural and building importance with the importance of retaining churches for worship is that many of the communities—for example, the Welsh community and, in the case of St. Anne and St. Agnes, the Lutheran community—combine a centre for community worship in a city which otherwise does not afford them a church of their own, and in a structure and environment in which they feel comfortable. That is uniquely the case in capital cities that require more diversity of church provision than elsewhere.
  Mr. Beith: I agree, and I hope that none of these nominations will be driven out by new arrangements that result from the Templeman report or by greatly increased costs that might result from it. It is possible under both the redundant churches fund and the Historic Chapels Trust for buildings still to be made available for worship from time to time, but both bodies avoid being put in the situation for which they are not designed—maintaining buildings that are in normal regular use for worship. That is the job of neither body. They would have to be differently constituted if that was their purpose.
  The fund will have to consider City churches. Let us look at the Wren churches with notable interiors—St. Mary Abchurch; St. Benet' s, Paul's Wharf, which I have already mentioned because of its Welsh use. It is a lovable church, both externally and internally. Most hon. Members probably see it only as they go along that elevated stretch of road beside the Mermaid theatre. The lovely little brick church below them has a wonderful interior as well as its charming exterior. The churches of St. Peter, Cornhill, St. Mary-at-hill, and St. Margaret, Lothbury, have remarkable interiors as well as exteriors. I therefore think that the fund may well have to involve itself in at least some of them unless different results come from the Templeman report than we expected.
  The redundant churches fund does not operate in Wales, but the representative body of the church in Wales has now set about creating an alternative to it. That is more or less in operation. That has, quite properly, led a Select Committee to make clear the need for a body on the
  256
  Nonconformist and "other denominations" side, paralleling the fund being set up to deal with the churches of the Church in Wales. A recent report from the Committee put that view quite strongly.
  I am sorry that no Minister from even the Department of National Heritage, let alone the Welsh Office, is present. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, whose constituency contains a number of very interesting churches and chapels, will pass on my comments to those concerned. I also hope that the Welsh Office will look favourably on the work done by the parallel body to the redundant churches fund in Wales, and also consider the need to create something similar to the Historic Chapels Trust in that country—whose many chapels cannot possibly be sustained by today's worshipping congregations.
  A characteristic of chapel building in both England and Wales—as of church building in the City—was its almost competitive nature. In a number of instances, more buildings were put up than were probably ever needed: it is not just a question of decline. We have inherited that problem, but some of the buildings are of such importance and distinction that we must take very good care of them.
  I welcome the work that the redundant churches fund is doing. I also welcome the measure, which I believe will help it in that work, and the co-operation in which it can engage with the Historic Chapels Trust and similar bodies in Wales—if they are created, as I hope they will be.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: First, let me say how grateful we should be to all those who have managed to keep churches throughout England out of the hands of the redundant churches fund, and who manage to raise the money—with great community effort—to keep those churches available not only to the present generation, but to future generations.
  Any hon. Member who wishes to see that in action need only visit St. Anne's in the South Lambeth road, which will show them what a poor community has managed to achieve—with the help of some grant-giving bodies, but also with great enthusiasm on the part of a small number of activists and a larger number who hold the church in great affection.
  Let me also say how grateful the House will be to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), and to others who pay attention to these issues—on the Ecclesiastical Committee and elsewhere. I do not think that the House takes for granted the Committee's residual role in dealing with the changes to canonical and synodical measures. On behalf of those present and not present, let me thank my right hon. Friend for his competence: we are grateful to him, and to those who advise him on matters both controversial and non-controversial.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: We should welcome the measure, but let me introduce a note of caution. Regular readers of Private Eye's "Nooks and Crannies" will know that perfectly good churches have often been subject to various manoeuvres in an attempt to make them redundant and eventually—through a number of procedures, including a recommendation by the advisory board—to have them demolished. I hope that the report means that the Church of England will make a more

  257
  determined effort to provide for the preservation of valuable sites, rather than yielding to the entreaties of Mammon. The Church, like many other organisations, faces a shortage of money.
  Whatever our views on religion, the fact remains that many churches are a focal and important part of the town or landscape. They are objects of beauty, which were established with great affection—both by the patrons who provided the money, and by those who built them. We should not ignore that; wherever possible, we should try to treasure and preserve such churches.
  I hope that the change in the title of the Churches Conservation Trust represents an important change of emphasis in an area of difficulty, which I recognise. Churches are sometimes very large, and expensive to maintain and heat. I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley): often dwindling congregations have raised the money to keep such churches in existence. If that happens, so much the better, because it was the original purpose.
  Although the churches may be very roomy during some services, that is none the less the best use for the buildings. It is often difficult to find an alternative use for a redundant church and at the same time retain some of the dignity and elegance with which the church was originally built. For example, burning rubber tyres in the aisle of an abandoned church may not be the most dignified use to which a building can be put.
  It is important that the Church of England makes an effort at conservation, rather than face the possibility of making more churches redundant than is strictly necessary, which is what the Templeman report for the City of London implied would happen.
  Chapels have been mentioned. The independent Upper chapel at Heckmondwike is a beautiful chapel which was made redundant many years ago. Its interior was ripped out and sold by the trustees, despite the fact that it was a grade II listed building, which means that the interior should have been retained. It is not a Church of England establishment, but it represented the aspirations of its builders to be seen as just as important as the Church of England. Observers might mistakenly think that it does belong to the Church of England because of the theological dispute that was current in the 19th century.
  The chapel has lingered on, but not because of its owners, who regard it as merely so many bricks and pieces of stone held together by mortar, and, I suppose, see it as coming between them and God. For people who attend church, it is an important building that should be retained. It is one of two remaining grade II listed buildings in Heckmondwike, so, if it were demolished, 50 per cent. would go at one fell swoop,
  The chapel has been retained because of the local authority's persistence in refusing to give listed building consent. Credit is due to the authority for the fact that, despite criticism, attacks and suggestions in the press that
  258
  the redundant building should be flattened, it is still standing. I hope that it will be converted into something useful, such as flats.
  At one time, a firm was involved—I hope that it still is —which has a reputation for doing decent conversions of churches into something that people need and want. I highlight that possibility as an illustration of a grade II listed building that there has been pressure to demolish. I hope that the measure that we are discussing means that we are casting aside the attitude that churches are finished with once worship ceases in them. We should redouble our efforts to ensure that they are retained for a decent and useful purpose.
  Mr. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Upper chapel at Heckmondwike, whose story has been tragic. I hope that he will take some consolation from the fact that the Historic Chapels Trust is taking on not only a small former Quaker meeting house in Farfield near Bradford but the magnificent and enormous Unitarian church in Todmorden, with which he will certainly be familiar and which it was far beyond the resources of its existing congregation to maintain.
  Mr. Cryer: There is some good news about. I do not want to repeat myself, but I hope that the measure reflects a change of heart because there have been some depressing reports in Private Eye to the effect that some valuable buildings have been discarded and, unfortunately, found their way on to the scrap heap. That is something to be avoided, so I hope that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) can assure us that the Measure represents an improvement in the spirit of the Church.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Pastoral (Amendment) measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  PROCEDURE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Raymond S. Robertson be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Alan Duncan be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  EMPLOYMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Andrew Robathan be discharged from the Employment Committee and Mr. David Nicholson be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Martyn Jones be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Ambulance Personnel (Long-service Awards)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for coming to the House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is a pleasure.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am glad that it is a pleasure, because it is also a pleasure for me to discuss an important and much-neglected subject, which may be small in span, but which means a great deal to many people.
  My hon. Friend will know, as one who regularly walks through the Palace that at the entrance to the Terrace, there is a magnificent display of medals, which cover examples of virtually all the medals in existence, and many that used to be awarded. There are two spaces in that display and they are significant. One of the spaces is for a medal which is in existence, but is not displayed; one is because no medal exists. There is an existing medal for long service and good conduct in the fire brigade.
  The medal which exists and is not displayed is the police service long service and good conduct medal, but the medal which is missing is for the ambulance service long service and good conduct medal. Tonight I want to address that piece.
  My introduction to and contact with the ambulance service began some 20 years ago, when I came into the House. Before that, my only contact with the ambulance service was as a client at the age of eight when tender hands picked me off a fence on which I had impaled myself. I was enormously grateful and I am still most grateful for their care now.
  My good friend and helper in the constituency, Harold Morgan, was a leading ambulance man who inducted me into the mysteries of the ambulance service, for which I have enormous gratitude. I remarked to him that I had not received a single complaint of failure on the part of the ambulance front-line personal of the Hereford and Worcester ambulance service in the entire time that I have been in the House. There may have been criticisms sometimes about shortcomings in administration, but the record of the ambulance men on wheels or on the ground is clean and remarkable and I can only call it meritorious conduct.
  I pass the ambulance station outside Hereford each time on my way into the city. As all of us who represent rural constituencies know, we travel a great deal around them and I pass that station often. I cannot help but think every time I do so that it is all too easy to take those people and that service for granted. It may be right that we should take the service for granted, but I do not think that it is right to take the personnel for granted. We ask them to do a great deal for us and, on occasions, when we are in no condition to do it for ourselves.
  I can do no better than to demonstrate the regard with which the ambulance personnel are held—certainly in my part of the world and I have no reason to believe that it is any different anywhere else—by quoting from a letter written by a general practitioner from Ledbury, which is
  260
  not in my constituency, but is not a million miles from it. The letter concerns the service of leading ambulance man Kevin Pendlebury Bowe and alas, was read at his funeral on 1 March.
  The general practitioner wrote:
  "Although all the local ambulancemen inspire confidence, the sight of Kevin arriving during a tricky situation always allowed us to breathe a sigh of relief. He was unflappable, good humoured and supremely competent. He obviously took a great interest in his work as a paramedic—he was one of the first of this relatively new breed of ambulancement that we came across—but he always excelled. This was never at the expense of compassion and of this I can speak as one of his transported patients as well as a colleague."
  My understanding of my constituents and others who are in the ambulance service is that that is not necessarily exceptional. It is the rule. I can think of no better tribute.
  One of the great mysteries is why we are discussing the subject at all. I look in the telephone directory and see that the advice for emergencies is to ring 999 for the police, fire and ambulance services. Those are all front-line civilian services. Perhaps the work of the police is that much closer to the front of our consciousness because it is extremely well covered by the media—sometimes I think that, for the police's sake, it may be too well covered, but that is another story.
  The fire brigade always makes marvellous television, with big red fire engines, flashing lights, great turntable ladders, belching hoses, people running about, smoke and fire. That is all good stuff, with drama and visual impact, and it is always effective.
  However, always in the background is the ambulance service. It is the ambulance men who have to pick up the bits—often the bloody bits. As that involves intensely personal suffering and agony, we are usually treated only to the sight of a stretcher being loaded into the ambulance and the doors being shut. Nobody really understands the extent to which the ambulance personnel are involved.
  As for comparability, the police are often exposed to violence and to physical and psychological risk. No one gainsays that; theirs is a difficult profession. Firemen, too, are frequently at physical and psychological risk. We cannot ignore the dangers in areas afflicted by terrorism, where there is also the risk of violence. However, we must not forget that the discreet, unforthcoming ambulance personnel are also at risk of violence and of psychological trauma as they go about their work. As for physical risk, let us not forget that not so long ago an ambulance man was killed on active duty in Leicester.
  In Northern Ireland the mischief of the terrorist is a particular hazard. Ambulance men are not alone in facing that; the police and the fire service also suffer—but they all find that it induces nervous stress. Even in tranquil Herefordshire, even in the calm pastures of my part of the world, ambulance personnel have been shot at in the course of their duty. Nowhere and nobody is free from that risk.
  I mentioned the psychological risk. It could be said that continual attendance at nasty road traffic accidents hardens the mind and calluses the attitude, so that it all becomes just so much more meat. But I cannot accept that that is true. All three front-line services—the police, the fire brigade and the ambulance service—attend traffic accidents. They all have their parts to play, and the experience is always traumatic.
  I have only to reflect back on especially horrendous incidents such as the recent tragic accident on the M40 involving a minibus full of schoolchildren from Hagley,

  261
  which caused immense traumatic stress among the ambulance personnel involved. Ambulance officers are then seriously involved in counselling to unscramble the psychological mess that has been created. The trauma cannot be overcome simply by hardening, callousness or anything of that kind. Those tragic events always get to people.
  All the time, as the work goes on, there is a continuing growth of expertise, which is developed through training, training and more training. That shows in the results, in the performance and in the delivery of service.
  There can be no doubt that there is comparability between the front-line services. Even if an ambulant man wrecks his back and injures himself to the extent of disablement, perhaps by lifting victims in awkward circumstances, so that he has to be moved from the front line to the lighter duties of taking non-ambulance patients from home to hospital, so be it. They are the sympathetic interface between the health service and patients, who are often elderly and confused. It is a help if people are transported with care, consideration, sympathy, friendliness and the skill which is so often shown.
  I first started chasing this medal in the early 1980s. My instantly get-atable files are traceable to 1987, but I recollect that I started this in the early 1980s. I recall receiving a letter from the chief ambulance officer of the Hereford and Worcester ambulance service, Cliff Orme, dated 7 September 1977 in which he recalled our previous exchanges on this matter. He said:
  "Sadly incidents such as the massacre at Hungerford …clearly indicate the danger and responsibilities facing ambulance services who work in the 'front line' with their colleagues in the other emergency services.
  It has for some considerable time been the view throughout the rank and file of ambulance services in the U.K. that a long service medal should be awarded to ambulance staff, indeed Chief Ambulance Officers I know have pressed for this over a number of years without any success."
  The chief ambulance officer also referred to a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister in August 1987. The Prime Minister replied to me saying:
  "This question has been considered several times in the past and most recently last year"—
  that was 1986—
  "Although there has been some sympathy with the suggestion, particularly in view of the dedicated service by ambulance staff, it has consistently been rejected mainly because it was felt it would be invidious to single out ambulance staff for such an award when many other groups of NHS staff give equally long and loyal service.
  However the Secretary of State for Social Services recently asked officials to give further thought to the feasibility of a long service award for all NHS staff. In view of the number of interests involved, including possible repercussions on other public services, it will be some time before a final decision can be made."
  I let that run while I waited for the consultation and discussions.
  I then wrote again one year later. In a letter dated 19 July 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, said:
  "I am afraid this process is taking some time, but we do hope to resolve this issue in the near future, and we will take account of the points you have made."
  Time rode on and I had to take up the matter again. I controlled my patience as best I could. In November 1991,
  262
  I wrote again to the Secretary of State for Health. The present Secretary of State, in her manifestation as Minister for Health, wrote a letter to me in December 1991 saying:
  "The deliberations referred to in the then Prime Minister's letter to you of 18 September 1987 resulted in the conclusion that the introduction of a centrally sponsored long service award for NHS personnel generally would not be appropriate.
  Further consideration is, however, now being given to the possibility of introducing a long service and good conduct award solely for front line staff in the emergency ambulance service, similar to the Crown awards already granted to members of the police service and fire brigades. A specialist working group has recently been set up to consider this, and held its first meeting on 2 December."
  I thought that progress was being made and we were getting there but it was not so.
  I let that run for a little while until I took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Minister who is here tonight. He wrote to me, referring to a letter that I had written to the Secretary of State in May 1993. I must compliment my hon. Friend—he must soon be qualifying for his own long service and good conduct medal in the Department of Health. He said:
  "The working group"—
  mentioned in the Secretary of State's letter of 6 December 1991—
  "completed its work last year and recommended that a Crown recognised Long Service and Good Conduct Medal should be instituted for staff who have served for 25 years in the emergency ambulance service. I am inclined to accept the report's recommendations but have first asked officials to consult NHS management about the report."
  I drew attention to my concern that 25 years was a long time, given the physical work involved and given the comparison with the armed services, which has 18 years, and the fire service, which has 20 years. I said that most people entering the ambulance service came in as mature people aged about 25. Therefore the chance of reaching 25 years—that is, 50 years of age—without doing themselves an injury was going to be difficult.
  I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister responded to the point for one reason or another—maybe I was not alone in making it. My hon. Friend wrote to me on 25 August 1993 saying that I would be pleased to know that, following the consultation exercise, officials were drawing up a formal proposal for a medal to be
  "on the basis of a qualifying period of 20 years, on a par with the Fire Service".
  I fel that that was good news. I waited in keen expectation and anticipation, but, not hearing anything, I took the matter up again at the start of this year.
  My hon. Friend again responded to me with a letter on 17 February. He said:
  "I am pleased to say that a proposal for a Crown-recognised Long Service and Good Conduct Medal has been forwarded to the appropriate quarter for consideration and it is hoped that this will result in a positive recommendation to the Queen."
  My hon. Friend went on to say that there were
  "many hurdles to be overcome"
  before he could say whether the proposal would be accepted.
  My purpose tonight, after my rather long preamble, is to say that the ambulance service has been patient. There have been many hurdles, consultations and considerations and still we are going to the "appropriate quarter" and there are "many hurdles" to be overcome.
  Will my hon. Friend give an insight into what the appropriate quarters for consideration might be? What are the many hurdles which have yet to be overcome? I would

  263
  like to know how to address the hurdles? What must I do to try to secure a well-deserved medal for long service and meritorious conduct in the ambulance service?
  It has long been the wish of the ambulance service that it be regarded equivalently with the police and fire services, and I hope I have demonstrated its patience. In a sense of frustration some years ago, the chief ambulance officers themselves recognised that yearning and introduced their own recognition of long service and good conduct. However, we all know that that is less satisfactory than the real thing—the Queen's award or the royal warrant—which I am seeking tonight.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that the chief ambulance officers' award cannot be worn on the left breast, but must appear on the right. That may make it stand out in a crowd, but there will always be the feeling that it is somehow second best, and that the best really should have pride of place on the left breast, as is the case with other medals and in other services.
  We might be treading tonight down a path which has been trodden before. The 12th stricture of the royal warrant for the fire brigade long service and good conduct medal is that it is a condition of the award
  "that the grant of any unofficial or local long service or good conduct medal for wear in such a Brigade shall be discontinued, and that any unofficial or local long service medals, if already granted, should not be worn by a recipient of Our Fire Brigade Long Service and Good Conduct Medal."
  I am certain that those who wear the unofficial good conduct and long service medal would gladly put it to one side in favour of something which held the royal warrant, which they could wear with even greater pride.
  The royal warrant for the fire brigade medal seems to me to be an excellent model for the derivation of a royal warrant for an ambulance service long service and good conduct medal, and perhaps that could be used quickly. On 1 June 1994, it will be the 40th anniversary of the institution of a medal
  "honouring those who have rendered long and meritorious service as members of the Fire Brigades of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands".
  I am sure that the police and fire services will join enthusiastically in celebrating the inclusion of the ambulance service in this form of royal and public recognition. Can we celebrate that 40th anniversary with a birthday present for the ambulance service and fill the empty space at the entrance to the Terrace?
  11.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is a pleasure to be here to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). I have never said that before about an Adjournment debate and I do not expect to do so again.
  Ambulance men and women deeply deserve recognition for the wonderful service that they give to the public. I shall not attempt to match the eloquence with which my hon. Friend has described what they do, save to say that we have a magnificent ambulance service which has gone from strength to strength in recent years.
  264
  Many people have not yet become aware that in almost every front-line ambulance that answers a 999 call there is a paramedic—a man or woman who is highly trained in saving life through all sorts of manoeuvres and techniques that even a general practitioner might not always attempt. Indeed, it has sometimes been known for the general practitioner to defer to a paramedic on his or her arrival. Paramedics know precisely what to do to maintain life and to stabilise patients in those first vital moments after a medical emergency or an accident and before getting them to hospital.
  Ambulance men and women deserve the great gratitude of the public. Many people, including my hon. Friend, have had first-hand experience of what they achieve and his area's ambulance service, the Hereford and Worcester, which is led by a legend in the ambulance world—Mr. Cliff Orme—is a very fine example. It has done extraordinary things to achieve high levels of performance in the time within which it responds to 999 calls. It has an excellent patient transport service for non-emergency cases and has gone further because it is at the forefront of involving the public in life-saving techniques. When I last visited that service I was told that 10 per cent. of the people in one large town in the area had received first aid training —a remarkable performance and one that is probably not matched anywhere else.
  I am aware that Cliff Orme, in his distinguished time in charge of the Association of Chief Ambulance Officers, campaigned for the medal that we are discussing. In the short time remaining, I can tell my hon. Friend only that there has been progress. There has even been progress in achieving a Crown-recognised long service and good conduct medal since I last wrote to him. I cannot answer his question about the appropriate quarter to which the matter was forwarded, but such matters are processed somewhere in the Byzantine passages of the Cabinet Office, whence it will have to be forwarded to Her Majesty, whose ultimate decision it is.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that there is every reason to think that the ambulance service should receive such recognition, in line with the fire, police and other services. I cannot say what the outcome will be, for the reasons that I have outlined, but I will do everything that I can to encourage the process.
  In our role as junior Ministers—I think that we are sometimes described as "Parly Charlies"—we are always slightly insecure. In the presence of the Whip, I can say that we never know when we may be shuffled out or elsewhere, or when we may have to change our duties. However, in the remaining time for which I hope to stay in my role as a junior Health Minister with responsibility for the ambulance service, if I achieve one thing I hope that it is a long service and good conduct medal for that service.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o' clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest projected spending in 1993–94 on(a) criminal legal aid, (b) civil legal aid and (c) the total legal aid budget.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is estimated that the total net cost of legal aid this year will amount to £1,225 million. Of that, £527 million will be spent on criminal legal aid and £698 million on civil legal aid. Estimates for each category of legal aid are as follows:

  £ million

  Criminal legal aid

  Criminal Magistrates

  192

  Criminal Higher

  235

  Duty Solicitors Schemes

  79

  Criminal Green Form

  21

  Civil legal aid

  Civil legal aid

  552

  Green Form

  126

  Assistance By Way of Representation

  20

  Total legal aid

  1,225

  Family Law
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the Government's response to the recommendations in the Law Commission's report "Family Law: Matrimonial Property"—Law Comm 175.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  After careful consideration the Government have decided not to implement this report. The Lord Chancellor is, however, grateful to the Law Commission for the valuable contribution which the report has made to the development of this area of the law.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 666, what contribution to Treasury finance is made by VAT from tobacco consumed by children under 16 years of age in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  It is estimated that around £15 million is raised in VAT on tobacco smoked by children between the ages of 11 and 15 in the United Kingdom.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what weekly amount of money and what percentage of their gross earnings a single earner couple with two children on average earnings in London paid in (i) income tax less child benefit, (ii) national insurance contributions and (iii) VAT in 1978–79; and what amount and percentage of their gross earnings each of those average families will have paid in 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not our practice to produce estimates at the sub-regional level as they are not, in general, reliable.

  Alcohol
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to protect British off-licence shops from the importation of duty-free wines, beers and spirits from France; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  For offences involving illegal disposal of imported alcoholic drinks, the law provides for seizure of the goods and penalties of up to seven years' imprisonment. Customs is acting vigorously to protect the legitimate trade by seeking out offenders. In the 12 months to December 1993, 1,175 detections were made. Most of these cases were dealt with by seizure of the goods and sometimes the vehicles involved. Fifty-one prosecutions involving 76 defendants were completed and have resulted in fines and in some cases imprisonment. More are in the pipeline. This firm action will continue.

  Savings Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the review of savings taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am examining the impact of tax and other Government policies on savings and the flow of funds through the economy. This work covers a range of issues and will extend over a number of months.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the nature of the publicity regarding public access to land that was agreed for those properties in Lancashire benefiting from conditional exemption from inheritance tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The owner of land which is conditionally exempt from inheritance tax is required to publicise the agreed public access arrangements. The heritage advisory agencies will discuss with each owner the appropriate level of publicity. Each case is cconsidered individually and all relevant factors, including the existing level of publicity, are taken into account. Although the extent of public access may already be widely known, for example where substantial public access is already given, the owner will generally be required to take specific steps to publicise the public access arrangements, for example by advertising the access arrangements in a local tourist office or town hall.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects national gross domestic product, excluding North sea oil revenues, to reach the same level as in the second quarter of 1990.
  99
  Mr. Nelson
  Latest data for non-oil GDP in 1993, and the growth forecast in last November's "Financial Statement and Budget Report", imply that non-oil GDP will pass its second quarter 1990 level some time in mid-1994.

  BT3 Share Offer Campaign
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, columns 271–72, if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of any market research relating to the BT3 share offer campaign.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The market research into the advertising campaign on the BT3 share sale was carried out on a commercial in confidence basis. The research commented on the relative strengths of the creative ideas of competing advertising agencies; it would not be appropriate to make it public.

  Taxation (Construction Workers)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter the system of taxation and national insurance for self-employed construction workers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 10 February,Official Report, column 382.

  Low-wage Earners
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of Government policies on the economic well-being of the poorest 10 per cent. of wage earners.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The real income of a family with two children at the lowest decile of male earnings has risen by almost 24 per cent. since 1978–79.

  Private Health Insurance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised if income tax were collected on the value of all health insurance benefits given to employees; and what is the amount actually collected.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]All directors, regardless of their earnings, and all employees earning at a rate of £8,500 a year or more—including the value of their benefits in kind—are taxed on any health insurance provided by their employers. An estimate of the tax collected on this basis was given in my answer to the hon. Member on 14 January 1994,Official Report, column 308. Information is not available about the numbers of employees earning at a rate of less than £8,500 a year who are provided with health insurance benefits by their employers.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the Treasury has had with officials or Ministers from the Department of Health about(a) extending tax relief on private health insurance to those aged under 60 years or (b) abolishing tax relief for those aged over 60 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: Internal discussions within the Government are confidential.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  Disaggregated information of this sort could be otained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  Such purchases are included within my Office's overall administration expenditure, which is published every year in the annual report.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 March.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 162, what happened to those gifts of small value presented to former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and not required by her on leaving office.

  The Prime Minister
  Gifts of small value are the property of the Prime Minister, not the Government. The retention or disposal of such items is therefore a matter for the Prime Minister concerned.

  Malaysian Protocol
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Cabinet meetings were held between the signing of the Malaysian protocol in March 1988 and 28 June 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  It remains the Government's practice not to give details of Cabinet or Cabinet Committee meetings.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was first made aware of the references to civil aid and arms' sales in the Malaysian protocol of March 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  On 12 May 1988, in my capacity as Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Parliamentary Broadcasting
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce legislation to clarify the BBC's existing obligation to carry a daily sound broadcast report of Parliament by stating the
  101
  wavelengths on which the broadcast shall be carried; and what plans he has for legislation to extend the BBC's existing obligation in respect of sound broadcasts to television.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. The BBC is responsible for deciding how to use the frequencies allocated to it, including the editorial content and scheduling of its programmes, under the terms of its royal charter and licence and agreement. I am sure that the BBC will have taken note of the concern which has been expressed in Parliament about its daily reports of proceedings.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government have to raise the cost of the television licence during the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced on 4 November 1993,Official Report, columns 309–10, that, from 1 April 1994, the fee for a colour television licence would increase to £84·50 and that for a monochrome licence to £28. I have today laid before the House the regulations necessary to bring these fees into force.

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Projects
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being or have been wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Cambridge in(a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (2) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being or have been wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Swindon in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (3) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being or have been wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Newcastle upon Tyne in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (4) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Plymouth in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (5) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being or have been wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Bristol in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (6) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Leeds in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (7) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Brighton in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;
  102
  (8) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in York in (a) the past five years, (b) this financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (9) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Birmingham in (a) the past five years, (b) this financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (10) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Sheffield in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (11) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Nottingham in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (12) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Leicester in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (13) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Coventry in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (14) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Manchester in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (15) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Hull in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (16) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Liverpool in (a) the past five years, (b) this financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (17) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Dewsbury in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (18) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Norwich in (a) the past five years, (b) this financial year and (c) the next two years;

  (19) what major building projects, valued at over £3 million, are being wholly or partly financed by Her Majesty's Government in Oxford in (a) the past five years, (b) the current financial year and (c) the next two years.

  Sir George Young
  I am replying with information on projects undertaken by my own Department. The Department of the Environment holds details of projects included in its own direct spending and projects undertaken by local authorities and non-departmental public sector bodies, such as urban development corporations, which may be wholly or partially financed by Her Majesty's Government.

  Projects over £3 million are as listed:
  103

  Past five years

  Current financial

  Next two years

  Cambridge

  None

  None

  None

  Swindon

  None

  The Prinnels

  None

  Newcastle

  Cowgate Housing Renewal

  Bath Lane Triangle

  Newburnhaugh

  St. Peters Basin Housing Development

  Industrial Estate at Whitehouse Road

  Newcastle East Quayside Phases 2

  Newcastle Central Business and

  John Marley Training Workshops

  and 3 (Office/Retail/Hotel)

  Technology Park (Offices)

  Ryehill Housing Refurbishment

  Newcastle Arena (Leisure)

  Closegate (Copthorne) Hotel

  Abercorn Road/Fergusons Lane Estate

  St. Peters Basin Phase 2 (Housing)

  Pandon Quays Housing Development

  Scotswood Neighbourhood Renewal

  Lower Scotswood

  Newcastle Business Park (Offices)

  Area

  Walker Technology Park (Industrial)

  Family and Elderly Accommodation

  Callaly Way Housing Development

  - Fergusons Lane

  Ryehill Central

  Newcastle East Quayside Phase 1

  Cruddas Park

  (Offices)

  Loadman Street

  Closegate Office Development

  North Kenton

  Jubilee Estate

  Buddle Road

  Ben Church Street

  Cowgate

  Plymouth

  Crown Hill

  Coxside/National Marine Aquarium

  None

  Crown Building

  Car Park, Plymouth

  Rendell Street, Devonport

  Pembroke Street, Devonport

  Notre Dame Conservation Site

  Bristol

  Avon Valley Urban Village

  Quay Point, Temple Meads

  Bishport Multi-Storeys, Hartcliffe

  Meadowsweet, Trendlewood Park

  Spine Road

  Gatehouse, Withywood

  Barton Hill

  Rockingham House

  Blaise, Lawrence Weston

  Orlebar Gardens, Lawrence Weston

  Hartcliffe and Withywood 1

  Hartcliffe and Withywood 2

  Leeds

  Marriott Hotel

  Royal Armouries Museum

  None

  Embankment (office development)

  Gipton South

  Takare Nursing Home

  Belle Isle N

  Granary Building

  Wimpey Homes Phase 1 - Hunslet Green

  Belle Isle N Enveloping II

  The Deane, Halton Moor

  Ebor Gardens, Halton Moor

  Hunslet Green

  Stonegate A

  Brighton

  Preston Barracks

  Lynchett Close

  None

  York

  None

  Foxwood Lane

  None

  Birmingham

  Birmingham Factory Centre

  Bloomsbury

  Five Ways Tower

  Garrison Lane

  The Firs Phases 3 and 4

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust

  Waterlinks

  Pool Farm

  Bloomsbury

  Jewellery Business Centre

  Ladywood (includes Central Area and

  The Firs Phases 3 and 4

  Arcadian Centre

  Phases 1 and 2)

  Pool Farm

  Bordesley Village

  Newtown Phases 1 and 2

  St. Lukes

  Browning Street

  Ladywood (includes Central Area and

  IMI Holford Phase 2

  Phases 1 and 2)

  Trafalgar Road, Moseley

  Newtown Phases 1 and 2

  Waterlinks House

  Cockhill

  Bloomsbury

  The Firs Phases 3 and 4

  Pool Farm

  Ladywood (includes Central Area and Phases 1 and 2)

  Newtown Phases 1 and 2

  Sheffield

  Badger Estate Phases 1 to 3

  Steel City House

  Norfolk Park

  Bard Street Phases 1 and 2

  Grain and Terminal Buildings -

  Hyde Park Walk and Tower Phases 1

  Victoria Quays

  and 2

  North West Inner City Action Plan

  Hyde Park Block C

  Broomhall

  Manor Estate Phases 1 to 4

  Lower Manor Phase 1

  104 105

  Past five years

  Current financial

  Next two years

  Nottingham

  Speinton High Rise

  St. Anns

  The 4 Bs

  Radford Flats

  Bridgeway, Meadows

  Crabtree Farm II

  Speinton Railway Lands

  Boots Island Site

  Speinton Square

  Helston Drive Phase 2

  Leicester

  Mowmacro

  Saffron Lane

  St. Andrews Housing Estate

  St. Matthews C

  Leicester City Football Club

  Pex Poly Refurbishment

  St. Matthews East

  Technology Transfer Centre

  Bede Island North, Science Park

  St. Marks

  Bede Island North, Housing

  Kirby Frith

  Helston Drive, Phase 2

  Coventry

  Cofa Court

  Ernesford Grange Phases 1 and 2

  Ernesford Grange Phases 1 and 2

  Crown Building

  Wood End Phases 4 and 5

  Wood End Phases 4 and 5

  Harnall Lane Estate

  Parkside Office Development

  Ernesford Grange Phases 1 and 2

  Wood End Phases 4 and 5

  Manchester

  Langley

  Alexandra Park (Moss Side)

  Wilbraham

  Collyhurst South

  Monsall

  Chorlton-on-Meolock

  Hulme St. Georges

  Platt Lane

  Hacking Street

  Benchill

  Newbank Street

  National Cycling Centre

  Waterloo Road

  Woollam Place

  Victoria Indoor Arena

  Gail House

  Cambridge Street

  Housing Association new build,

  Castlequay

  Concert Hall

  Hulme 2, 3 and 5

  Grand Island

  National Cycling Centre

  Piccadilly Undercroft

  Victoria Indoor Arena

  1830 Warehouse

  Hulme 5 and District Centre

  Orient House

  Demolition

  Granada Hotel

  Housing Association new build, Hulme

  Piccadilly Village

  2 and 3

  Granby Village

  Great Bridgewater Initiative (Concert

  Lancaster and Dominion

  Hall)

  Castlefield Hotel

  National Cycling Centre

  Victoria Indoor Arena

  Housing Association new build, Hulme 2, 3 and 4

  Albert Grove, Longsight

  Hull

  Old Bilton Grange Phases 1 and 2

  Old Bilton Grange Phase 3

  Old Bilton Grange Phase 4

  The Danes, Orchard Park

  The Garths Phase 1

  The Garths Phase 2

  Greenwood Estate

  Derringham Bank

  North Hull Housing Action Trust

  North Hull Housing Action Trust

  North Hull Housing Action Trust

  Louis Pearlman Centre

  Louis Pearlman Centre

  Louis Pearlman Centre

  Liverpool

  Phythian

  Sedgemoor (Norris Green)

  Sedgemoor Phase 2

  Belle Vale

  Baycliff/Southdean (Dovecot)

  Baycliff/Southdean Phase 2

  Chatsworth

  Dingle

  Dingle Phase 2

  Netherley

  Business Grants Block Johnsons

  Telegraph House

  Norwood

  Controls

  St. Georges Hall

  Princes Park

  Central Bus Station

  Project Rosemary

  Queens Road

  St. Georges Hall

  Renshaws Expansion

  Everton Park

  Project Rosemary

  Town Hall

  Queens Dock

  Renshaws Expansion

  Wavertree Tech Park

  Gregson Street Phase 1 and 2

  Town Hall

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust

  Boundary Street, Liver/Lightbody

  Wavertree Tech Park

  St. John's House, Bootle

  Street

  Liverpool Housing Action Trust

  Chatsworth Street

  St. Andrews Gardens

  Eldonians

  Dewsbury

  None

  None

  None

  Norwich

  None

  None

  None

  Oxford

  Blackbird Leys

  Blackbird Leys

  None

  Grants, Northumberland
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of Government grants given to each district council in Northumberland last year.
  107
  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is as follows:

  Government Grants1 to District Councils in Northumberland 1993–94 budget

  £000's

  Tynedale

  4,193

  Castle Morpeth

  3,173

  Wansbeck

  5,883

  Blyth Valley

  7,129

  Alnwick

  3,830

  Berwick Upon Tweed

  2,349

  1 Revenue grants as reported to the Department by the local authorities. This comprises revenue support grant and specific and special grants.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) of 28 February,Official Report, column 555, if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter relating to wind farms to which he refers.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 536, if he will list the grade 2* listed buildings for which consent to demolish has been given.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grade 2* listed buildings for which consent to demolish was given during the period 1 January 1982 to 31 March 1993 are:

  Allanby house, Maryport, Cumbria

  Dogmersfield park, Hampshire

  2 Lansdown crescent, Cheltenham

  Old Farmhouse, Manor House farm, Crawford, Lancashire

  Campsall hall, South Yorkshire

  Welton grange, Humberside

  Clayhouse barn, Halifax

  Kerswell priory, Devon

  Oakfield, Sulhampstead Bannister, Berkshire

  Coachman's cottage, Studley, Warwickshire

  Old hall, Manor road, Bishop Auckland

  Ditchett hall, Shepton Mallett, Somerset

  9 Queen street, Droitwich, Worcestershire

  Port East warehouses, North Quay, West India docks, London Hinxton hall, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire—curtilage buildings listed in their own right

  Hammerhead Crane, Wallsend, Tyne and Wear

  Details of buildings for which consent was given prior to 1982 are not readily available.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to give greater protection to tenants in mobile home parks; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We have no plans at present to introduce further legislation concerning mobile homes. However, the two major industry bodies have recently launched a charter for mobile home residents which aims to help residents and site owners understand their existing legal right, and extends the responsibilities of site owners. Members of the industry bodies will be obliged to follow the charter.

  St. Andrew's Gardens, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what time scale he how puts on the completion of the city challenge flagship project at St. Andrew's gardens project in Liverpool; and what funding will be made available for the project in the present financial year and the next;

  (2) when he expects to hold the public inquiry into the Russell street-Berry street link road, Liverpool; and when it is likely that a decision will be available;

  (3) what assessment he has made as to the effect of the public inquiry into the Russell street-Berry street link road, Liverpool on the city challenge flagship project at St. Andrew's gardens.

  Mr. Baldry
  I cannot say at this stage, when the public inquiry into the Russell street-Berry street link road might be held or when a decision will be issued. Arrangements for the inquiry will be put in hand once the planning and listed building consent applications and related documents requested from Liverpool city council on 16 February have been received.

  The original time scale projected for the completion of the St. Andrew's gardens project was June 1966. My officials are currently discussing with Liverpool City Challenge and Merseyside Improved Houses what steps need to be taken to avoid significant delays as a result of the call-in and public inquiry.

  Funding for the vacant stock initiative element of the project, through Liverpool City Challenge, is as follows:

  £million

  1992–93

  2·400

  1993–94

  11·047

  1994–95

  11,354

  1995–96

  10·703

  1 Estimated.

  City Challenge funding for the houses for sale element—in addition to private sector investment is:

  £million

  1995–96

  10·420

  1996–97

  10·280

  1 Estimated.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out by industrial sector the number of jobs a) created and (b) saved by the Leeds development corporation in each financial year since its inception.

  Mr. Baldry
  Leeds development corporation does not analyse employment numbers within its areas by standard industrial classification. Nor does it keep records of the number of jobs saved. The numbers of gross jobs created within its area for each financial year since its inception are as follows:

  Year

  Numbers

  1988–89

  1,526

  1989–90

  2,458

  1990–91

  2,320

  109

  Year

  Numbers

  1991–92

  210

  1992–93

  830

  Plymouth Development Corporation
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress regarding the urban development corporation established in Plymouth in part to deal with redundant assets at Devonport; what assets have been transferred to the UDC from the MOD; on what basis this transfer took place; how many of these assets have been sold or developed; how many jobs have been created in the initiative; how much investment has been carried out by the Government to date; what is the total cost of the initiative to the Government to date; and what is the projected total.

  Mr. Baldry
  Plymouth development corporation was set up in April 1993. Since then it has encouraged the private sector to offer solutions to the redevelopment of its ex-MOD sites. Royal William yard in particular was a part of the DOE private finance initiative announcement in November last year.

  Two sites, Mount Wise—seven acres—and Royal William yard—32 acres—have been transferred to PDC. Mount Batten—55 acres—will be transferred this month. All are being transferred at open market value, although the purchase cost is part of the MOD contribution to the development corporation.

  PDC is still examining the potential for redevelopment of the ex-MOD sites so no assets have yet been sold or developed. No direct jobs, other than two permanent staff of the development corporation, have been created but the corporate plan indicates the potential to create over 1,300 new jobs and to lever in some £50 million of private sector money.

  The Government money spent by PDC so far is in the region of £7 million including land purchase. Over the five-year life of the development corporation it is anticipated that the Government will contribute some £45 million towards the redevelopment of their sites. However, all such long-term commitments are subject to the annual public expenditure survey.

  Water Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of(a) water supply and (b) sewerage services for the average home in the areas covered by (a) Wales Water, (b) Severn Trent, (c) North West England and (d) Thames in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what was the cost of the water supply for the average home in each area in each year.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on water and sewerage companies' average charges is published annually in the Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries statistics series publication "The UK Water Industry—Charges for Water Services", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the price per thousand gallons of water for the areas covered by(a) Wales Water, (b) Severn Trent, (c) North West England and (d) Thames in 1992–93 and 1993–94.
  110
  Mr. Atkins
  Information on water and sewerage companies' unit costs for water delivered in 1992–93 is contained in the Office of Water Services publication "The Cost of Water Delivered and Sewage Collected", a copy of which is available in the Library. The report for 1993–94 will be available towards the end of the year.

  Gipsy Sites, Essex
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what implications the recent policy announcement on gipsy sites will have for Essex county council's proposal to establish a gipsy site at Barnards farm, East Hanningfield, Chelmsford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Essex county council's application for approval in principal to develop this site has already been received by the Department. Provided that the county council wishes to proceed, and that the scheme meets the grant criteria, it will continue to be considered for approval under the existing system.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress there has been on the review of the arrangements for dealing with contaminated land which was announced on 24 March 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am glad to report that the contaminated land review, set up in March 1993 under the chairmanship of my Department, has made good progress. Establishing where liability should fall for dealing with damage resulting from historic pollution is complex and the subject is not conducive to easy answers.

  Many interested organisations and individuals have set out their views to the review. Such participation has been extremely helpful in drawing out the key issues and options. To build on that, I have agreed that it would be appropriate to issue a consultation paper, giving all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary conclusions.

  The consultation paper "Paying for Our Past" has been published today—I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. We have invited comments by 3 May. Those views will be taken into account before we reach our final conclusions.

  The consultation paper makes clear that we support a "suitable for use" approach to dealing with contaminated land. That is that contaminated land should be treated to deal with unacceptable actual or perceived threats to health, safety or the environment, taking account of the actual or intended use of the site; and, where practical, we should keep or bring such land back into beneficial use. That helps us to minimise pressures on green-field sites.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the spending plans for Department of the Environment, PSA Services, the Office of Water Services and Ordnance Survey for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. I have today published the Department of the Environment annual report for 1994
  111
  —Cm 2507. This sets out in detail the outcome of the public expenditure survey announced in the Budget statement on 30 November 1993. The report provides an overview of the departments' discharge of their responsibilities over the past year, providing background to each spending programme and policy with more detailed information on performance targets, output measurements and value for money.

  The report sets out our recent achievements and our plans for taking forward policies for the protection and enhancement of the natural and man-made environments. With their wide range of functions, my departments have a leading role to play in this and in ensuring that we see the wider picture of what we are doing, so that we pursue policies of sustainable development. The report contains many examples of how this is being achieved.

  The report is also an important part of my departments' accountability to the public, in line with citizens charter principles.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the chairmanship and deputy chairmanship of the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to inform the House that I have appointed Sir Brian Pearse to be chairman of the Housing Corporation from 1 April 1994. I am also appointing Mr. Peter Cooke to the post of deputy chairman. Both appointments will be for three years. As well as welcoming this excellent new team to head the important work of the Housing Corporation, I should like to express my gratitude to their predecessors, Sir Christopher Benson and Sir Norman Wakefield, for their outstanding contributions during their term in office.

  North Sea
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the main findings and conclusions of the recent quality status report on the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The North sea quality status report has not yet been published. The Oslo and Paris Commission and the International Council for Exploration of the Sea are working jointly on preparations for publication at the end of March.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update figure K3, tax revenues from the main local taxes as percentages of total tax revenues of local governments, selected countries, of Cmnd 9714—"Paying for Local Government".

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the total amount of central grant given to Brent, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, Blackburn, Burnley, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Rochdale, Salford, Middlesbrough,112
  Birmingham, Coventry, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and Kingston upon Hull in the years 1980–81, 1986–87 and 1993–94 at constant 1994 prices;

  (2) what was the total amount of central Government grant given to each local authority in England in the years 1980–81, 1986–87 and 1993–94 at constant 1994 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: I have arranged for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spends on child care; on what provision the sum is spent; how many children receive the child care; and if he will make a statement about child care.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: In the current financial year 1993–94 my Department—excluding the Property Services Agency—has spent £60,250 on subsidy for nursery and holiday play scheme provision for 132 children. Start-up costs for additional places in two new inter-departmental nurseries in Westminster and Bristol amounted to £30,000.

  Nuclear Recycling
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underpinned the decision not to include nuclear recycling at Sellafield or Dounreay in chapter 23 on waste and recycling, at pages 148 to 157 of Her Majesty's Government's sustainable development strategy report published on 25 January.

  Mr. Atkins
  Chapter 23 of "Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy"—Cm 2426—concerns non-radioactive waste.

  "Watch Your Waste"
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what part his Department plays in the Open university book "Watch Your Waste" to which reference is made at page 153 of the report on the Government's sustainable development strategy, released on 25 January.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment funded the production of the book.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers the decision of the President of the Commission not to publish the report of experts on the future of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no plans to do so.

  Embassies and High Commissions
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 29, how he assesses the

  113
  savings made to his budget as a result of reductions in Ministry of Defence personnel in embassies and high commissions in the absence of estimates of related expenditure; and if he will publish an estimate of the per capita additional net costs to his budget of a service attaché of colonel or equivalent rank in post in (a) a western European country, (b) a middle eastern country and (c) a Commonwealth third-world country.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Savings resulting from reductions in Ministry of Defence personnel in embassies and high commissions cannot be identified precisely. Direct savings from residential accommodation will be known but other savings arising from, for example, utilities and office space would need to be estimated pro rata after taking account of any direct support provided by the Ministry of Defence.

  The additional direct annual per capita cost—residential accommodation without utilities—of a service attaché of colonel or equivalent rank in (a) Paris (b) Amman and (c) Islamabad would be about £18,700, £11,000 and £6,500 respectively. Other costs would have to be estimated in the same way as for savings.

  Western Honduras
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with RTZ-Kennecott Mining Company on the environmental consequences of mining in Western Honduras.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have had no such discussions. My officials and RTZ are in touch from time to time.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 18 February,Official Report, column 1036, what information he can provide concerning public interest immunity certificates signed from 1994 and moving in reverse chronological order, without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Colonies (Police)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which colonies and overseas dependencies and territories have police forces which are under the control of the governor; and if he will list their establishment.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All the police forces of the dependent territories are under the control of the governor. Their establishment is as follows:

  Dependent territory

  Police establishment

  Anguilla

  85

  Bermuda

  414

  British Virgin Islands

  142

  Cayman Islands

  251

  Gibraltar

  214

  Falkland Islands

  14

  Hong Kong

  34,000

  114

  Dependent territory

  Police establishment

  Montserrat

  93

  Pitcairn Islands

  11

  St. Helena and its dependencies

  37

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  120

  1 Part-time.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) the fax links and (b) the telephone between Kuala Lumpur and his Department were operational throughout the period of the negotiations of the protocol with Malaysia in March 1988; if duty officers at the Foreign Office were available at this period; and what rules apply to their contacting Ministers or Ministers' private office staff outside normal office work hours.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Normal communications facilities and duty officer arrangements were available throughout the period. Arrangements also exist for contacting Ministers' private secretaries out of normal office hours.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) of 25 January,Official Report, columns 145–46, if he will give the reasons for the time taken after the signing of the Malaysian protocol in March 1988 for a letter to be sent saying that aid could not be linked to arms sales.

  Mr. Goodlad
  When the text of the protocol became available in London at the end of March, Ministers immediately recognised that the aid-defence sales link would have to be disentangled. Extensive consultations between Ministers followed in which we decided that we should make clear to the Malaysian Government that a link was not possible.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 353, what is the lower limit of costs of the draft schemes prepared for consultation with the Association of Members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Consultations between Her Majesty's Government and the Association of Members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong on a proposed package of benefits are taking place this week. The cost of the package will be known after it has been finalised.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the annual report on Hong Kong will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The report is being published and laid before Parliament today. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the future status of the Transport Research Laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decision shortly. He recently announced, in evidence to the Transport Select Committee, his provisional view that TRL should transfer to the private sector. Copies of the consultants' report on the feasibility of privatisation, made available to the Committee, are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Contingencies Fund
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Further to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 24 February,Official Report, column 324, pending parliamentary approval of the revised spring supplementary estimate on the administration and transport services vote—class VI, vote 2—sought to provide for a payment to the United States Government, expenditure estimated at £20,000,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he would accept a bid, either from the in-house team or the private sector, which would mean that the booking of driving tests for Wales would no longer be undertaken in a Welsh location;

  (2) if he would accept a bid, either from the in-house team or the private sector, which would mean that the booking of driving tests for Scotland would no longer be undertaken in a Scottish location.

  Mr. Key
  "The Government's Guide to Market Testing" makes it clear that restrictions which limit contractors' abilities to give the best value for money should not be included in market tests other than for operational reasons. Moreover, geographical constraints on the supply of goods and services are not, in general, permitted under EC competition law. The conduct of driving tests and the location of driving examiners in Wales and Scotland will not be affected by the market test. The requirement to continue to provide the present Welsh language service is to be included in the invitation to tender for the driver test booking service.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the work currently undertaken by the traffic area offices for the Driving Standards Agency is part of the current market test of DSA booking services.

  Mr. Key
  As shared occupiers of the buildings that they share with seven of the 10 DSA booking offices, traffic area offices currently supply DSA with a variety of office 116
  support and property-related services. These might not be required if DSA work were relocated as a consequence of the market test of the DSA booking services. Bidders for the DSA booking service will also be free to choose whether to continue the current arrangements under which three traffic area supply finance services to DSA booking offices.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he would accept a bid for the DSA booking services if that resulted in the centralisation of all booking services in one location.

  Mr. Key
  In order to ensure security of supply it is envisaged that the Driving Standards Agency will award up to four contracts to provide a booking service for separate geographical areas. Bids to run the service as a whole will also be considered if the contract will be managed with the same degree of security.

  British Rail
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in real terms, for each year from 1979 to 1995 the(a) public service obligation grant awarded to British Rail and (b) external financing limit awarded to British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Public service obligation grant in real terms

  £ million

  11993–94 prices

  1979

  1,253

  1980

  1,246

  1981

  1,454

  1982

  1,474

  1983

  1,463

  1984–85

  21,724

  1985–86

  1,257

  1986–87

  1,024

  1987–88

  1,071

  1988–89

  701

  1989–90

  615

  1990–91

  969

  1991–92

  974

  1992–93

  1,191

  1993–94

  3930

  1994–95

  4—

  1 Adjusted using GDP deflator.

  2 15-month year.

  3 Estimated outturn.

  4 There are no figures available for 1994–95 and 1995–96. From 1 April 1994 Government support for socially desirable but unprofitable rail services will be provided through a grant from the franchising director. This sum is yet to be decided.

  (b) External Financing Limit awarded to British Rail £ million, 1993–94 prices1

  EFL

  Outturn

  1979–80

  2,177

  2,177

  1980–81

  1,649

  1,649

  1981–82

  1,751

  1,827

  1982–83

  1,640

  1,506

  1983–84

  1,618

  1,377

  1984–85

  1,504

  21,690

  1985–86

  1,407

  1,395

  1986–87

  1,163

  1,153

  1987–88

  1,057

  3767

  1988–89

  988

  494

  1989–90

  783

  877

  117

  EFL

  Outturn

  1990–91

  812

  1,249

  1991–92

  1,647

  1,584

  1992–93

  2,170

  2,137

  1993–94

  1,495

  41,495

  1994–95

  1,262

  —

  1 Adjusted using GDP deflator.

  2 15 month year.

  3 From 1987–88 EFL included movements in payroll creditors.

  4 Estimated outturn.

  New Car Registrations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of new car registrations for each of the last eight quarters for(a) Birmingham, (b) the west midlands and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Key
  The requested information is shown:

  Quarter 1

  Quarter 2

  Quarter 3

  Quarter 4

  1992

  Birmingham

  20,960

  22,058

  26,362

  15,067

  West Midlands

  27,364

  29,575

  37,304

  29,662

  United Kingdom

  424,743

  376,987

  548,248

  313,896

  1993

  Birmingham

  18,370

  16,107

  27,906

  20,442

  West Midlands

  31,218

  29,323

  40,788

  28,255

  United Kingdom

  470,971

  398,297

  630,770

  345,657

  EC Funding
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those transport projects involving European social and regional funds which have been given the go-ahead since(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. MacGregor
  Lists of transport projects in England approved to date under the European regional development fund since 1979 and 1989 have been placed in the House of Commons Library today. Since 1979, 1,306 projects have been approved and their total value is around £626 million.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the amount of EC social and regional funds available for transport projects over the past 13 years; and what amount was not taken up during that period.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The total value of transport projects in England approved under the European regional development fund since 1981 to date is almost £605 million. Funds are available for a wide range of infrastructure projects and no specific allocation is made for transport projects. Any shortfall in expenditure is reallocated to other projects.

  Market Liberalisation
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's progress since 1989 in further liberalising air and other transport markets both inside and outside the European Union.

  Mr. Norris
  Good progress has been made since 1989 in liberalising international transport markets.
  118
  The third air liberalisation package is now in force in the EU and has been extended to Norway and Sweden. It will shortly be further extended to Iceland, Finland and Austria under the European Economic Area agreement. Our objective as far as the United States is concerned remains to liberalise air services, thus providing further choice and competition on transatlantic routes. Elsewhere, we are making progress in agreeing new or revised arrangements which allow carriers to make commercial decisions on how best to serve the market without needing to seek Government approval. Around 20 such agreements have been made since 1989, with others currently being pursued.

  Interrnational shipping markets are already largely liberal. Agreements on liberalisation of international shipping and cabotage within the EU are examples of further progress in this direction.

  The road haulage market within the EU is now effectively liberalised and substantial progress has now been made on liberalising passenger services. Road transport agreements, existing or under negotiation, with other countries, are in the main liberal or free of permit quotas.

  Access to railway infrastructure must now be granted on equitable conditions for international railway groupings both within EU member states where they are established and in states in between, subject to safety and financial conditions, which must not be discriminatory.

  Stansted
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is considering the redesignation of Stansted as a regional airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No, we have largely discontinued this system of airport categorisation. This was announced in the 1985 airports policy White Paper—Cmnd 9542.

  Disability Awareness
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the need for disability and mobility awareness training for taxi and private hire car drivers.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department attaches the greatest importance to disability awareness training for all transport operators.

  Following consultation with both licensing authorities and the taxi trade, the Department of Transport has produced a video aimed at taxi drivers which deals specifically with disability awareness issues. Much of the information is directed to drivers of wheelchair accessible vehicles, but much of the practical advice is also applicable to drivers of saloon cars, for example on how to assist people with sensory impairments. The video is entitled "Call A Cab" and is available on free loan from the Department of Transport's mobility unit.

  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee which advises the Secretary of State on transport issues affecting disabled people has recently set up a sub-committee to look specifically at the issue of accessible taxis. I know that one of the first topics it will be tackling is driver training and I look forward with interest to receiving its proposals.

  Passenger Carrying Vehicle Test
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of drivers pass the passenger carrying vehicle test at(a) the first attempt, (b) the second attempt and (c) the third attempt.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. John Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from S. J. Ford to Mr. Michael Shersby, dated 7 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of drivers who pass the passenger carrying vehicle test (PCV) at their first, second or third attempt. We do not routinely collect this information as it does not directly affect the operation of the Agency.

  For consistency of testing, and in fairness to the candidate, it is preferable if the examiner is not made aware of the number of previous attempts a candidate has made at a test. The overall pass rate on PCV tests in the last two financial years was:

  Per rent.

  1991–92

  56

  1992–93

  53

  As part of our second Customer Survey, completed last year—the results of which were published in September—we asked a random sample of all our customers whether it was their first test or a repeat attempt. Of 355 people in the sample who had recently taken their PCV test, 81 per cent. had just passed; of these passes, 40 per cent. were at the first attempt, 33 per cent. at the second, 18 per cent. at the third and 7 per cent. at the fourth.

  Buses and Coaches (Children)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) those local education authorities operating a three-to-two seats policy on school buses and (b) those local education authorities operating a policy of one child to one seat; what plans he has to change his Department's three children to two seats policy on school buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not kept centrally.

  As part of a wider review of bus and coach safety my Department is reviewing the concession which allows three children, under the age of 14, to share a double seat and count as two passengers.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to limit the number of young children that can be carried on coaches without the use of seatbelts to two on each seat.

  Mr. Key
  As part of a wider review of bus and coach safety my Department is reviewing the concession which allows three children, under the age of 14, to share a double seat and count as two passengers.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, by category, the principal assets of Railtrack from 1 April, together with the total valuation of each category.
  120
  Mr. Freeman
  The scheme for transferring assets from the British Railways Board to Railtrack has not been finalised.

  Lollipop People
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department is giving local authorities in respect of the legality of lollipop people escorting children of pre-school age across busy roads.

  Mr. Key
  Sections 26 and 28 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 empower school crosssing patrols to stop traffic only at places where"children cross roads on their way to or from school, or from one part of a school to another".

  The words "children" and "school" are not defined. The interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts, but it would seem that the legislation would not prevent school crossing patrols from escorting children to or from an educational institution that provides education or instruction to children of no predetermined minimum age. This would include a nursery school or playgroup. It is, however, for appropriate authorities to decide their own policy in this matter, consulting their own legal advisers as necessary.

  Minibuses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mandatory tests he plans to introduce to prevent the sale or hire of unsafe minibuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I have no proposals to introduce mandatory tests to prevent the sale or hire of unsafe minibuses. There are already adequate safeguards.

  It is an absolute offence under section 75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for any person to sell or hire out an unroadworthy vehicle. It is also an offence for any person to use, or cause or permit another person to use a vehicle which is unroadworthy.

  There are also safeguards under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the measures that he is taking to inform minibus operators of safety risks; and the cost involved.

  Mr. Key
  The Department funds the Community Transport Association's information and advice service which ensures that voluntary groups have a central source of free advice and information about all aspects of minibus operations. The budget for the financial year 1993–94 was £41,000.

  A video and information pack about good practice in the transport of elderly and disabled people by minibus is available on free loan from the Department's mobility unit.

  The Department issues a free guide on passenger transport provided by voluntary groups, which includes advice on recommended maintenance arrangements and requirements on equipment and use applying to permit minibuses.

  European Passenger Services Ltd.
  Mr. Wilson
  to ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the cost to the Exchequer will be of fully writing off the debt of £1·4 billion incurred by European Passenger Services Ltd. in order to incorporate it into a joint venture company with he private sector to build the channel tunnel rail link;

  (2) whether it is his intention to reduce or write off the capital debt of assets belonging to European passenger Services Ltd. before its incorporation as a Government-owned company.

  Mr. Freeman
  European Passenger Services Ltd. will be established as a Government-owned company, and eventually transferred to the private sector promoter of the new channel tunnel fixed link, free of the long-term debt which it currently owes to the British Railways Board. The liability to repay these loans will remain with BR or Railtrack.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many managerial and clerical staff have been hired to deal with rail privatisation by his Department; and if he will list their positions and salaries;

  (2) how many managerial and clerical staff have been hired to deal with rail privatisation by British Rail; and if he will list their positions and salaries;

  (3) if he will list the number of staff that have been recruited by British Rail to deal with the restructuring of BR in preparation for privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Four staff, filling two full-time posts up to December 1993, and one thereafter, were hired specifically for rail privatisation work. All were administrative assistants in the full-time salary range £7,247 to £9,499 per annum.

  At present, approximately 40 full-time equivalent staff work on rail privatisation matters.

  BR staff matters are for them.

  Greater London Regional Passengers Committee
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the stations covered by the Greater London regional passengers committee.

  Mr. Norris
  The London regional passengers committee covers all stations on the London underground and the docklands light railway, and all British Rail stations within the area bounded by and including the following stations: Stevenage, Bishops Stortford, Chingford, Harold Wood, Upminster, Ockendon, Purfleet, North Woolwich, Dartford, Swanley, Otford, Sevenoaks, Oxted, Caterham, Gatwick Airport, Dorking, London Road Guildford, Worplesdon, Woking, Virginia Water, Windsor, Slough, Bicester North, Aylesbury, Tring and Harpenden.

  Marsh Mills Roundabout
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which date the improvement works at Marsh Mills, Plymouth roundabout are likely to be completed.

  Mr. Key
  The present work is being carried out under an agreement with a store developer and is due to be 122
  completed by 25 March. However, improvements under an agreement with another developer are expected to start soon and be completed by the end of May. We are also currently evaluating tenders for a major reconstruction of the defective slip road viaducts east of the Marsh Mills roundabout. This work should start this spring and be completed by early 1996.

  Oil Pollution and Salvage
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the 1990 international convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation to provide a framework for international co-operation for combating major oil pollution incidents; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the ratification of the 1992 protocol to the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the international compensation fund for oil pollution damage convention;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the ratification of the 1989 international convention on salvage.

  Mr. Norris
  Enactment of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 16 December 1993, would permit the ratification of these instruments.

  Ships (Sewage Discharge)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the International Maritime Organisation's regulations controlling the discharge of sewage from ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government will consider ratification of annexe IV of MARPOL when the findings of a comprehensive survey of United Kingdom reception facilities, including those for sewage, are available later in the year.

  Aerodromes (Noise Control)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation to give local authorities powers to enforce noise control arrangements at aerodromes.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time permits.

  Channel Tunnel (Fire)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what day staff of the railway inspectorate first visited the channel tunnel to inspect the site of the electrical fire in the channel tunnel on 13 November.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive, including a railway inspector, first visited the site of this incident on 16 November 1993.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received reports on the electrical fire which occurred in the channel tunnel on 13 November 1992 from(a) Eurotunnel or TML and (b) the Health and Safety Executive.
  123
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Employment Department has been briefed on the incident by the Health and Safety Executive. HSE notified the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority of the incident and the investigation.

  Eurotunnel also gave a report on the incident to the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority.

SCOTLAND

  Women (Statistics)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of women between the ages of 16 and 59 years, and the percentage of those that is economically active, in the regions of Borders and Lothian.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Women aged between 16 and 59 years, 1991

  Number (Thousands)

  Percentage who are economically active

  Borders

  29·7

  72·4

  Lothian

  225·1

  71·8

  Source: 1991 Census of Employment.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which health boards(a) have and (b) have not established emergency dental services since October 1990.

  Mr. Stewart
  Under regulations, emergency dental services consist of treatment provided out of hours, at weekends and on public holidays. Health boards may set up such formal emergency dental services where necessary using general dental practitioners and/or community dental staff. General dental practitioners are responsible for providing emergency dental treatment for their own registered patients. In some areas, dental emergencies may also be treated in hospital or on an ad hoc basis. The table shows which Scottish health boards operate formal emergency dental services and when these services were established.

  Provision of emergency dental services by health boards in Scotland

  Emergency dental services available

  When services established

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  √

  1982

  Borders

  √

  11990

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  Fife

  √

  1989

  Forth Valley

  √

  1986

  Grampian

  √

  1982

  Greater Glasgow

  √

  1982

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  Lothian

  √

  1977

  Orkney

  √

  21990

  Shetland

  √

  21990

  Tayside

  √

  1982

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  1 October.

  2 Pre-October.

  Dunbartonshire Enterprise Council
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the recipients of all grants over £40,000 made by Dunbartonshire Enterprise Council for each year since its inception.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outstanding management agreements for Scottish Natural Heritage for sites of special scientific interest protection there have been in 1993–94; what is the estimate of their cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  At present there are 523 management agreements for sites of special scientific interest in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage estimates that the cost of these in 1993–94 will be £2,666,000.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have been taken under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Scotland in each year since 1982 for(a) carrying out a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest and (b) contravening a nature conservation order under section 29; how many of these were successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is not separately identifiable in the Scottish Office classification of crimes and offences.

  Housing (Dampness and Condensation)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the impact on the prevalance of dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in Scotland of the imposition of VAT on fuel.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The results of the first Scottish house condition survey were published last year and show that 122,000 houses are affected by dampness in the public sector stock and 202,000 affected by condensation. There is an overlap between the two groups and the severity of the problem varies. There is no reason to suppose that the introduction of VAT on domestic fuels will have a direct bearing on the incidence of either condition.

  Benefits have been uprated to take account of the introduction of VAT on domestic fuels. Additional resources have been allocated to the home energy efficiency scheme in 1994–95 which provides assistance for works of insulation and also advice on other energy conservation measures that can be applied.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will undertake a survey of statutory housing authority areas to determine the prevalence of dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in Scotland;

  (2) if he will consult with statutory housing authorities in Scotland in order to agree an action plan to eliminate dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in Scotland;
  125
  (3) what research his Department is currently undertaking to eliminate the prevalence of dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report of the 1991 Scottish house condition survey published in July 1993 provides an assessment of dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Condensation and dampness are identified as national priorities for the use of resources and are being addressed by local authorities under the housing plan system. Authorities have been asked to prepare strategies for dealing with these problems. Research on dampness and condensation is carried out on a United Kingdom basis by the Building Research Establishment and provides the basis for regulatory standards.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources he proposes to allow local authority housing departments to spend in order to eradicate dampness and condensation in public sector housing in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling almost £426 million were announced on 24 February for investment in public sector housing in 1994–95. Under the housing plan system introduced on 30 April last year local authorities were asked to give priority to tackling condensation and dampness, as well as below tolerable standard housing and homelessness, within their capital programmes. It is for authorities to determine how to utilise the resources made available to them.

  Scottish Defence Initiative
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the Scottish Enterprise national defence initiative, established on the instructions of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to alleviate the negative impact of defence expenditure reductions on the Scottish economy and to explore defence diversification issues.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish defence initiative was established by Scottish Enterprise in November 1991, at the request of my right hon. Friend, as a strategy to deal with the effects on businesses and employment of contraction in defence-related industries. A number of programmes and activities have been implemented as a result of the initiative. Since these are essentially operational matters, Scottish Enterprise is best placed to provide details of progress so far. I have therefore asked the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the additional non-departmental public bodies to which he will make appointments as a result of the implementation of his proposals set out in "Scotland in the Union: a Partnership for Good".

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 February 1994]: I will be responsible for appointments to the Scottish Arts Council as from 1 April 1994 and to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. when ownership transfers to me from the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding has been made available in each of the past five years to health boards for screening of osteoporosis; how many women in Scotland have been screened for osteoporosis in each of the past five years: how many clinics in health board and trust board areas exist for the specific purpose of screening for osteoporosis; and how many women have been diagnosed as suffering from osteoporosis in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: Information about screening of osteoporosis and funding for this is not held centrally.

  It is for health boards as purchasers of care to secure from provider units or trusts an appropriate level of osteoporosis services based on assessment of local need.

  The table identifies the number of females discharged from hospital over the last five years with a diagnosis of osteoporosis.

  Number of females discharged from NHS hospitals in Scotland with a diagnosis of "Osteoporosis" for the years 1988 to 1993

  Year

  Discharges (Females)

  1988

  1,056

  1989

  1,215

  1990

  1,478

  1991

  1,793

  1992

  1,960

  11993

  2,283

  1 1993 data are provisional.

  Sheilton Peatlands Nature Conservation Order
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now put back the public local inquiry into the Sheilton Peatlands Nature Conservation Order, scheduled to commence on Wednesday 16 March, to the week commencing 21 March.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: No. The order will cease to have effect after nine months of its being made unless my right hon. Friend gives notice of his decision.

  It is likely that any delay now would preclude adequate consideration of the report of the inquiry within the statutory timetable.

  Scottish Economy
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the regeneration of Scotland's economy; when he next plans to meet them to discuss this topic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend last discussed the Scottish economy with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 14 December 1992. He will consider sympathetically any requests from the STUC for further discussions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Light Bulbs
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what progress has been made in the conversion to the use of energy-saving light bulbs in each parliamentary building.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  As part of a continuing programme of energy-saving measures in the Palace of Westminster and the parliamentary estate, low-energy light fittings have been installed in many areas. Where these have been installed they have contributed over the past three years to savings of some 65 per cent. in the consumption of electricity. During the same period, over 300 "occupancy sensors" have been installed, which automatically switch off lights when areas are vacated.

  Norman Shaw South
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans there are to upgrade communal areas of the Norman Shaw South building; and for how long it is estimated the building will continue in parliamentary use.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  There are no plans for an immediate upgrade of the communal areas of Norman Shaw South building. Following the completion of the phase II building in about six years' time, a major upgrade of the whole of Norman Shaw South will be undertaken. It is envisaged that the building will continue in parliamentary use for the foreseeable future.

  Television Cameras
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what considerations underlie the prohibition of television cameras from hon. Members' offices.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The regulations which prohibit filming in Members' rooms were agreed in order to address potential problems of access, intrusion, and possible disturbance to the fellow occupants of Members' rooms. They are to be considered again in the near future by the Administration Committee in the context of a comprehensive review of the rules governing filming and photography in the House.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many statutory instruments have been made since 1 November 1993; and how many of them were made by Home Office Ministers.

  School

  1 Pupil number

  Age range and character

  Chalvedon grant-maintained school

  1,397

  11 to 19 non-selective mixed

  Chatham grant-maintained grammar school for girls

  669

  11 to 19 selective girls

  Collingwood grant-maintained school

  1,675

  12 to 18 non-selective mixed

  Deacon's grant-maintained school

  835

  11 to 18 non-selective mixed

  George Spencer grant-maintained school

  958

  11 to 18 non-selective mixed

  Glyn grant-maintained school

  956

  11 to 18 non-selective boys

  Harraby grant-maintained school

  560

  11 to 18 non-selective mixed

  128
  Mr. Newton
  Five hundred and twenty-seven general and 505 local statutory instruments have been made since 1 November 1993 up to the end of February, of which 16 were made by Home Office Ministers.

EDUCATION

  Schools Reorganisation, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he will announce his decision on Doncaster local education authority's proposal for phase 3 of its reorganisation of schools programme.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend expects shortly to announce decisions on these proposals.

  Dr. Bill Mallinson
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to initiate an independent public inquiry into the case of Dr. Bill Mallinson following the report by Sir Michael Davies.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend does not have powers to intervene in the internal administration of universities which are independent corporate institutions.

  Technology Colleges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each of the 12 schools listed in his announcement of 28 February,(a) the date when it will become a technology college, (b) its current pupil roll and character, (c) whether he has received an application for approval to a change in its admissions arrangements, (d) how many sponsor governors are being appointed, (e) what is the term of office of each sponsor governor and (f) which of the sponsors are represented by a sponsor governor.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 12 schools announced on 28 February each plan to operate as technology colleges from 1 September 1994. A statutory proposal to increase the capacity of St. George's grant-maintained technology school is currently under consideration. None of the other schools has applied to make a change in its admission arrangements constituting a change of character within the meaning of the Education Act 1993. Each school has confirmed its intention formally to apply to take on between one and four sponsor governors before September 1994. Which of the sponsors are represented by sponsor governors will be determined at that stage. The term of office for sponsor governors is required under the Education Act 1993 to be between five and seven years, with the exact term being specified in the instrument of government. The current pupil roll and character of each school is summarised in the table.
  129

  School

  1Pupil number

  Age range and character

  Kemnal Manor grant-maintained school

  749

  11 to 18 non-selective boys

  Saffron Walden grant-maintained county high school

  1,539

  11 to 18 non-selective mixed

  St. George's grant-maintained technology school

  1,017

  11 to 18 non-selective mixed

  St. Peter's Collegiate Church of England voluntary-aided school

  981

  11 to 18 non-selective mixed

  Saintbridge grant-maintained technology school

  720

  11 to 18 non-selective boys

  1 Provisional at January 1994 as returned to the Department for Education and subject to validation.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications have been received from schools seeking to become technology colleges; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 12 schools announced on 28 February submitted full applications to become technology colleges. Other schools are at varying stages in preparing their applications.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what bids were submitted for initial capital grant for each of the 12 schools listed in his announcement of 28 February; what allocations have been made; and what level and nature of additional annual funding has been agreed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The self-governing schools listed in the announcement have each been invited to submit a bid for a capital project which involves a capital grant of up to £100,000. The voluntary-aided school has been invited to submit a bid for a capital project which involves

  School/sponsor

  Value £ thousands

  Nature of sponsorship

  Chalvedon grant-maintained school

  Garfield Weston Foundtion

  50·0

  Cash

  Fairfield Catering

  37·0

  Cash

  Roy Millard Associates

  15·0

  Cash

  SIMS Centre

  5·0

  Cash

  PMD Associates

  4·0

  Cash

  Chatham grant-maintained grammar school for girls

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Cash

  GEC Marconi Avionics

  20·0

  Cash

  Clifton Reed Consultants

  15·0

  Cash, goods and services

  Research Machines

  10·0

  Goods and services

  Klick Technology

  7·5

  Goods and services

  Data Collection Systems

  5·0

  Cash

  Architects Joint Partnership

  3·0

  Cash

  Collingwood grant-maintained school

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Cash

  GTi Educational Systems

  25·0

  Goods

  Oracle Corporation (UK)

  15·0

  Goods

  Motorola

  10·0

  Cash and goods

  Deacon's grant-maintained school

  Perkins Group

  49·0

  Goods

  Database and Apricot Computers

  27·0

  Goods

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  20·0

  Cash

  Pearl Assurance

  3·0

  Cash

  George Spencer grant-maintained school

  Sir Harry Djanogly

  79·0

  Cash

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20·0

  Goods

  Midland Bank

  1·0

  Cash

  Glyn grant-maintained school

  ADT Group

  100·0

  Cash

  130
  expenditure of up to £117,500 on which capital grant may be claimed at a rate of 85 per cent. of expenditure. Accordingly, no allocations have yet been made. Additional annual funding for each of the schools in financial year 1994–95 is expected to be at the rate of £60 per pupil, for the purposes of support, equipment and training for the teaching of technology, science and mathematics.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each of the 12 schools listed in his announcement of 28 February, and for each sponsor's contribution, how much of the value is in the form of(a) cash, (b) goods and (c) services; and whether the value of each of (b) and (c) is based on (i) the retail or normal commercial value and (ii) the cost to the sponsor.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The value and nature of sponsorship pledged by the main sponsors for each of the 12 technology colleges are listed. Information on the retail or normal commercial value of goods and services and the cost to the sponsor is commercially confidential.
  131

  School/sponsor

  Value £ thousands

  Nature of sponsorship

  Harraby grant-maintained school

  Carnaud Metal Box

  25·0

  Cash and goods

  Cavaghan and Gray

  25·0

  Cash, goods or services

  Talk-Tel Communication

  20·0

  Goods

  Cumbria TEC

  10·0

  Cash

  Kemnal Manor grant-maintained county high school

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  50·0

  Goods

  Architects Joint Partnership

  12·5

  Cash and services

  Ballast Nedam Construction

  12·5

  Cash

  Klick Technology

  12·5

  Cash, goods or services

  Research Machines

  12·5

  Goods and services

  Saffron Walden grant-maintained county high school

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Cash

  Acorn Computers

  30·0

  Goods

  Messrs. Wilby and Burnett

  5·0

  Cash, goods or services

  St. George's grant-maintained technology school

  Mr. Reg. Brearley

  100·0

  Cash

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20·0

  Cash, goods and services

  St. Peter's Collegiate Church of England voluntary-aided school

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Cash

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20·0

  Goods and services

  Lucas Aerospace

  22·0

  Goods and services

  Dixons Wallcoverings

  5·0

  Cash and goods

  Unilab

  5·0

  Goods and services

  Saintbridge grant-maintained technology school

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Cash

  Systems Integrated Research

  25·0

  Goods

  Chartwells

  15·0

  Cash, goods or services

  Denford Machine Tools

  35·0

  Goods and services

  AT (Poeton) Gloucester Plating)

  2·5

  Goods and services

  Permali (Gloucester)

  2·5

  Goods and services

  CM Downton

  2·5

  Goods and services

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a copy of the management plan of each of the 12 schools listed in his announcement of 28 February.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Applications under the technology colleges initiative were prepared by individual schools and their sponsors for submission to the Department. Management plans were not necessarily prepared with any expectation that they would become public documents.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance has been given to schools regarding funding under the technology college initiative; and what assessment he has made as to the consistency with this of the letter of 11 February from the governors of Prospect school, Berkshire, to parents.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend issued a prospectus to head teachers and chairmen of governors of all maintained secondary schools in September 1993 setting out the principles of the technology colleges initiative. More detailed information was circulated to head teachers, on request, in October and November 1993. Both the prospectus and subsequent information included guidance on funding likely to be available to technology colleges. My right hon. Friend has not seen a copy of a letter of 11 February from the governors of Prospect school, Berkshire, to parents.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make it his policy to instruct the Higher Education Funding Council to make restructuring funds available to university institutions which are in financial difficulties and where redundancies are likely;

  (2) by what authority the Higher Education Funding Council may fund early retirement packages for university staffs when these include the commitment to re-employ at the same university those staff as consultants fulfilling comparable duties to those they carried out prior to their retirement;

  (3) if the Higher Education Funding Council has made funds available for early retirement packages for senior employees at the university of London;

  (4) if his Department was consulted by the Higher Education Funding Council about the reorganisation of the management structure of the university of London regarding the posts of principal, director of administration, and director of finance.

  Mr. Boswell
  Universities and colleges are autonomous bodies responsible for the management of their own financial and administrative affairs, including the deployment of staff.

  Should a university experience financial difficulties, the Higher Education Funding Council for England would take action to monitor the position of the institution concerned to ensure public funds were not at risk.
  133
  The HEFCE does not allocate funds for early retirement packages. It is for the institutions themselves to determine staff salaries and any early retirement payments they choose to make from within the funds at their disposal.

  The Department was not consulted about the reorganisation of the university of London's senior management, nor would we expect this. Any such reorganisation is a matter for the institution concerned.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what scrutiny his Department gives to the conduct and funding arrangements of each university following the creation of the Higher Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department for Education does not scrutinise the conduct and funding arrangements of individual universities. This would not be consistent with the Government's limited role of providing the general framework for an efficient higher education system nor with institutional autonomy which is enshrined in law.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is responsible for the allocation of public funds to individual universities; the terms and conditions for use of the considerable public funds at its disposal are clearly specified in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and in a financial memorandum agreed with the Department. The HEFCE is required to ensure all appropriate steps are taken to safeguard the use of public funds.

  London University
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to which public offices he has appointed the vice-chancellor-elect of London university.

  Mr. Forth
  Professor Andrew Rutherford has not been appointed to any public office by my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to which public offices he has appointed the current vice-chancellor of London university.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None, although the current vice-chancellor was appointed to the post of Her Majesty's chief inspector by the Queen in Council at my right hon. Friend's recommendation.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the operational budget of the Funding Agency for Schools under each budgetary heading.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the main estimates, the Government propose to make provision of up to £12 million for the funding agency's running costs in 1994–95. Actual costs will depend on a number of factors, including growth in the number of GM schools. The detailed split of the total between different budget heads will be a matter for the funding agency.

  Teachers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many newly qualified teachers were appointed to permanent teaching posts in each local education authority in 1993.
  134
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people(a) graduated or qualified and (b) failed in teacher training in each of the teacher training colleges and universities in 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is not yet available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inquiries have been received by the Child Support Agency from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents since it was set up; and how many inquiries have received a full reply(a) within a fortnight, (b) a month, (c) two months and (d) three months and over.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 4 March 1994,Official Report, column 897.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances and on what conditions single mothers can withdraw authorisation once given to the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  If a parent who has given her authorisation makes representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they will be considered in the same way as representations made at the time of the original application. If the Secretary of State considers that there is a risk of harm or undue stress to the parent with care or any child living with her, he will withdraw the requirement to authorise action. Once he has done this, the parent with care may request that action to pursue child support maintenance ceases and the Secretary of State must comply with the request.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency to date have resulted in absent parents requesting that their case go before an appeal tribunal; if there is a target time for dealing with appeals; what is the average length of time required to complete the appeal process; and in how many cases the appeal process has exceeded the target time.

  Mr. Burt
  The responsibility for hearing appeals against child support decisions lies with the independent tribunal service. The president of ITS informs me that during the period April 1993 to 25 February 1994 it received 1,132 appeals. Information is not available on how many of these appeals were made by the absent parent. No target for dealing with these appeals has been set by the president, as in his view there is as yet insufficient information on which to base any target. The average time from lodgment of appeal to issue of the tribunal decision is currently 17 weeks.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to respond to letters from hon. Members; and what action he intends to take to reduce this time.
  135
  Mr. Burt
  The first year of the agency's operations has stimulated a great deal of correspondence and the chief executive of the Child Support Agency has received over 3,700 letters from hon. Members. By 25 February, she had replied to over 1,900. Targets for answering letters are not currently being met, but necessary steps are being taken to ensure that letters to hon. Members are answered as promptly as possible. The average clearance times for such correspondence are in the table.

  Cleared

  Per cent.

  1 to 15 days

  16·61

  16 to 20 days

  8·66

  21 to 40 days

  26·76

  Over 40 days

  47·98

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single mothers have stopped applying for income support after receiving a maintenance application form from the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is currently being collected on such cases, but figures are not available in a reliable form.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents who have no contact agreement with their former family have demanded contact or residence after receiving maintenance assessments from the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The arrangement of child maintenance is a separate matter from that of contact or residence with former families, which remains with the courts. Consequently, the Child Support Agency does not routinely collect figures on this subject and information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Offices, Lewisham
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  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 Lewisham 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 Lewisham for 1993–94 for (a) family credit and (b) disability working allowance; and what is the planned allocation to each benefit office in Lewisham for each benefit for (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) on 23 February, at column 238.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement detailing the circumstances in which pensioners will not receive the full allowances to help with the cost of value added tax on fuel.

  Mr. Hague
  Taking a "pensioner" as a person receiving a state benefit who is aged 65 or over in the case of men 136
  and 60 or over in the case of women and "full allowances to help with the cost of VAT on fuel" as the additional 50p per week for single people and 70p per week for couples payable from April, the circumstances will be as follows.
  Where Income Support, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit is not in payment1 and:

  (a) basic retirement pension, invalidity benefit or widows' benefit is in payment at less than the standard rate, the additional amount will be a proportion of 50p or 20p, as appropriate, corresponding to the level of award in accordance with the contributory principle underlying these benefits,

  (b) only non-contributory retirement pension or invalid care allowance is in payment the additional amount will be 20p per week,

  (c) only graduated retirement benefit is in payment, or an award of retirement pension, invalidity benefit or widows' benefit consists solely of additional pension, the rate of benefit will not be increased beyond normal price indexation.

  Note 1—Pensioners receiving income support, including men aged 60 to 64, will be entitled to 50p per week, 70p for couples. These increases will feed through into housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) maximum and (b) minimum amount of weekly housing allowance paid to a single unemployed person in the Doncaster area during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The maximum and minimum amounts of housing benefit paid to single unemployed persons in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, as at May 1992, the latest date for which information is available, were £55·59 and £4·44 respectively.

  Data Source:
  The housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system and the income support annual statistical inquiry. The inquiries are a 1 per cent. sample of cases in Great Britain in May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. The number of sample cases of the single unemployed in receipt of housing benefit from any individual local authority is likely to be very small. Therefore we cannot provide reliable figures for the minimum and maximum amount of housing benefit paid in Doncaster.

  2. The data have been obtained from a 1 per cent. sample of cases, therefore, the figures are the maximum and minimum in the sample and the lowest and highest amount payable may not have been included.

  3. "Housing allowance" has been assumed to mean housing benefit.

  4. "Unemployed" has been defined as those in receipt of unemployment benefit.

  5. 100 per cent. of eligible rent is paid for those with incomes at or below income support levels. Housing benefit is withdrawn on a tapered basis for each additional £1 of income above income support levels. This is reflected in the range of housing benefit in the sample.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secret ary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) of 3 February,Official Report, columns 837–38, regarding housing benefit, if he will give similar information for each region in Great Britain;

  (2) if he will provide for Scotland similar information to that provided by the Secretary of State for Social Security, in his answer of 3 February, Official Report, columns 837–38, regarding housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.
  137
  Details for May 1992, the latest date for which information is available, are in the table.

  Housing Benefit Cases—000s—and average amounts of Housing Benefit—£/week—by tenure and region

  Local Authority

  Other Private

  Housing Association

  All Tenures

  Number of Cases

  Average Amount

  Number of Cases

  Average Amount

  Number of Cases

  Average Amount

  Number of Cases

  Average Amount

  South East (excluding London)

  327

  30·26

  170

  44·29

  50

  32·52

  547

  34·83

  London

  404

  39·53

  187

  52·46

  72

  40·14

  663

  43·25

  North (including Cumbria)

  270

  22·18

  45

  32·38

  36

  29·01

  351

  24·19

  Wales

  154

  25·86

  48

  33·41

  16

  35·00

  217

  28·18

  Scotland

  459

  22·12

  57

  36·85

  21

  25·43

  537

  23·81

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  286

  20·65

  67

  32·86

  24

  29·97

  377

  23·42

  East Midlands

  190

  22·67

  62

  33·97

  12

  29·52

  264

  25·64

  East Anglia

  88

  25·59

  37

  38·60

  11

  29·71

  136

  29·44

  South West

  168

  27·65

  98

  41·75

  15

  34·18

  281

  32·92

  West Midlands

  338

  25·41

  73

  32·75

  33

  32·43

  444

  27·13

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  346

  24·47

  104

  37·04

  52

  26·78

  502

  27·31

  Total

  3,030

  26·45

  948

  40·69

  341

  32·24

  4,318

  30·03

  Data Source:

  The housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system 1 per cent. inquiry for May 1992 and the income support annual statistical 1 per cent. inquiry for May 1992.

  Notes:

  1 The figures are in benefit units and are rounded to the nearest thousand. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  2 The information for "Other Private Tenants" excludes that of housing association tenants.

  3 All cases where the assessed benefit was less than 50p per week have been excluded.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by year for the last four years how much has been paid in housing benefit; and to how many households in the Doncaster area.

  Mr. Burt
  The information for Doncaster is in the table.

  Financial year

  Annual expenditure £

  Average case load

  1989–90

  20,027,000

  23,625

  1990–91

  21,028,000

  22,699

  1991–92

  23,809,000

  22,571

  1992–93

  28,104,000

  23,691

  Data source:

  The housing benefit management information system.

  Notes:

  1. The annual expenditure amounts are the final or audited figures supplied by DSS and DOE.

  2. Details of the number of households receiving housing benefit in

  District

  Office(s)

  Dates

  Times

  Reasons

  Euston

  Highgate

  15 February 1994

  From 2 pm

  Adverse weather conditions affecting travel (AWCAT)

  Hackney and Islington

  Hackney

  14 February 1994

  All day

  Heating failure

  Hoxton

  14 February 1994

  From 2 pm

  AWCAT

  Companies House

  14 February 1994

  From 2 pm

  AWCAT

  Shoreditch

  14 February 1994

  From 2 pm

  AWCAT

  Stoke Newington

  14 February 1994

  From 2 pm

  AWCAT

  City East

  City

  14 February 1994

  10 am to 2 pm

  Electrical failure

  Tameside

  Hyde

  15 February 1994

  All day

  Electrical failure

  Sheffield West District

  Sheffield North West

  14 February 1994

  From 2.30 pm

  AWCAT

  Sheffield South West

  14 February 1994

  From 2.30 pm

  AWCAT

  The decision to close an office to the public is the responsibility of each individual manager. Such decisions are not taken lightly and are only made where it is felt that there may be a risk to the health or safety of the staff involved. Where there is any disruption to public service, this is kept to a minimum.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information provided on 8 February 1993,Official Report, column 502, for estimated
  138
  the Doncaster area are not available. The information provided is in the form of benefit units for the Doncaster area, based on averaged quarterly case load figures over a financial year. A benefit unit may be a couple in receipt of housing benefit or a single person in receipt of housing benefit.

  3. Case load is recorded at a particular point in time and will not record successful claims which start and finish between quarterly reporting periods.

  Local Offices (Cold Weather)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of his Department's offices were temporarily closed for the day, or part of the day during the period 14 to 16 February due to the cold weather; if he will list the location of the offices involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The following offices were closed in the period 14 to 16 February.

  average earnings in 1994–95, excluding the estimated effect of extending home responsibility protection to state earnings-related pension scheme entitlements, and including the effect of that proposed change.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.
  139
  As explained in the earlier reply, the amounts of additional pension quoted related to an individual who had

  1994–95 Per cent.

  1994–95 £

  2015–16 £

  2025–26 £

  2035–36 £

  2045–46 £

  Basic Pension

  17·1

  57·60

  42·15

  36·30

  31·30

  26·95

  Average additional pension (women)

  11·5

  38·75

  46·10

  43·25

  42·10

  41·25

  Average additional pension (men)

  18·7

  63·10

  68·50

  56·95

  48·60

  43·75

  Notes:—

  The amounts of additional pension are based on the amounts of SERPS payable in each respective year to an individual who had average earnings in each year of his or her working life. They are not based on average additional pension awards to new pensioners as these cannot be estimated.

  Assumes real terms earnings growth of 1·5 per cent. per annum.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for the Doncaster area the number of people who will be affected by the decision to reduce the entitlements to unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  This information is not availble. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) on 18 January, at column 559.

  Maternity Benefits
  Mrs. Angel Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce proposals for bringing maternity benefits in line with the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women at work.

  Mr. Lilley
  In August last year, I issued a consultation document which described options available for adapting our maternity benefits schemes to the requirements of the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women at work.

  I am grateful to all those organisations and individuals who responded. Their contributions proved very valuable in helping us to reach our final decisions.

  The main proposals of the new scheme are:
  Any woman who has been continuously employed in the same job for 26 weeks will be entitled to statutory maternity pay. This simple test replaces the present three tests which currently result in different rates of maternity pay depending on whether a woman has worked for 26 weeks, two years or five years in the same job.
  All women who qualify for SMP will now receive

  the higher rate—90 per cent.—of earnings for the first six weeks of their maternity leave, and

  for the remaining 12 weeks, the standard rate of SMP, which is increased by £3·70 per week to £52·50 in line with statutory sick pay.

  Maternity allowance is increased to £52·50 for qualifying employees; other recipients not covered by the directive will continue to receive £44·55.
  Women claiming MA will have a longer period before their baby is due to satisfy the 26-week contribution conditions—66 weeks instead of the present 52.
  Maternity leave and pay can begin at any time after the start of the 11th week before the week the baby is due. However, if a woman is on sick leave because of her pregnancy and there are fewer than six weeks before the baby is due, she will be deemed to be on maternity leave and entitled to maternity pay.

  To pay for the additional cost of around £55 million a year, the rate by which employers are reimbursed for the SMP they pay out is to be reduced to 92 per cent. from 4 September 1994. However, small employers will be completely protected. They will continue to be fully reimbursed for the cost of any SMP they pay. The
  140
  average earnings in each year of his or her working life. In these circumstances extension of home responsibilities to SERPS would have no effect.

  definition of "small employer" will be the same as the improved SSP definition from April—employers who pay £20,000 or less annually in gross national insurance contributions. Two thirds of employers—approximately 750,000 businesses—will be helped.

  As a whole, employers will not be out of pocket. The reduction in employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will more than compensate employers for the abolition of SSP reimbursement as well as the reduction in SMP reimbursement. The result of this package is a net gain for employers of some £125 million.

  Allowing women to receive SSP in the later stages of pregnancy if they are sick for reasons other than pregnancy will also add an extra £10 million in SSP costs. The combined cost of these changes means a total cost for industry of £65 million a year—less than 0·03 per cent. of the national wage bill, or approximately £230 per expectant mother receiving maternity benefits.

  The new arrangements will apply to women expecting a baby on or after 16 October 1994. The first payments for these women under the new rules will be made from the end of July—since women can take maternity leave up to 11 weeks before their baby is expected.

  These improved maternity payments will benefit 285,000 women. At the same time we have simplified the scheme to make it easier for employers to administer and women to understand.

  I will shortly be laying regulations to give effect to these proposals.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 691, how many people in (a) Nottingham city, (b) Nottinghamshire and (c) nationally would be affected if the proposed job seeker's allowance came into operation on 1 March, or the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Nationally, when job seeker's allowance is fully operational, it is estimated that at any one time around 250,000 people could be affected.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates rounded to nearest 10,000 cases.

  2. Estimates assume:

  (a) 2·75 million unemployed.

  (b) 1994–95 benefit rates.

  3. Estimates relate to a point in time rather than the number who could be expected to be affected at some point during a year.

  Income Support
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women have had their benefit cut for failure to attend a restart course.

  Mr. Burt
  Since December 1990, approximately 31,000 unemployed claimants received a reduced personal rate of income support after the adjudication officer decided they had failed to attend or complete a restart course without good reason.

  Details of the respective numbers of men and women affected are not held.

  Child Support Legislation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 31 January, ref. 6/3644/72 on a child support legislation.

  Mr. Burt
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend approves the following public appointments which are not identified in "Public Bodies 1993":

  Chairman of the Rural Development Council.

  Up to one third of the membership of the Community Relations Council—he maximum membership is 24.

  The lay observer.

  Chairmen of the boards of:

  The Belfast Harbour Commissioners

  Londonderry. Harbour Commissioners

  The Warrenpoint Harbour Authority

  The chairman of:

  The Negotiating Machinery for Teachers' Salaries and Conditions of Service (Schools)

  The Colleges of Education Negotiating Committee

  The Further Education (Lecturers) Negotiating Committee

  In addition, the Secretary of State appoints the independent commissioner for the holding centres, the independent assessor of military complaints procedures, the local government boundaries commissioner, one member to Armagh observatory board of governors and five members to Queen's university senate.

  The list of appointments are made directly by my right hon. and learned Friend and do not include those made on his behalf by other Ministers.

  Car Insurance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have taken advantage of the concession in respect of third party insurance set out in Road Traffic (Third Party Risks) Order 1981 in each of the years in which it has been in force.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  No one has to date.

  Crime
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of(a) recorded criminal offences, (b) offences recorded as cleared up by the police and (c) convictions by (i) category of offence and (ii) into those scheduled for hearing under the prevention of terrorism Acts, and those otherwise dealt with, for each year since 1983 in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 4 March 1994 ]: The information requested is as follows:

  Table 1: Crimes recorded and crimes cleared up by the police 1983 to 1992

  Year

  Crimes recorded

  Crimes cleared

  1983

  62,493

  17,371

  1984

  65,352

  19,986

  1985

  63,025

  21,943

  1986

  66,284

  24,344

  1987

  61,779

  26,617

  1988

  55,890

  25,226

  1989

  55,147

  23,808

  1990

  57,198

  21,475

  1991

  63,492

  22,675

  1992

  67,532

  23,253

  Table 2: Conviction by category of offence 1983 to 1992

  Indictable offences

  Summary offences (excluding motoring offences

  Motoring offences

  1983

  8,317

  8,299

  24,145

  1984

  8,077

  7,754

  25,417

  1985

  8,568

  8,346

  27,255

  1986

  10,312

  6,093

  26,010

  1987

  10,650

  6,072

  28,200

  1988

  9,588

  6,071

  28,553

  1989

  8,422

  5,113

  26,096

  1990

  9,320

  4,293

  27,207

  1991

  8,893

  4,177

  20,133

  1992

  8,558

  4,114

  20,787

  Table 3: Conviction in the Crown Court 1983 to 1992: scheduled and non-scheduled offences

  Year

  Scheduled offences

  Non-scheduled offences

  1983

  577

  1,139

  1984

  464

  1,025

  1985

  625

  1,205

  1986

  567

  1,179

  1987

  680

  1,135

  1988

  487

  880

  1989

  414

  820

  1990

  440

  816

  1991

  388

  821

  1992

  354

  781

  A number of scheduled offences were also tried in the magistrates court.

  Court Cases
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases were dealt with by way of(a) magistrates courts, (b) trials by jury and (c) judges sitting alone under the prevention of terrorism Acts, and in

  143
  each category how many cases had (i) guilty pleas, (ii) convictions after pleas of not guilty and (iii) acquittals in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number of findings in magistrates court by plea and finding 1983 to 1992

  Pleading guilty

  Found guilty after pleading not guilty

  Found not guilty

  1983

  35,665

  3,380

  2,780

  1984

  35,812

  3,947

  2.410

  1985

  38,786

  3,553

  2,772

  1986

  39,139

  1,530

  2,720

  1987

  41,469

  1,638

  3,160

  1988

  41,358

  1,487

  3,212

  1989

  37,963

  934

  3,072

  1990

  38,615

  949

  3,341

  1991

  31,188

  906

  2,970

  1992

  30,805

  1,519

  3,149

  Number of proceedings in Crown court for non-scheduled offences by plea and finding 1983 to 1992

  Pleading guilty

  Found guilty after pleading not guilty

  Found not guilty

  1983

  1,055

  84

  92

  1984

  926

  99

  96

  1985

  1,090

  115

  128

  1986

  1,101

  78

  84

  1987

  1,056

  79

  75

  1988

  783

  97

  91

  1989

  767

  53

  91

  1990

  716

  100

  136

  1991

  717

  104

  98

  1992

  673

  108

  110

  Note: "Non-scheduled offences" means those that do not fall within schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, and are hence tried by a court with a jury.

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Not known1

  Educated outside NI

  Total

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Administration and Clinical

  415

  37·0

  612

  54·5

  5

  0·4

  90

  8·0

  1,122

  100

  Maintenance

  85

  56·7

  55

  36·7

  3

  2·0

  7

  4·7

  150

  100

  Ancillary and General

  445

  40·2

  564

  50·9

  12

  1·1

  87

  7·9

  1,108

  100

  Nursing

  759

  25·7

  1,714

  58·1

  18

  0·6

  461

  15·6

  2,952

  100

  Social Services

  140

  27·9

  288

  57·5

  2

  0·4

  71

  14·2

  501

  100

  Professional and Technical

  199

  41·8

  226

  47·5

  —

  —

  51

  10·7

  476

  100

  Medical and Dental

  86

  28·6

  80

  26·6

  6

  2·0

  129

  42·9

  301

  100

  Ambulance

  52

  49·5

  43

  41·0

  1

  1·0

  9

  8·6

  105

  100

  Home Helps

  650

  36·1

  966

  53·7

  50

  2·8

  133

  7·4

  1,799

  100

  Total

  2,831

  33·3

  4,548

  53·4

  97

  1·1

  1,038

  12·2

  8,514

  100

  1 Those who attended integrated or special schools which cannot be classified.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland since 1 January; and which have been the subject of admissions of responsibility by the IRA.
  144

  Number of proceedings in crown Court for scheduled offences by plea and finding 1983 to 1992

  Year

  Pleading guilty

  Found guilty after pleading not guilty

  Found not guilty

  1983

  464

  113

  61

  1984

  426

  38

  43

  1985

  552

  73

  73

  1986

  528

  39

  29

  1987

  634

  46

  33

  1988

  442

  45

  28

  1989

  373

  41

  42

  1990

  386

  54

  30

  1991

  343

  45

  35

  1992

  301

  53

  59

  Note:

  "Scheduled offences" are defined by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, and under the terms of the Act tried without a jury.

  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of the Western health and social services board in each category of employment are(a) perceived Protestants, (b) perceived Roman Catholics, (c) persons educated outside Northern Ireland and (d) others.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: The information requested is provided in the table:

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 17 February 1994]: The list gives details of attacks believed to have been carried out by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland from 1 January 1994.
  145

  Terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland from 1 January 1994 to 25 February 1994

  Date

  Incident

  Location

  Casualties

  Group believed to be responsible

  1 January 1994

  Incendiary devices exploded in 10 premises; one other was defused

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  Newtownabbey

  Dunmurry

  2 January 1994

  Shooting: indiscriminate attack

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  3 January 1994

  Shooting: shots fired at civilian leaving a Security force base

  Castlederg

  —

  Republican

  5 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Antrim

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  6 January 1994

  Shooting/hijacking: gunmen took over a house and shot occupant's son

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  6 January 1994

  Explosion: improvised grenade attack on Army patrol partially exploded; second device defused

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  7 January 1994

  Explosion: Mark 16 mortar attack on joint RUC/Army mobile patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  7 January 1994

  Explosion: Attack on Army patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  7 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  7 January 1994

  Explosion: device exploded when thrown at an Army patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  8 January 1994

  Shooting/bombing: propelled grenade attack and shots fired at public house

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  10 January 1994

  Explosion: mortar attack on joint Army/RUC base

  Crossmaglen

  2 soldiers injured, one seriously

  Republican

  10 January 1994

  Shooting: civilian shot at as he arrived at his place of work

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  10 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  11 January 1994

  Explosion: grenade attack on RUC vehicle

  Belfast

  3 police officers injured

  Republican

  11 January 1994

  Device thrown at joint RUC/Army patrol failed to explode; defused

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  12 January 1994

  Shooting/explosion: shots fired at joint RUC/ Army patrol, followed by explosion

  Belfast

  1 soldier very seriously injured

  Republican

  12 January 1994

  Device thrown at RUC patrol failed to explode; defused

  Lurgan

  —

  Republican

  13 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  14 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  15 January 1994

  Nine incendiary devices exploded in shop premises; six others were defused

  Greater Belfast/Newtownards

  —

  Republican

  17 January 1994

  Explosion: bomb exploded on waste ground

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  19 and 20 January 1994

  Four incendiary devices exploded in shop premises; six others were defused

  Coleraine/Limavady

  —

  Republican

  20 January 1994

  Explosion: device thrown at Army patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  21 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  22 January 1994

  Explosion: propelled grenade attack on joint RUC/Army patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  22 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civlian

  Belfast

  1 civlian injured

  Republican

  23 January 1994

  Incendiary attacks on two shop premises

  Lisnagelvin/Strabane

  —

  Republican

  146 147

  Date

  Incident

  Location

  Casualties

  Group believed to be responsible

  23 January 1994

  Explosion: device exploded in derelict building

  Dungannon

  2 civilians injured

  Republican

  23 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  24 January 1994

  Shooting/explosion: gunmen hijacked taxi; shots were subsequently fired, followed by explosion

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  24 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on RUC officer who returned fire

  Lisnaskea

  —

  Republican

  24 January 1994

  Explosion: bomb in video cassette exploded in civilian home

  Craigavon

  2 civilians injured

  Loyalist

  27 January 1994

  Explosion: bomb appeared to explode prematurely

  Londonderry

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  27 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilians

  Belfast

  1 civilian killed

  Loyalist

  27 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Ballymena

  1 civilian killed; 1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  28 January 19941

  Explosion: bomb attack on Army patrol; partially exploded

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  30 January 1994

  Explosion: propelled grenade attack on Army observation post

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  31 January 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  1 February 1994

  Explosion: Mark 15 mortar attack on security force patrol base

  Newry

  —

  Republican

  1 February 1994

  Explosion: device exploded as police were investigating reports of a smashed window

  Portadown

  1 police officer injured

  Loyalist

  2 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  3 February 1994

  Shooting: attack on taxi driver

  Newtownards

  1 civilian killed

  Loyalist

  3 February 1994

  Explosion: propelled grenade attack on RUC mobile patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  3 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on mini-bus

  Belfast

  2 civilians injured

  Loyalist

  4 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  4 February 1994

  Explosion: device partially exploded at RUC officer's home

  Londonderry

  —

  Republican

  5 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on workmen at RUC station

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  5 February 1994

  Incendiary devices exploded in four commercial premises

  Belfast/Lisburn

  —

  Republican

  6 February 1994

  Explosion: Mark 16 mortar attack on Army patrol

  Belfast

  3 soldiers injured

  Republican

  6 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Republican

  7 February 1994

  Explosion: mortar attack on Army observation post

  Glassdrumman

  —

  Republican

  8 February 1994

  Shooting: shots were fired at a house from a passing van

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  9 February 1994

  Explosion: an explosion occurred on a building site

  Lisburn

  —

  Loyalist

  9 February 1994

  Explosion: an explosion occurred on a footpath

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  11 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on house

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  11 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  148 149

  Date

  Incident

  Location

  Casualties

  Group believed to be responsible

  11 February 1994

  Explosion: bomb attack on Army mobile patrol

  Crossmaglen

  —

  Republican

  12 February 1994

  Coffee jar device thrown at RUC mobile patrol failed to explode; defused

  Cookstown

  —

  Republican

  12 February 1994

  Explosion: rocket attack on Sinn Fein Advice Centre

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  12 February 1994

  Incendiary device exploded in shop

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  12 February 1994

  Explosion: an explosion occurred as a civilian moved a traffic cone away from her car

  Craigavon

  1 civlian injured

  Loyalist

  13 February 1994

  Incendiary device exploded in restaurant

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  13 February 1994

  Incendiary device exploded in carpet store

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  13 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on two civilians

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  14 February 1994

  Explosion: "chocolate box" bomb attack on civilian

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  14 February 1994

  Explosion: "chocolate box" bomb attack on civilian

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  16 February 1994

  Explosion: bomb attack on Army patrol

  Belfast

  1 soldier injured

  Republican

  17 February 1994

  Explosion: propelled grenade attack on RUC vehicle

  Belfast

  1 police officer killed and 2 injured

  Republican

  17 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian on 17 February 1994. Victim died on 24 February 1994

  Belfast

  1 civilian killed

  Loyalist

  17 February 1994

  Explosion: premature detonation of bomb

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  18 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilians at Sinn Fein offices

  Belfast

  3 civilians injured

  Loyalist

  19 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian's house

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  19 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on GAA club

  Portadown

  —

  Loyalist

  19 February 1994

  Shooting: shots fired in street disturbance

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  20 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on taxi-driver

  Cookstown

  —

  Loyalist

  20 February 1994

  Explosion: attack on Army mobile patrol

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  20 February 1994

  Incendiary devices exploded in eight shops/licensed premises; one other was defused

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  Newtownabbey

  21 February 1994

  Explosion: Mark 15 mortar attack on RUC station

  Beragh

  —

  Republican

  21 February 1994

  Incendiary devices exploded in three shop premises

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  23 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  —

  Loyalist

  24 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Belfast

  1 civilian killed

  Republican

  25 February 1994

  Shooting: gun attack on civilian

  Lisburn

  1 civilian injured

  Loyalist

  25 February 1994

  An incendiary device exploded in a car showroom

  Belfast

  —

  Republican

  25 February 1994

  Incendiary devices exploded in two licensed premises; one other was defused

  Londonderry

  —

  Republican

  Note: Terrorist shooting attacks within own communities.
  150

  Downing Street Declaration
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment he has made of the main differences between the agreement between the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Gerry Adams and the Downing street declaration; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he or his Department have now received a copy of the agreement between the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Gerry Adams.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 7 March 1994,Official Report, column 24.

WALES

  Housing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what designated local authority areas were underfunded by housing associations in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information as regards net programme outturn is as follows:

  Housing for Wales: outturn expenditure 1992–93 through housing associations by local authority area

  Net programme outturn1 £000

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,522

  Colwyn

  2,745

  Delyn

  1,842

  Glyndwr

  1,107

  Rhuddlan

  1,902

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,432

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen

  1,975

  Ceredigion

  1,805

  Dinefwr

  2,053

  Llanelli

  2,444

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,990

  South Pembrokeshire

  912

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,359

  Islwyn

  1,409

  Monmouth

  4,207

  Newport

  5,882

  Torfaen

  1,989

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  2,095

  Arfon

  2,971

  Dwyfor

  1,574

  Meirionnydd

  375

  Ynys Mon

  455

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  3,226

  Merthyr

  1,649

  Ogwr

  4,728

  Rhondda

  2,216

  Rhymney Valley

  2,214

  Taff Ely

  1,731

  Powys

  Brecknock

  103

  152

  Net programme outturn1 £000

  Montgomeryshire

  2,730

  Radnor

  1,045

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  24,005

  Vale of Glamorgan

  3,316

  West Glamorgan

  Lliw Valley

  1,113

  Neath

  1,557

  Port Talbot

  1,076

  Swansea

  10,547

  Total

  108,301

  1 Excludes £20·366 million credit approval transfers.

  GP Fundholders
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the general practitioner fundholding practices in Clwyd and give the totals spent out of the allocations for each practice for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 17 fundholding general practices in Clwyd at present, as follows:

  Dr. B. F. Bracewell and Partners, 14 Russell Road, Rhyl

  Dr. W. B. Clarke and Partners, Padeswood Road, Buckley

  Dr. C. W. Spencer and Partners, Padeswood Road, Buckley

  Dr. D. E. Jones and Partners, Vale Street, Denbigh

  Dr. J. G. Thomas and Partners, Bridge Street, Denbigh

  Dr. G. O. Jones and Partners, Coleshill Street, Holywell

  Dr. E. W. Jones and Partners, Regent Street, Llangollen

  Dr. G. W. Jones and Partners, 360 Abergele Road, Old Colwyn

  Dr. N. Evans and Partners, Ffordd Pendyffryn, Prestatyn

  Dr. J. N. Taylor and Partners, The Roe, St. Asaph

  Dr. D. Jones and Partners, Chapel Street, Wrexham

  Drs. Alstead, Saul and Partners, 40 St. Georges Crescent, Wrexham (Group)

  Dr. J. Tattersall and Partners, Gwersyllt, Wrexham

  Dr. R. Rouse and Partners, 98 Conway Road, Colwyn Bay

  Dr. D. Ryan and Partners, Gardden Road, Rhos

  Dr. W. Jolly and Partners, 38 Shotton Lane, Shotton

  Dr. S. B. Patel and Partners, Pwllycrochan Avenue, Colwyn Bay

  The last year for which spending against allocations is available is 1992–93 and the figures for the practices which were fundholding in that year are as follows:

  Allocation £

  Outturn £

  Dr. B. F. Bracewell and Partners

  2,159,000

  2,377,853

  Dr. W. B. Clarke and Partners

  1,083,000

  1,090,040

  Dr. C. W. Spencer and Partners

  1,322,000

  1,297,839

  Dr. D. E. Jones and Partners

  1,384,000

  1,414,880

  Dr. J. G. Thomas and Partners

  787,000

  804,204

  Dr. G. O. Jones and Partners

  1,183,000

  1,251,978

  Dr. E. W. Jones and Partners

  1,231,000

  1,270,065

  Dr. G. W, Jones and Partners

  1,691,000

  1,773,965

  Dr. N. Evans and Partners

  2,694,000

  2,843,887

  Dr. J. N. Taylor and Partners

  1,491,000

  1,609,687

  Total

  15,025,000

  15,734,398

  These figures are subject to, and have been audited, by the Audit Commission as part of the audit of the family health services authority.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those private companies whose tourism marketing expenditure is partly financed by grants from the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Development Board for Rural Wales has not given any grants towards the tourism marketing expenditure of private companies.

  The board does, however, work in partnership with the Wales tourist board, the British Tourist Authority, Mid Wales Tourism Ltd., the region's local authorities and the Welsh Rarebit-Welsh Gold Collection consortium, and promotes the region through its own brochure "Welsh Country Holidays" which is itself supported by the British Tourist Authority. All these activities benefit the tourism marketing of private companies by the increased promotion of mid-Wales.

  Health Care
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is proposing to take to improve the quality of health care in(a) Dyfed and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The health service in Wales has seen a significant improvement since 1979. By June.1993, the number of inpatients and day cases treated in our hospitals had increased by 71 per cent. and the number of out-patients had risen by 36 per cent. At the same time, the length of time people have to wait for treatment has never been shorter.

  Next year, the spending on the NHS will increase by 5·1 per cent. in cash terms, a figure well in excess of inflation for the economy as a whole.

  The NHS in Wales is committed to building on this impressive performance, and Dyfed will play its full part in providing better health care for patients.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prosecutions have been taken under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Wales in each year since 1982 for(a) carrying out a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest and (b) contravening a nature conservation order under section 29; how many of these were successful; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There have been three prosecutions taken under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Wales since 1982 for carrying out a potentially damaging operation. One, in 1985, was unsuccessful; the other two, in 1990 and 1991, were successful. There have been no prosecutions taken under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in Wales since 1982 for contravening a nature conservation order under section 29.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outstanding management agreements for Countryside Council for Wales for sites of special scientific interest protection there have been in 1993–94; what is the estimate of their cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  At 28 February 1994 there were 424 management agreements in force on SSSIs in Wales at a total cost of £1,113,227 in 1993–94 up to that date.

  Teachers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people(a) graduated or qualified and (b) failed in teacher training in each of the teacher training colleges and universities in Wales in 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of United Kingdom students who successfully completed an initial teacher training course, leading to qualified teacher status, at each colleage of the university of Wales in 1992–93 is shown in the table. The information for courses completed at colleages of higher education in Wales is not yet available for 1992–93. Information on the number of students who failed to complete an initial teacher training course is not available.

  University of Wales1

  1992–93

  Aberystwyth

  257

  Bangor

  130

  Cardiff

  19

  Swansea

  272

  1 Information supplied by each college of the university of Wales as at October 1993.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many newly qualified teachers were appointed to permanent teaching posts by each local education authority in Wales in 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many officers of local community health boards appointed by him are able to speak Welsh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym: Jones
  I do not appoint the officers of community health councils or health authorities. Information on the linguistic ability of health service staff is not held centrally.

  NHS Managers
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which NHS trusts in Wales have changed the contracts of employment of any managers or executives to cash in annual leave not taken.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for NHS trusts.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on managers in the NHS cashing in annual leave not taken.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the general Whitley council agreement which applies to NHS managers employed on centrally prescribed terms and conditions of service, payment in lieu of annual leave may be made in only two circumstances:

  (i) where the manager is prevented on account of ill-health from taking his or her normal leave entitlement in the final year of service, and

  (ii) where the manager dies in service.

  NHS trusts have the freedom to set local terms and conditions of service for their staff.
  155
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the monthly taxable emoluments of the five highest paid managers in each of the district health authorities in Wales in(a) March 1990, (b) July 1990, (c) March 1991, (d) July 1991 and (e) March 1992.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the monthly taxable emoluments of the five highest paid managers or executives in each of the district health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales in(a) July 1992, (b) March 1993, (c) July 1993 and (d) January 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which national health service trusts have established remuneration committees to establish local salary levels for managers and executives.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally. Under new codes of conduct and accountability which my right hon. Friend proposes should come into effect from 1 April 1994, all NHS boards will be required to establish remuneration and terms of service committees.

  Health Services, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many staff were employed by the Pembrokeshire NHS trust in(a) April 1992, (b) September 1992, (c) March 1993, (d) September 1993 and (e) January 1994;

  (2) how many staff were employed by the Pembrokeshire district health authority in (a) July 1990, (b) March 1991, (c) July 1991 and (d) March 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information available is given in the table. Information for March 1991 is not considered reliable.

  Staff in Post (Whole-time equivalents)

  Non-medical and dental

  Medical and dental

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority

  July 1990

  1,443

  n/a

  September 1990

  1,429

  82

  July 1991

  1,483

  n/a

  September 1990

  1,478

  82

  March 1992

  1,533

  n/a

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  April 1992

  1,498

  n/a

  September 1992

  1,547

  88

  March 1993

  1,557

  n/a

  September 1993

  1,540

  194

  December 1993

  1,517

  n/a

  n/a Denotes not available. Medical and dental staffing information is only available centrally as at 30 September.

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Pembrokeshire district health authority needed his permission to transfer capital resources from the 1991–92 accounts to revenue expenditure in the 1992–93 financial years for the Pembrokeshire NHS trust.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Revenue funds were carried forward by the Pembrokeshire health authority from 1991–92 to 1992–93 by making an advance payment into the bank account of the shadow Pembrokeshire NHS trust.156
  This arrangement subsequently came to the Department's attention when the authority's accounts for 1991–92 were being prepared. The Department has since made it clear that the accounts of shadow NHS trusts are to be regarded as accounts of the parent health authorities and cannot be used as a means of providing working capital for the trusts when they come into formal effect.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was, in cash and percentage terms, the rate of return on capital for the Pembrokeshire NHS trust in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and what rate is projected for 1994–95.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93—£1,438,000 or 4·7 per cent.

  1993–94—£1,955,000 or 7·0 per cent. (projected)

  1994–95—£1,688,000 or 6·0 per cent. (planned)

  For each year, the achieved rate of return is identified through the formal annual accounts process.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings his officials have had with officers of Pembrokeshire NHS trust, Pembrokeshire health authority, Clwyd health authority and Marlow hospital trust to discuss the service review report.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. The director of the NHS in Wales has been sent a draft copy of the report in the light of his responsibilities as the accounting officer.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Pembrokeshire NHS trust achieved its target rate of return on capital in 1992–93.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93 Pembrokeshire NHS trust achieved a pre-interest return of 4·7 per cent. against the initial planned target of 6 per cent.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he expects the service review report on the health service in Pembrokeshire to be published.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As the service review was commissioned jointly by Pembrokeshire NHS trust and Pembrokeshire health authority, this will be a matter for those two bodies.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the report jointly commissioned by the Pembrokeshire health authority and the Pembrokeshire NHS trust and the Welsh Office on the service review will be presented to the commissioning bodies.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for Pembrokeshire NHS trust and Pembrokeshire health authority as the joint commissioning bodies for the service review.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given to the Welsh Development Agency in the preparation of its 1994 corporate plan; and whether he will set targets for the agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have today written to the chairman of the agency setting out the ways in which I expect the agency to contribute to the wider objectives of economic development in Wales. I have included targets for inward investment, the development of industrial and commercial floorspace, leverage for private sector investment, and the clearance of derelict land.
  157
  There are changes to some of the targets following discussions with the chairman and the WDA board. I have also given the WDA a specific target for inward investment within its overall inward investment plans. I have arranged for a copy of the letter to he placed in the Library of the House.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take to assist those national health service trusts that do not achieve their target rate of return on capital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  NHS trusts are currently required to achieve a 6 per cent. pre-interest return on their assets; break even, taking one year with another, and stay within the external financing limit set on an annual basis. Failure to meet any of those obligations will require appropriate action by the trust concerned, the extent of which will depend on the underlying causes of the variances from planned targets.

  Patient Treatment Numbers
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is his policy to limit the numbers of patients treated by health providers to that contained in the contracts with health purchasers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These arrangements are intended to ensure that all patients meant to be treated within the currency of a contract are treated within that time and, additionally, all urgent patients are to be treated without any delay.

HEALTH

  Long-stay Hospital Beds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-stay hospital ward beds have been closed nationally and in the Wirral since the introduction of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  The first full year of data following the introduction of the national health service aspects of the Act was 1991–92. These data exclude long-stay places provided by the NHS in the community or purchased from independent providers. It shows that between 1991–92 and 1992–93 there was at net increase of four long-stay hospital ward beds in the NHS in the Wirral and a net decrease of 6,832 in England.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her assessment of the effect upon asthma sufferers of air pollution in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  On the few occasions when levels are high, those who suffer from respiratory disease such as asthma may experience some effects including respiratory irritation, some coughing and possible pain on deep inspiration when taking exercise out of doors. Advice and information is provided on the freephone helpline: 0800 556677.

  Minor Injuries Unit
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of(a) a full-time general practitioner and (b) an accident and emergency specialist in a minor injuries unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1992–93, general practitioners in Great Britain received an intended average net income of £40,010 for the provision of general medical services. The average earnings of a consultant, whose pay is agreed nationally, were £53,450 in the same year. Accident and emergency consultants may have their pay negotiated locally if they work in a national health service trust.

  Public Health
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on which groups of people have experienced(a) an improvement and (b) a deterioration of health since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available data indicate that there have been improvements since 1979 for almost all groups. Examples are life expectancy, which has increased from 70 to 74 in males and from 76 to 79 for females, between 1979 and 1992 in England and Wales; and infant mortality rates which have almost halved in this period, falling from 12·8 to 6·5 per 1,000 live births in England.

  There are, however, some instances of negative trends: for example, the general household survey shows an increasing percentage of people reporting longstanding illness—from 27 per cent. of persons questioned in 1979 to 32 per cent. in 1992—although slightly fewer said that their activities were restricted by illness in the previous two weeks—13 per cent. compared with 12 per cent. in 1979.

  Such trends are reported in the first chapter of the chief medical officer's annual report "On the State of the Public Health", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The strategy for health launched by the Government in July 1992 has the overall aim of further continuing improvement in the health of the nation. This requires better monitoring of the health of the population, and we have initiated a major new health survey for England. Its expansion to 17,000 subjects in 1993 will, when the results are available, greatly increase the information about groups within the population, including regional variations and trends over time.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in practice in south-east Northumberland(a) take NHS patients and (b) took private patients only but took NHS patients until 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1993 the number of dentists in the general dental service in the Northumberland family health services authority area, which includes south-east Northumberland, was 101. The comparable number at 30 September 1990 was 103. Dentists are independent contractors who make their own decisions about whether to accept patients under national health service arrangements.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many dental surgeons in the Bristol area provide treatment under Denplan and other dental care schemes, for the last three years for which figures are available;
  159
  (2) how many dental surgeons were operating exclusively within the NHS in the Bristol area for the last three years for which figures are available;

  (3) what percentage of dental costs in the Bristol area have been met (a) privately and (b) publicly for the years 1979, 1984, 1989 and each year since.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. Dentists are independent contractors and free to choose whether or not to accept an individual patient, or category of patients, for national health service treatment and to review their decisions at any time.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the deregistered dental patients failed to get reregistered in the last year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to identify whether particular patients have sought reregistration but overall the number of adult patients registered has increased significantly since July 1992. All family health services authorities report that patients approaching them for help in obtaining national health service treatment can be assisted.

  Wansbeck Hospital
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of job losses in Wansbeck hospital in south-east Northumberland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. This is a matter for the local health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. J. R. Baker, chairman of Northumberland health authority, for details.

  Prescribed List
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the value to the NHS of the savings made in 1992–93 from the removal of drugs from the NHS prescribable list.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  National Neurological Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the national neurological hospital, Queens square, London and its proposed closure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Up to 3 March 1994 there have been 28 representations from hon. Members and 49 from members of the public.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed at the national neurological hospital, London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As at 30 September 1992, the latest date for centrally held data, there were 950 whole-time equivalent staff employed by the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the PE Consultancy report on the NHS Supplies Authority.
  160
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 10 February, at column 423.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital supplies are purchased through the NHS Supplies Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  About half, on the basis that the total full-year value of National Health Service Supplies contracts on behalf of NHS hospital and community health services in 1992–93 was about £1·7 billion and the outturn total NHS HCHS spend on supplies in 1991–92, the latest year for which a figure is available, was about £3·5 billion.

  Glasses and Lenses
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what she estimates is the total number of people eligible for receiving assistance towards the purchase of glasses or lenses through the NHS low-income scheme in each year from 1991–92 to 1996–97.

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

  Estimated total number of national health service low-income scheme beneficiaries in Great Britain entitled to help with the cost of glasses or lenses 1991–92 to 1995–96

  Year

  Number1

  1991–92

  5,992,060

  1992–93

  6,738,032

  1993–94

  7,242,933

  1994–95

  7,610,330

  1995–96

  7,872,347

  1 Figures are families (individuals or couples) receiving income support or family credit, holders of AG2 and AG3 certificates and the members of their families named on the certificates. Figures for 1995–96 include recipients of disability working allowance with capital of £8,000 or less and their partners.

  Manchester University Health Services Management Unit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds were provided for the health services management unit at Manchester university in the last three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The health services management unit at Manchester university is not funded by the Department of Health. It is known that the unit received £211,330 in 1993–94 for specific projects carried out for the Department, and may have received such funding on other occasions. However, information on this is not separately identifiable.

  Corticosteroids
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist for doctors prescribing corticosteroids to pregnant women; and what research has been undertaken into the health effects of corticosteroids on pregnant women and their babies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has not issued specific guidelines on the prescribing of corticosteroids to pregnant women. The Department is aware that both the Royal College of Obstetricians and
  161
  Gynaecologists and a joint working group of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians have published guidelines about prescribing corticosteroids to pregnant women for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. The Department has also funded a review of research into this matter which was published in "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth". Attention has been drawn to these guidelines through EL(93)115 which was sent to all national health service managers and directors of public health. Extensive clinical trials have shown that administration of corticosteroids, to women who are about to deliver prematurely, reduces the risk of respiratory distress syndrome in the infant. Copies of "Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth" and EL(93)115 are available in the Library.

  Travellers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she was consulted in the drafting of sections 58 to 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill on the effect of providing health care to the children of travellers following any repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Bowis
  Yes.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list hospitals in England which employ multidisciplinary rehabilitation teams for treating local patients who have suffered severe head injuries.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is providing funding of over £1 million per year to the following hospitals and units to develop rehabilitation services for people with head injuries:

  Regional rehabilitation centre, Hunters Moor hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Leeds head injury team, St. Mary's hospital, Leeds

  Derbyshire royal infirmary and Derby City hospital, Derby

  City hospital, Nottingham

  Central Sheffield university hospitals

  Regional neurological rehabilitation unit, Homerton hospital, London

  Rivermead rehabilitation centre, Oxford

  Rayners Hedge physical rehabilitation service, Aylesbury

  Stroke and rehabilitation unit, Royal Cornwall hospital (City), Truro

  Frenchay healthcare trust, Bristol

  Neurobehavioural rehabilitation unit, St. Edward's hospital, Cheddleton, and Neurorological rehabilitation unit, Haywood hospital, Burslem

  Community unit, Worcester district health authority

  Other national health service trusts and health authority units are also developing services.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement concerning the initiatives her Department has taken to assist those in the medical profession who are pioneering treatment for those suffering from multiple sclerosis;

  (2) if she will make a statement concerning her future policy development as it affects neurological matters.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is providing funding for a study being carried out at the university of Cardiff entitled 162
  "Walking and Mobility in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis—Is Modification by Physiotherapy Effective". The study is due to finish in June 1995. Research is primarily a matter for the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In addition to research directly on multiple sclerosis, the Medical Research Council also supports research on a number of related topics, in particular muscle and neuroscience research, which may shed light on the causes and mechanisms and potential therapies.

  The treatment and management of multiple sclerosis, as for other neurological conditions which result in physical disability, are primarily a matter for the medical practitioners concerned. It is for the district health authority or general practitioner fundholder to enter into arrangements with hospital and community units to ensure that the necessary range of services is available. The National Health Service Management Executive priorities and planning guidelines—EL(93)54—for 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library, require regional health authorities to ensure that services for people with physical disabilities meet local standards in all districts based on the assessment of need and consultation with disabled people and carers.

  Research Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 February 1993,Official Report, columns 721–22, what decisions have been taken about the renewal of contracts of research units whose site visit reports have been completed; and, for each the decisions which have been taken, whether new contracts are being offered and their nature and period of time for which they will apply.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 November 1993 at columns 242–44. We have not yet completed the series of site visits.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the names of the chief executives and general managers of each of the regional and district health authorities in England with the correspondence addresses of each of the authorities and the parliamentary constituencies covered by each of the health authorities;

  (2) if she will list the NHS trusts currently operating in England and the parliamentary constituencies within which each trust lies; and if she will list the names of the chief executives of each of these NHS trusts and the correspondence addresses of each of the trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the address of each health authority and trust in England and the name of each chief executive and general manager is published annually in the national health service yearbook. Information on the relevant constituencies can be obtained from the House of Commons Public Information Office.

  Pharmaceutical Drugs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of pharmaceutical drugs returned for destruction were(a) over-the-counter products, (b) time expired pharmacists' stock and (c) prescription medicines in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  163
  Dr. Mawhinney
  No data about medicines returned to pharmacies for destruction have been collected to date.

  Transport, London
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) in 1981 and (b) in 1991 (i) the mode of travel to work of residents by London borough, (ii) the mode of travel to work of employees by London borough of employment, (iii) the location of employment of residents by London borough and (iv) the level of car ownership by London borough.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information has been, or is soon to be, published in census reports to Parliament, copies of which are in the Library. The following list gives references for the figures requested.

  Means of travel to work by London borough of residence

  1981—Census 1981, workplace and transport to work, England and Wales (Table 6).

  1991—1991 census county report, inner London, Part 2 (Table 82); and 1991 census county report, outer London, Part 2 (Table 82).

  Means of travel to work by London borough of employment

  1981—Census 1981, workplace and transport to work, England and Wales (Table 6).

  1991—1991 census, workplace and transport to work, Great Britain1 (Table 6).

  Area of employment by London borough of residence

  1981—Census 1981, workplace and transport to work, England and Wales (Table 2A).

  1991—1991 census, workplace and transport to work, Great Britain1 (Table 2).

  Cars in households by London borough

  1981—Census 1981, county report, Greater London, Part 1 (Table 31).

  1991—1991 census county report, inner London, Part 1 (Table 21), and 1991 census county report, outer London, Part 1 (Table 21).

  1 1991 census, workplace and transport to work, Great Britain is due for publication in May 1994. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts in England failed to meet their target return on capital in 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The trusts that recorded a return of less than 6 per cent. in their accounts for 1992–93 were:

  Airedale NHS Trust

  Allington NHS Trust

  Anglian Harbours Health Trust

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  Bedford Hospital NHS Trust

  Bradford Community Health NHS Trust

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  Devon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  East Hertfordshire Health NHS Trust

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecological NHS Trust

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mount Vernon Hospital NHS Trust

  North East Essex Mental Health NHS Trust

  Newcastle Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Norfolk Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  164

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  North Tees Health NHS Trust

  Northumbrian Ambulance NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Nottingham Community Health NHS Trust

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals and West Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Surrey County and St. Lukes NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  South Bedfordshire Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  Southport and Formby Hospital NHS Trust

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. James' University Hospital NHS Trust

  St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust

  Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 1 March,Official Report, columns 681–82, who was present at the meeting held between her Department's officials and representatives of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association on 23 February; what was the outcome of the meeting; and when the next meeting will take place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The meeting was attended by Department of Health officials and representatives of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. The content of the meeting is confidential. A further meeting was held on 4 March.

  Incontinence Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the statutory responsibilities of(a) district health authorities, (b) trusts and (c) family health services authorities for the provision of incontinence services;

  (2) what requirements exist in respect of minimal standards of provision of incontinence services;

  (3) what requirement is placed on district health authorities, trusts and family health services authorities to publicise the availability of incontinence services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Where there is shown to be a medical need for health services, health authorities, national health service trusts and family health services authorities have a general duty to provide them, subject to priorities set for the use of the resources available. The NHS planning guidelines for 1994–95—EL(93)54—issued on 29 June 1993 require district health authorities to ensure that continence services conform to the guidelines in the departmental report "An Agenda for Action on Continence Services" which was issued to the chairmen of NHS authorities in 1991. Copies of both documents are available in the Library. The report lists the key features of an effective local service including active publicity work. The 1994–95 planning guidelines also require health authorities to set specific challenging targets for reductions in the prevalence of treatable incontinence.
  165
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made within fundholding general practice budgets for incontinence services.

  Mr. Bowis
  No specific provision is made but all general practitioners advise their patients on problems of incontinence.

  Day Surgery
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each region, for each of the last four quarters, the number of patients waiting for day surgery(a) under 12 months and (b) over 12 months.

  Day case hospital treatment figures Provisional waiting times figures

  Provider-based

  March 1993

  June 1993

  September 1993

  December 1993

  Region

  0–11 months

  12+ months

  0–11 months

  12+ months

  0–11 months

  12+ months

  0–11 months

  12+ months

  Northern

  23,289

  369

  23,289

  730

  24,507

  951

  25,623

  1,157

  Yorkshire

  22,502

  726

  24,211

  1,128

  24,644

  1,387

  26,808

  1,684

  Trent

  25,434

  898

  27,823

  929

  28,851

  1,129

  31,746

  1,269

  East Anglian

  11,922

  387

  12,384

  491

  13,054

  657

  14,439

  680

  North West Thames

  17,807

  1,035

  19,078

  1,068

  20,313

  1,262

  21,072

  1,591

  North East Thames

  29,552

  1,398

  30,265

  1,757

  32,802

  2,238

  36,201

  3,083

  South East Thames

  21,328

  1,322

  22,600

  1,277

  24,434

  1,389

  28,480

  1,930

  South West Thames

  21,053

  518

  23,214

  955

  25,037

  1,289

  27,451

  1,486

  Wessex

  20,889

  935

  19,662

  1,060

  20,146

  1,008

  19,180

  768

  Oxford

  13,839

  518

  14,445

  578

  14,665

  537

  15,291

  445

  South Western

  23,035

  53

  23,730

  155

  23,755

  168

  24,323

  142

  West Midlands

  32,437

  953

  34,421

  1,250

  36,196

  1,540

  39,329

  1,861

  Mersey

  21,638

  24

  22,752

  114

  22,073

  56

  22,411

  0

  North Western

  29,600

  1,601

  31,661

  1,725

  32,889

  1,825

  35,471

  1,827

  ALL REGIONS

  314,325

  10,737

  329,535

  13,217

  343,366

  15,436

  367,825

  17,923

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by region and name each proposed hospital closure notified to her Department for each year since 1988; whether the hospital closed, merged, changed its function or was downsized; and what was the number of beds each hospital had at its closure date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department requires formal notification only where proposed closures are contested by the community health councils. The detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of social workers based in hospitals for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Bowis
  For 1979 to 1992 this information is not available centrally. The information for 1993 is still being validated.

  Care Packages
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of care packages for individuals or their relatives who refuse to accept discharge arrangements from hospital into independent sector residential or nursing care.

  Mr. Bowis
  'Where an individual does not want, for whatever reason, to be discharged to a nursing home or
  166
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting lists for hospital day case treatment by regional health authority and in annual time bands is shown in the table. There has been a rise of around 7,000 since March 1993 in the number of patients waiting more than a year for day case treatment. However, the fact remains that the number fell dramatically from nearly 33,000 in December 1989, to less than 11,000 in March 1993.

  It is the time people wait that matters not the number waiting. Half of all admissions to hospital are immediate. Of those admitted from waiting lists almost half are admitted within five weeks, nearly 75 per cent. within three months and 98 per cent. within a year.

  residential care home the local and health authorities should seek to work together with the individual and their family or carer to find a satisfactory alternative solution.

  Health Information Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many calls the health information service has received since it was set up;

  (2) how many people are employed to answer calls in the health information service;

  (3) what was the cost of setting up the health information service, including publicity; and what are the running costs of the service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information, in the form requested, is not available centrally. A special trawl of regions has produced the information set out below.

  The number of calls received by the health information service in the period April 1992 to December 1992 was 51,252. In the period between 26 January 1993, when the freephone facility was set up, to 31 December 1993 the number of calls was 136,293, making a total of 187,545.

  The number of staff employed to answer the telephones is 31.5 whole-time equivalent personnel.

  The total setting-up costs for the regions for 1992–93 were £379,182 and £209,257 for publicity, totalling £588,439, and for 1993–94 £287,686 and £156,701 for publicity, totalling £444,387.

  The total setting-up costs for the Department of Health were £397,000. The running costs of the health information service operated by all regions were £899,113 for 1992–93 and £1,401,127 for 1993–94.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to regulate extra-contractual referrals; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Current guidance is contained in FDL(93)07—"Consolidation of Guidance on Extra-Contractual Referrals, Tariffs and Invoicing"—and HSG(93)8—"Guidance on Operation of Notification Arrangements for Tertiary Extra-Contractual Referrals"—copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department undertakes of the rate of extra-contractual referrals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service Management Executive quarterly monitoring system collects information by regional health authority on their forecast outturn spend on extra-contractual referrals compared with their planned levels of spend.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 24 January, ref. 4/4593/21 and originally written to the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Bowis
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 3 March.

  Patient Waiting Times
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each divisional health authority area, for each of the last four quarters, the number of patients waiting for treatment(a) less than 12 months and (b) more than 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting lists for in-patient and day case treatment by district health authority is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", which is published twice yearly. In addition, provisional figures are published quarterly but only on a regional health authority basis. Copies of both are available in the Library.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute and (b) non-acute beds were available in each region, each district, each special health authority and for the nation as a whole for each year from 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in "Bed availability for England, Financial Year 1992–93", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health if she will provide a table showing the number of emergency hospital admissions by region for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of finished consultant episodes that are non-elective admissions by regional 168
  health authority for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94—forecast and subject to revision—are shown in the table. Directly comparable information for earlier years is not available. The information is for the general and acute specialities and has been compiled on a purchaser basis in order to reach regional totals. It is estimated that over 80 per cent. of non-elective admissions are emergencies.

  General and acute—'000s

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Forecast 1993–94

  Northern Non-electives

  255·0

  257·0

  263·7

  Total

  553·8

  560·9

  579·6

  Percentage

  47·8

  45·8

  45·5

  Yorkshire Non-electives

  295·8

  304·7

  304·0

  Total

  616·5

  644·3

  669·2

  Percentage

  48·0

  47·3

  45·4

  Trent Non-electives

  345·1

  359·4

  379·6

  Total

  705·7

  751·9

  806·3

  Percentage

  48·9

  47·8

  47·1

  East Anglian Non-electives

  137·3

  144·1

  144·3

  Total

  280·9

  293·4

  310·9

  Percentage

  48·9

  49·1

  46·4

  North West Thames Non-electives

  217·8

  224·6

  220·3

  Total

  471·6

  490·4

  497·9

  Percentage

  46·2

  45·8

  44·2

  North East Thames Non-electives

  273·6

  266·1

  271·7

  Total

  534·4

  530·6

  552·7

  Percentage

  51·2

  50·2

  49·2

  South East Thames Non-electives

  248·7

  256·1

  261·3

  Total

  510·6

  535·8

  550·5

  Percentage

  48·7

  47·8

  47·5

  South West Thames Non-electives

  195·3

  199·8

  200·0

  Total

  421·0

  429·7

  433·7

  Percentage

  46·4

  46·5

  46·1

  Wessex Non-electives

  195·1

  219·9

  228·6

  Total

  455·1

  482·1

  501·5

  Percentage

  42·9

  45·6

  45·6

  Oxford Non-electives

  155·6

  156·5

  161·5

  Total

  316·9

  342·8

  357·5

  Percentage

  49·1

  45·7

  45·2

  South Western Non-electives

  218·9

  230·2

  244·3

  Total

  488·0

  527·4

  556·2

  Percentage

  44·9

  43·7

  43·9

  West Midlands Non-electives

  356·8

  380·7

  399·0

  Total

  755·0

  799·7

  821·9

  Percentage

  47·3

  47·6

  48·5

  Mersey Non-electives

  207·0

  218·8

  226·7

  Total

  395·0

  429·2

  456·8

  Percentage

  52·4

  51·0

  49·6

  North Western Non-electives

  340·8

  339·0

  351·0

  Total

  721·9

  748·4

  788·0

  Percentage

  47·2

  45·3

  44·5

  ENGLAND Non-electives

  3,442·8

  3,556·9

  3,655·8

  Total

  7,206·5

  7,566·5

  7,882·6

  Percentage

  47·8

  47·0

  46·4

  Source:1991–92, 1992–93 (Quarter 4) Quarterly Monitoring

  1993–94 (Quarter 3) Quarterly Monitoring

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Royal Palaces (Security)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of the cost of security arrangements at the royal palaces fell on the Exchequer, including police and Army wages, in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) who is operationally responsible for overseeing security at royal palaces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Operational responsibility for overseeing security at the royal palaces and residences rests with the chief officer of police concerned. Within the Metropolitan police district all aspects of royalty protection are the responsibility of a deputy assistant commissioner who reports directly to the Commissioner. The effectiveness of the arrangements made for royalty protection is examined regularly by the standing group for monitoring royalty protection which was established in 1982 and reports to me from time to time. For security reasons, it would not be right to give a breakdown of the costs involved, but I can confirm that nearly all the costs incurred fall to the Exchequer.

  Private Clubs
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his definition of a private club; and how many private clubs are operating in each standard region of England.

  Mr. Maclean
  The term "private club" has no particular legal significance. It could be applied to a wide range of associations and establishments, such as political clubs, sports clubs and philatelist clubs. There is no requirement for private clubs to be registered as such, and the Government have no information as to their numbers.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review present legislation governing inspection and enforcement of fire regulations at private clubs; and what assessment he has made of the changes necessary as a result of the recent tragedy in London.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The fire safety scrutiny set up by the Government, which began its work on 17 January 1994, is looking at the operation and effectiveness of all legislation dealing with fire safety, and with the organisational arrangements of all bodies responsible for enforcing it.

  Any decision about the need for changes to the legislation must await the outcome of that scrutiny and of the inquiries which are currently being conducted into the tragic fire at the Dream City Club.

  Passports
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent, and is planning to spend in the next year, on market testing for the issue of United Kingdom passports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Estimated expenditure on the three United Kingdom Passport Agency projects which were included in the Department's 1992–93 market-testing 170
  programme is about £5,000. The extent of future spending on market testing will depend on the outcome of the current review of the agency's framework document which includes an examination of the scope for market testing.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average fine imposed on individuals found guilty of possession of cannabis.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, the average fine for the offence of unlawful possession of cannabis was £74.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the proposal to increase the maximum fine for possession of cannabis.

  Mr. Maclean
  Apart from several general inquiries from members of the public, we have had forwarded by hon. Members nine letters on the proposed increase in fines for the illegal possession of class B and class C drugs.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the EU member states and the states about to join the EU which use identity cards or unique personal reference numbers, outlining the degree of obligation to produce evidence of identity in each state.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following European Union member states use national identity cards:

  Belgium

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  The Netherlands

  Portugal

  Spain

  With the exception of the Netherlands, we understand that the police are able to request proof of identity in each of these member states. We understand that new legislation will come into effect in the Netherlands on 1 June 1994 which will oblige Dutch nationals to provide proof of identity in certain defined circumstances.

  In Denmark all citizens are issued with a "central person register" number. This is used for administrative purposes. The police may request proof of identity although we understand that the CPR number is not accepted as such proof.

  Information about those states about to join the European Union is not readily available.

  Firearms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the increase in firearms imported illegally from eastern Europe since 1988.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no doubt that the breakup of the former Soviet Union and the demise of the Warsaw pact has led to a greater availability of firearms on the world market. I know that HM Customs is aware of this increased risk and is taking steps to counter it.

  Anti-drug Policies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report "The Use of Drugs by Young People in Newcastle"; and what assessment he has made of the outcome of Government anti-drug policies in the light of the report.

  Mr. Maclean
  The research reported on in "The Use of Drugs by Young People in Newcastle", by Dr. Leslie Gofton of the University of Newcastle, was funded with a grant from the Newcastle drugs prevention team. Publication will be arranged by Dr. Gofton.

  The research consisted of some group interviews with young people about their leisure activities and drug use and a survey of the self-reported drug usage of 263 18 to 25-year-olds. The research provided insights into the nature of local drug use, and of young people's leisure preferences, which the Newcastle drugs prevention team has taken into account in the development of its local work, including "Take Notice", a local drugs prevention information campaign aimed at young people. But the samples demographic profile was not representative of the general population of young people, in Newcastle or elsewhere.

  Police Resignations
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have resigned from each police force since January 1993; how many of the resignations since January 1993 are attributable to debts payable to the Child Support Agency; and how many of the resignations since January 1993 cite the Child Support Agency as the reason for the resignation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The numbers of resignations for the period January to December 1993 are shown in the tables. Information on the reasons for an officer's resignation is not held centrally.

  Table showing resignations from police forces from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993

  Force

  Resignations

  Avon and Somerset

  20

  Bedfordshire

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  Cheshire

  12

  Cléveland

  4

  Cumbria

  14

  Derbyshire

  6

  Devon and Cornwall

  9

  Dorset

  15

  Durham

  6

  Dyfed Powys

  5

  Essex

  19

  Gloucestershire

  12

  Greater Manchester

  39

  Gwent

  5

  Hampshire

  22

  Hertfordshire

  15

  Humberside

  8

  Kent

  34

  Lancashire

  29

  Leicestershire

  10

  Lincolnshire

  8

  Merseyside

  19

  Norfolk

  .17

  Northamptonshire

  16

  Northumbria

  19

  North Wales

  14

  North Yorkshire

  6

  172

  Force

  Resignations

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  South Wales

  7

  South Yorkshire

  14

  Staffordshire

  18

  Suffolk

  13

  Surrey

  8

  Sussex

  31

  Thames Valley

  41

  Warwickshire

  5

  West Mercia

  19

  West Midlands

  50

  West Yorkshire

  35

  Wiltshire

  8

  City of London

  6

  Metropolitan

  99

  Total

  769

  Women's Organisations
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants have been made to the National Alliance of Women's Organisations from the Home Office voluntary services unit since 1979; what assistance will be available in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No grants have been made by the voluntary services unit to the National Alliance of Women's Organisations. As I made clear on 2 February, column 703, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), there are insufficient resources to fund this organisation in 1994–95.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from women's voluntary organisations regarding reductions in core funding from the voluntary services unit for the National Alliance of Women's Organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The voluntary services unit has not provided the National Alliance of Women's Organisations with any core funding. Since 1 February, seven letters about the funding of this body have been received in the Home Office from other women's voluntary organisations.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy with regard to the funding of voluntary organisations representing women's issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Women's issues are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 634, how many (a) men and (b) women fine defaulters in prison on 31 January had failed to pay fines valued at between (a) less than £50, (b) between £50 and £100, (c) between £100 and £250, (d) between £250 and £500 and (e) in excess of £500.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Crime (Street Lighting)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has carried out into the effect of street lighting on levels of crime.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The most recent Home Office research on street lighting and crime and the fear of crime was published in August 1991—crime prevention unit paper 28 "The Influence of Street Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime" and crime prevention unit paper 29 "The Effect of Better Street Lighting on Crime and Fear: a Review". Copies of both are in the Library of the House.

  Charities
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the legal powers of the Charity Commission to investigate malpractice within charities; and what is the range of penalties open to the Charity Commissioners to penalise trustees if malpractice is found.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993, the Charity Commission, or a person appointed by it, may institute inquiries with regard to charities or a particular charity or class of charities, either generally or for a particular purpose.

  If malpractice is found, the commission can:

  (a) suspend and, if necessary, remove trustees;

  (b) appoint additional trustees;

  (c) freeze bank accounts;

  (d) prohibit all further fund raising;

  (e) stop further actions by the trustees in dealing with the charity's property;

  (f) refer the matter to the appropriate authorities for them to consider legal proceedings for the recovery of charity property or to compensate the charity for any loss;

  (g) refer the matter to the police.

  In less serious cases, the commission may simply give charities a warning and ensure that faults are put right. If necessary, the commission will monitor the activities of the charity.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the legal obligations of the Charity Commission to publish details of its investigations into malpractice among charities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The commission is not legally obliged to publish details of investigations it undertakes. The commission does, however, have discretion, where it thinks appropriate to publish the investigator's report in full or to publish extracts from, or statements about, the report.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the legal powers of the Charity Commission to compel charities to hand over lists of their donors; and what is the range of penalties open to the Charity Commission to penalise charities if they refuse to do so.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Charity Commission has the power to require any person to provide it with information or documents which relate to a charity and which it is necessary for the commission to have in order to discharge its functions properly.

  If a person refuses to provide information sought by the commission using this power, the commission may apply to the High Court to have the person dealt with as if he had disobeyed a court order.
  174
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 948, how many people were interviewed during the course of the Charity Commission's investigation into the relationship between the Foundation for Business Responsibilities and Aims of Industry; who they were; and how much money had been paid to Aims of Industry in each year between 1988 and 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Charity Commission that no personal interviews were held during the inquiries made into the relationship between the Foundation for Business Responsibilities and Aims of Industry.

  The published accounts of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities do not show details of payments made to Aims of Industry as expenditure broken down other than into the categories of accommodation, service charges and research. Charities are not required to provide further detail in their accounts.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints of unlawful political activity by charities have been investigated by the Charity Commission since 1990; and in how many cases the commission found against the charity concerned.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1990 a total of 76 complaints about improper political activity have been investigated. Of these, 24 were upheld.

  Mediation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy actively to promote the wider use of mediation by providing appropriate funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The role which mediation might play in the criminal justice system was examined by an inter-departmental working group in 1992. Within the sphere of the Home Office's responsibilities, it was concluded that mediation or reparation might usefully complement a caution. The efficacy of a number of schemes which link mediation with a caution is being examined. Victim-offender mediation has been taken forward by individual probation services and funding has been provided to local mediation schemes under 10 of the safer cities projects.

  European Community
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist for the representation of the European Commission on the body known as steering group I which reports to the article K4 committee under the intergovernmental co-operation procedures; and what opportunities will exist for the examination of the work of steering group I by the European and United Kingdom Parliaments.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The European Commission is fully associated with work under title VI of the treaty on European Union, and its representatives attend all meetings of steering group I.

  The Government have put forward proposals for parliamentary scrutiny by the United Kingdom Parliament of the work carried out under title VI which includes that carried out by steering group I.
  175
  Article K6 of the treaty sets out the basis on which the European Parliament will be informed and consulted on the work carried out under title VI.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if articles of the main agreement establishing the European Economic Area which extend the right of free movement to nationals of Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are directly enforceable; and what plans he has to allow them to be relied upon as a basis for legal actions in the United Kingdom courts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since 1 January 1994, when the European Economic Area agreement came into force, nationals of Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have been treated in the same way as European Community nationals for immigration purposes. An Order in Council section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, will shortly be laid before Parliament in order to transpose into United Kingdom law the relevant European Community directives relating to the rights of free movement and residence for European Economic Area nationals.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take action to ensure that the assessment bonuses part of future police pay is directed to those who most effectively serve their community;

  (2) if the payment of housing allowances, which will be discontinued for police officers recruited after September, will still be payable to policemen currently serving but who do not purchase their own house until after that date;

  (3) if he will ensure that all police officers whose duties require them to work in plain clothes and not a uniform continue to receive adequate tax-free allowances.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have asked the police negotiating board to make recommendations on police pay, overtime and allowances by Easter.

  Dogs
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual Acts of Parliament contain legislation relating to dogs; if he will list their titles; and if he will consider introducing a single consolidated Dogs Act.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The following legislation relates exclusively to dogs:

  Dogs Act 1871

  Dogs Act 1906

  Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953

  Breeding of Dogs Act 1973

  Guard Dogs Act 1975

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1989

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

  Breeding of Dogs Act 1991

  There are references to dogs, or provisions relevant to dogs, in a number of other Acts, including general animal welfare legislation. We have no current plans to seek consolidation of the law in this area.

  Prisoners (Provisons Costs)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the variation of provisions cost per prisoner varying from £9·03 to £12·11 per week.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 8 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the variation in the costs of inmates' food.
  Costs per head will vary for a number of reasons, which will include the mix of religious and cultural backgrounds of inmates in a particular establishment which will influence the number of ethnic and religious diets to be provided.
  The regime of an establishment will also have some impact upon food costs; for example, the provision of packed meals for inmate working parties, whether bread is produced in-house or purchased and the use of frozen meals where inmates return late to the establishment.
  Establishments with large health care facilities may have a higher requirement for more expensive medical diets.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the full results of the first stage of the joint Home Office-university of Salford study on the settlement of refugees in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The report on the first stage of this study is currently being examined. A date for publication has not yet been decided.

  DTELS
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the sale of DTELS on 28 February with specific reference to the issue of employee consultations over the pension scheme of National Transcommunications Ltd.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The sale of DTELS to National Transcommunications Ltd.—NTL—was completed on 1 March. Staff and unions were aware throughout the sale process that it was a requirement that the purchaser should provide a pension scheme which was broadly comparable with that provided by the principal civil service pension scheme.

  Unions were informed on 26 January that the Government Actuary's Department—GAD—had confirmed that NTL's intended arrangements met this requirement.

  A GAD representative attended a meeting with the unions on 10 February. There were then GAD presentations to staff in the week beginning 14 February, in which the benefits available under the NTL scheme were explained and compared with the PCSPS. Union representatives were sent copies of the GAD certificate of pension comparability on 16 February. Further information on the safeguards within the existing scheme and the further benefits negotiated by the Department were sent to the unions on 23 February together with answers to a

  177
  number of questions which they had raised at an earlier meeting. Arrangements were made on 24 February that each member of DTELS staff should receive a copy of the GAD certificate of pension comparability together with answers to questions which had been raised in the course of the earlier presentations.

  Murder Victims
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide financial assistance to the families of murder victims, whose bodies cannot be released by coroners for cremation, to meet the costs of storage.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought by the police relating to animal welfare in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1991 and 1992 is given in the tables. 1993 data will not be available until autumn 1994.

  Table A: Number of prosecutions brought by the police for offences relating to animal welfare by result

  England and Wales 1991

  Offence

  Police prosecutions

  Convictions

  Cruelty to animals

  437

  326

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, sections 22(3), 23 and 25(3)

  1

  1

  Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended)

  337

  254

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 8

  —

  —

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act 1933

  10

  7

  Protection of Animals Act 1934

  1

  1

  Pet Animals Act 1951

  2

  —

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954

  10

  5

  Animal Health Act 1981, sections 40–42, 46, 49 and orders under sections 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  24

  19

  Slaughterhouses Act 1974

  —

  —

  Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, section 1

  19

  16

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

  4

  3

  Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970

  —

  —

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, sections 1, 2 and 6

  1

  1

  Badgers Act 1973

  19

  12

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, section 9

  2

  —

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences connected with pedal cycles, 1988 to 1992 England and Wales

  Offence description

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Riding to common danger

  8

  17

  7

  7

  5

  Being towed

  8

  6

  2

  3

  3

  Neglect of traffic directions

  248

  217

  182

  150

  138

  More than one person carried

  74

  57

  58

  35

  34

  178

  Offence

  Police prosecutions

  Convictions

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, section 11

  4

  4

  Other

  3

  3

  Diseases of Animals Act

  47

  31

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  76

  63

  Table B: Number of prosecutions brought by the police for offences relating to animal welfare by result

  England and Wales 1992

  Offence

  Police prosecutions

  Convictions

  Cruelty to animals

  475

  367

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, sections 22(3), 23 and 25(3)

  3

  2

  Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended)

  359

  283

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 8

  4

  4

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  —

  —

  Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act 1933

  5

  4

  Protection of Animals Act 1934

  —

  —

  Pet Animals Act 1951

  2

  —

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954

  10

  9

  Animal Health Act 1981, sections 40–42, 46, 49 and orders under sections 8, 9, 37, 38, 39 and 43

  24

  19

  Slaughterhouses Act 1974

  —

  —

  Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, section 1

  26

  22

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

  1

  1

  Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970

  —

  —

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, sections 1, 2 and 6

  2

  2

  Badgers Act 1973

  32

  16

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, section 9

  3

  3

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, section 11

  1

  1

  Other

  3

  1

  Diseases of Animals Act

  27

  15

  Wild Birds Protection Acts

  62

  43

  Pedal Cyclists
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many pedal cyclists were prosecuted for road traffic offences in each of the past five years;

  (2) how many pedal cyclists were prosecuted for failing to stop at traffic lights in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1988 to 1992 is given in the table. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn 1994.
  179

  Offence description

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Riding on footpath

  585

  453

  483

  333

  313

  In relation to pedestrian crossings

  14

  13

  11

  9

  11

  Failing to obey signal

  29

  62

  53

  48

  29

  Failing to comply with brake regulations

  149

  201

  96

  69

  42

  Reckless and dangerous driving by a pedal cyclist

  14

  17

  26

  17

  30

  Careless driving by a pedal cyclist

  67

  77

  67

  89

  77

  Driving under the influence of drink and drug by a pedal cyclist

  222

  261

  211

  191

  108

  Taking part in unauthorised cycle race

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  Promoting unauthorised cycle race

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 sec. 17(4)

  34

  36

  42

  18

  31

  Highways Act 1980 sec. 137(1)

  4

  5

  8

  5

  4

  Take or ride a pedal cycle without consent

  350

  361

  312

  288

  270

  Lighting and reflector offences

  1,593

  1,381

  1,578

  950

  547

  Other offences

  9

  1

  17

  12

  16

  All offences

  3,408

  3,165

  3,155

  2,228

  1,659

  Note: The offence of "failing to comply with traffic light signals" may be recorded under "Neglect of traffic directions", "Failin g to obey signal" or "Other Offence."

  Mobile Phones (Theft)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the number of mobile phones stolen each year;

  (2) what representations he has received from manufacturers and retailers of mobile phones about the theft of their products; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make the rechipping of mobile phones illegal.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are aware of estimates that between 10,000 and 12,000 mobile phones are stolen each month; however, no information on the number of such thefts is recorded centrally and we have no reliable means of making any estimate.

  Nevertheless, we share the concern that the number of thefts seems to be increasing, and have received a number of representations on this subject from hon. Members and others, including the Federation of Communication Services. The Home Office is supporting the Department

  Fire-related deaths1 by age from fires attended by local authority fire brigades

  1963 to 1992

  United Kingdom

  Age groups: (a) 1963–68; (b) 1969–73; (c) 1974–77; (d) 1978–88; (e) 1989–92

  Year

  Number of deaths by age group

  (a)

  0–5

  6–15

  16–65

  66+

  Unspecified

  Total

  (b)

  0–4

  5–14

  15–64

  65+

  (c)

  0–4

  5–14

  15–59

  60+

  (d)

  0–4

  5–14

  16–64

  65+

  (e)

  0–4

  5–16

  16–64

  65+

  1963

  131

  31

  285

  361

  6

  814

  1964

  110

  39

  265

  264

  3

  681

  1965

  155

  36

  264

  240

  7

  702

  1966

  145

  34

  301

  295

  2

  777

  1967

  119

  33

  308

  303

  13

  776

  1968

  158

  42

  349

  293

  18

  860

  1969

  154

  35

  311

  340

  11

  851

  1970

  128

  38

  315

  338

  17

  836

  1971

  111

  45

  324

  321

  17

  818

  1972

  134

  60

  410

  437

  25

  1,066

  1973

  130

  54

  437

  394

  23

  1,038

  1974

  120

  66

  346

  475

  31

  1,038

  21975

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  920

  1976

  79

  65

  324

  421

  5

  894

  1977

  80

  53

  255

  326

  4135

  849

  1978

  64

  53

  375

  380

  471

  943

  1979

  71

  56

  457

  498

  14

  1,096

  180
  of Trade and Industry in its discussions with the mobile phone industry on what measures can be taken to reduce the theft of mobile phones, but we have no plans to make rechipping a criminal offence. Not all rechipping is carried out in relation to stolen telephones, and it would not be appropriate to criminalise what may be an entirely legitimate activity, for example in connection with the repair of mobile phones, or the legitimate sale of second-hand mobile phones. Those who steal mobile phones, or handle stolen goods are, of course, already guilty of criminal offences under the law as it stands.

  Fire Deaths
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a table showing the deaths by fire of(a) infants, (b) adolescents, (c) adults and (d) the elderly for the latest 20 years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: The available information is shown in the table.
  181

  Year

  Number of deaths by age group

  (a)

  0–5

  6–15

  16–45

  66+

  Unspecified

  Total

  (b)

  0–4

  5–14

  15–64

  65+

  (c)

  0–4

  5–14

  15–59

  60+

  (d)

  0–4

  5–14

  16–64

  65+

  (e)

  0–4

  5–16

  16–64

  65+

  1980

  91

  55

  415

  412

  461

  1,034

  1981

  63

  48

  433

  419

  7

  970

  1982

  79

  36

  417

  377

  8

  917

  1983

  75

  50

  415

  359

  1

  900

  1984

  84

  44

  402

  350

  3

  883

  1985

  95

  40

  418

  419

  5

  977

  1986

  94

  40

  437

  381

  5

  957

  1987

  84

  45

  438

  355

  4

  926

  1988

  87

  44

  423

  354

  7

  915

  1989

  81

  56

  472

  288

  3

  900

  1990

  63

  40

  487

  300

  6

  896

  1991

  83

  54

  396

  267

  14

  814

  51992

  58

  32

  411

  295

  9

  805

  1 Excluding fire brigade deaths and for 1974 to 1981 deaths from fires due to terrorist activity.

  2 Figures estimates due to industrial action, no estimates made for age of casualty.

  3 Not available.

  4 Age of casualty not give due to industrial action.

  5 Provisional.

  Source:

  Home Office fire statistics.

EMPLOYMENT

  Young People
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he plans to help young people in the North West region to find employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Tuesday 22 February,Official Report, column 198.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest official figures for the numbers of unemployed; and what the corresponding figures were for 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the consistent seasonally adjusted basis, claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom stood at 2,787,600 in January 1994 and 1,100,100 in January 1979.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the North West.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the North West region, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment stood at 308,100 or 10·3 per cent. of the work force in January 1994. This is a fall of 26,400 compared with a year ago.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees were employed in manufacturing industry a year ago and at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In December 1993, there were 4,176,000 employees in manufacturing industries in Great Britain. This compares to 4,190,000 employees in 182
  December 1992— fall of 14,000 jobs over the year. The changing distribution of employment away from manufacturing and towards services is a trend shared by all western industrial nations. However, the output of United Kingdom manufacturing industry in the December quarter showed an annual increase of 2·2 per cent. This reflects a substantial improvement in productivity, up by 3·2per cent. over the same period.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the projected number in each of the 13 careers service pathfinder areas of local education authority careers service staff to be(a) made redundant or (b) given early retirement in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not available. It is for careers service providers to decide how best to manage their resources to deliver the highest quality of service.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, by each of the 13 careers service pathfinder areas, the total numbers of bids received per area and the name of each successful bidder to run each of the pathfinder services from 1 April.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on organisation tendering to provide careers services is commercial in confidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce those organisations with whom he will contract when negotiations are finalised.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the number of people in employment in the area covered by the Leeds development corporation on(a) 1 April 1990 and (b) the latest available figures.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available for the area requested. The most detailed geographical area
  183
  for which information is published is the electoral ward. The Leeds development corporation area cannot be approximated from any combination of these wards.

  Employment estimates for individual wards within Leeds local authority district are available from the periodic censuses of employment, the most recent of which was conducted in September 1991. These can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Business Start-up and Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have participated in(a) business start-up and (b) the enterprise allowance scheme in each year since their inception.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table. I expect the business start-up scheme to continue to help those people wishing to set up in business and that the additional funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the March 1993 Budget will help more people in 1993–94.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS)1 Business Start-up Scheme (BSUS)Entrants 1982–83—1993—94 Great Britain

  Year

  Number

  1982–83

  2,500

  1983–84

  27,600

  1984–85

  46,000

  1985–86

  60,000

  1986–87

  86,800

  1987–88

  106,300

  1988–89

  98,500

  1989–90

  78,000

  1990–91

  60,000

  1991–92

  50,000

  1992–93

  41,000

  April-November 1993

  24,900

  Sources: Training Statistics

  TEC Operating Agreement (Annex J)

  Scottish Office MIS

  Welsh Office MIS

  1 The EAS was replaced by BSUS on April 1991

  Learning for Work
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in learning for work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 10 February 1994, the latest date available, 5,506 men and 1,607 women were receiving the learning for work allowance.

  Job Plan Workshops
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in job plan workshops in each month since their inception;

  (2) what evidence he has of positive outcomes for those who attend job plan workshops.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  184
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about Jobplan workshops. You have asked about the number of men and women who have participated in Jobplan workshops since they were launched in April 1993 and what evidence there is of positive outcomes for those attending.
  It may be helpful if I explain that Jobplan workshops are for people who have been unemployed for a year who decline or fail to take up a job or a place on an Employment Department programme at their Restart interview. It aims to help people compete more successfully for jobs and opportunities by allowing them to review their strengths and skills, establish clear job goals. This will help them draw up a comprehensive Action Plan, which maps out the steps they need to take to get back to work.
  Jobplan workshops were launched in April 1993 and the figures in the table attached show the number of men and women who have taken part in the workshops in the period April 1993 to January 1994.
  Since April 1993, 93 per cent. of workshop completers were referred to a job or an Employment Department employment or training programme or another option to help them back to work. Research into the positive outcomes of those who attend Jobplan workshops has been commissioned but is not yet completed.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobplan Workshops

  Number of participants 1993–94

  Men

  Women

  April 1993

  11,573

  2,415

  May 1993

  16,770

  3,388

  June 1993

  17,154

  3,490

  July 1993

  24,614

  5,330

  August 1993

  19,986

  4,197

  September 1993

  18,910

  4,013

  October 1993

  27,076

  5,928

  November 1993

  22,523

  4,653

  December 1993

  18,260

  3,725

  January 1994

  22,415

  4,512

  Total

  199,281

  41,651

  Workstart
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the workstart pilots; and what plans he has to extend this scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have not yet completed our assessment of the pilots. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total cost of the workstart pilots.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell) on 3 March 1994,Official Report, column 868.

  Restart
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in restart in each quarter since its inception.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  185
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of men and women who have participated in Restart Courses in each quarter since its inception.
  It may be helpful if I explain that Restart Courses are short courses normally lasting for one week. They are targeted at people who have been unemployed for two years or more who are having the most difficulty in getting back to work. The courses provide people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them and give them the confidence and motivation to take the next step back to work.
  The number of people participating in Restart courses from their inception in 1986 to quarter ending December 1993 is set out in the attached table.
  Since December 1990, people who have been unemployed for two years or more who refuse to take up a place on an Employment Department employment or training programme at their Restart interview, have been asked to attend a Restart Course. You will see that this led to a large increase in the numbers of people attending.
  You will see that because of changes in the collection of management information, we can not supply some of the detailed information in the form requested.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1

  Number of starters on restart courses from 1986 to 1993

  Quarters

  Male

  Participants Female

  Total

  1986–87

  Not available

  Not available

  100,841

  1987–88

  Quarter 1

  9,539

  3,305

  12,664

  Quarter 2

  9,916

  3,080

  12,996

  Quarter 3

  9,278

  2,943

  12,221

  Quarter 4

  8,056

  2,875

  10,931

  Total

  36,609

  12,203

  48,812

  1988–89

  31,241

  11,769

  43,010

  1989–90

  Quarter 1

  7,915

  3,004

  10,919

  Quarter 2

  6,619

  2,551

  9,170

  Quarter 3

  7,576

  2,574

  10,150

  Quarter 4

  8,529

  3,172

  11,701

  Total

  30,639

  11,301

  41,940

  1990–91

  Not available

  Not available

  57,976

  1991–92

  1113,764

  120,076

  133,840

  1992–93

  11,108,493

  116,212

  124,705

  1993–94

  Quarter 1

  29,673

  4,427

  34,100

  Quarter 2

  31,624

  4,882

  36,506

  Quarter 3

  32,541

  5,015

  37,556

  Total2

  93,838

  14,324

  108,162

  1 The male/female split is an estimate based on two sample surveys.

  2 April to December 1993.

  Community Action
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in community action in each month since its inception;

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women who have participated in community action have found work.
  186
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the numbers of men and women who have participated in Community Action and the numbers of men and women who have found work as a result of participation.
  Community Action provides people who have been out of work for 12 months or more with the opportunity to gain recent work experience combined with individually tailored help in looking for jobs. This enables them to compete for jobs more effectively.
  The attached table gives the numbers of men and women who participate in Community Action during each month since the programme began on 27 July.
  By the end of January a total of 6,995 men and 1,573 women had received help through Community Action. Of these, 5,916 men and 1,362 women were still participating in the programme, 153 men and 27 women left the programme and went directly into paid employment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table showing number of people helped by community action during each month since the programme began

  Men

  Women

  Total

  July

  36

  0

  39

  August

  96

  13

  109

  September

  258

  35

  293

  October

  1,083

  207

  1,290

  November

  2,547

  566

  3,113

  December

  4,070

  857

  4,927

  January

  6,397

  1,464

  7,861

  Job Programme Costs
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the total cost per annum to his Department of running job research seminars in 1993–94 prices and in cash terms in each year since their inception;

  (2) what was the total cost per annum to his Department of running job review workshops in 1993–94 prices and in cash terms in each year since their establishment;

  (3) what is the total cost per annum to his Department of running the job interview guarantee scheme in 1993–94 prices and in cash terms, in each year for which figures are available;

  (4) what is the total cost per annum to his Department of running job plan workshops in 1993–94 prices and in cash terms in each year for which figures are available.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the annual costs of running Job Search Seminars; Job Review Workshops; Job Interview Guarantee; and Job Plan Workshops.
  The attached table shows the expenditure for each of these programmes in both current prices and constant 1993–94 prices. The 1993–94 figures are planned allocations although for other years I have used actual expenditure. The main identifiable area

  187
  of expenditure is for the programme itself which, in most cases, is contracted out to separate providers. However, one of the key elements of the Job Interview Guarantee programme is 'matching and screening' of clients to vacancies, which is delivered by ES staff and it is therefore possible to provide you with the salary costs associated with this.
  The other three programmes are made available to clients through our claimant advisory service but it is not possible to attribute the cost of this to individual programmes.

  Expenditure in current prices (cash terms)

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Job Search Seminars

  Programme Expenditure

  —

  5·755

  4·704

  Job Review Workshops

  Programme Expenditure

  1·252

  3·769

  3·473

  Job Interview Guarantee

  Programme Expenditure

  0·876

  1·140

  2·321

  Staff Delivery Costs

  5·984

  9·259

  19·945

  Job Plan Workshops

  Programme Expenditure

  —

  —

  37·470

  Expenditure in constant 1993–94 prices

  1997–92

  1992–95

  1993–94

  Job Search Seminars

  Programme Expenditure

  —

  5·833

  4·704

  Job Review Workshops

  Programme Expenditure

  1·307

  3·820

  3·473

  Job Interview Guarantee

  Programme Expenditure

  0·915

  1·156

  2·321

  Staff Delivery Costs

  6·248

  9·385

  19·945

  Job Plan Workshops

  Programme Expenditure

  —

  —

  37·470

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in the job interview guarantee scheme in each year since its inception;

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women have found a job within three months and six months of attending the job interview guarantee scheme.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994:

  Youth credits

  Leavers by gender 1991–92 to 1993–94 Great Britain1

  Percentage

  1997–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  April

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  47

  60

  40

  May

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  47

  58

  42

  June

  n/a

  n/a

  63

  37

  60

  40

  July

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  40

  57

  43

  August

  n/a

  n/a

  58

  42

  58

  42

  September

  n/a

  n/a

  64

  36

  60

  40

  October

  n/a

  n/a

  63

  37

  59

  41

  November

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  40

  —

  —

  December

  n/a

  n/a

  54

  46

  —

  —

  January

  45

  55

  59

  41

  —

  —

  February

  60

  40

  63

  37

  —

  —

  March

  50

  50

  63

  37

  —

  —

  188
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of men and women who have been helped by Job Interview Guarantee.
  The information available is set out in the attached table and shows the total number of people who have taken part in and been placed into jobs through Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) since it began in September 1989.
  We collect statistical information on the total numbers of people participating in JIG but this is not broken down by gender. However, a survey carried out in May 1992 showed that 71 per cent. were males and 29 per cent. female.
  Whilst we collect details of how many people go into a job through JIG, there is no follow up at the three and six month stages. To do so would necessitate expensive tracking mechanisms at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Numbers assisted and placed by Job Interview Guarantee September 1989 to January 1994

  Numbers assisted1

  Numbers placed

  2 September 1989 to March 19912

  9,632

  5,324

  1991–92

  134,296

  39,960

  1992–93

  196,060

  76,701

  1993–94

  338,527

  148,421

  Total

  688,515

  270,406

  1 The number of people participating in JIG is referred to as "numbers assisted".

  2 From September 1989 to March 1991, JIG was piloted in 20 inner-city areas only.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have attended a training for work course.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the second quarter of 1993–94, the latest period available, there were 66,400 entrants to training for work in England and Wales and of these 69 per cent. were men and 31 per cent. women.

  Youth Credits
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women were using youth credits to obtain training in each month since the scheme's inception.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table:
  189

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Year/Year to date

  54

  46

  60

  40

  59

  41

  Note:

  n/a = Data for individual months not available due to low number of records.

  1 England and Wales for 1993–94.

  Source: YT leavers database.

  >Job Clubs and Job Search
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in job clubs each year since the scheme started;

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women have attended job search seminars in each quarter since their inception.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Employment has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of men and women participating in Jobclub and job search seminars since the programmes started.
  This breakdown is not available for Jobclubs for the year 1985–86, the first year that the programme was running. From April 1986 details of males and females are based on survey information and evaluation reports. Since April 1990 we have collected information on male and female participants on a sample survey basis and this has been used to calculate the annual totals in Table A. The sample survey for 1993–94 is taking place this month.
  Table B shows the number of attenders in job search seminars for each quarter since the programme began in August 1991. We do not keep statistics on male and female job search seminar attenders. However a survey in September 1992 showed that approximately 70 per cent. of job search seminars attenders are male and 30 per cent. female.
  I hope this is' helpful.

  Table A

  Total number of jobclub participants Proportion of males and females

  Year

  Throughflow

  Males

  Females

  1985–86

  11,994

  Not available

  Not available

  1986–87

  120,606

  15,867

  4,739

  1987–88

  105,677

  80,314

  25,363

  1988–89

  132,262

  97,874

  34,388

  1989–90

  140,095

  102,269

  37,826

  1990–91

  134,712

  102,381

  32,331

  1991–92

  176,140

  140,470

  35,670

  1992–93

  216,679

  173,343

  43,336

  1993–942

  190,194

  Not yet available

  Not yet available

  1 Denotes estimated figures.

  2 To January 1994.

  Table B

  Number of attenders in job search seminars from August 1991

  Quarter

  Number of participants

  September 1991 (2 months)

  1,274

  December 1991

  13,787

  March 1992

  19,570

  June 1992

  20,179

  190

  Quarter

  Number of participants

  September 1992

  22,127

  December 1992

  22,966

  March 1993

  20,935

  June 1993

  16,519

  September 1993

  15,849

  December 1993

  17,168

  January 1994 (1 month)

  5,548

  Note: A survey carried out by the Employment Service in September 1992 showed that approximately 70 per cent. of job search seminar participants are male and 30 per cent. female.

  Job Review Workshops
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have attended job review workshops in each month since their inception.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 8 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of men and women who have attended Job Review Workshops.
  Job Review Workshops were launched in October 1991 to help newly unemployed people review their career path and set clear job goals suited to their skill, experience and preferences. The programme is particularly suitable for professional, managerial and executive jobseekers who want to consider alternative careers.
  Statistical data was collected monthly until March 1993. From April 1993 information has been collected on a quarterly basis.
  I attach tables which show the number of men and women attending the workshops since its inception until December 1993.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Job Review Workshops

  Men

  Women

  1991–92

  April

  —

  —

  May

  —

  —

  June

  —

  —

  July

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  September

  —

  —

  October

  544

  158

  November

  1,817

  453

  December

  1,523

  313

  January

  2,302

  525

  February

  2,732

  723

  March

  3,478

  790

  Total

  12,396

  2,962

  1992–93

  April

  2,104

  528

  191

  Men

  Women

  May

  2,759

  648

  June

  2,614

  536

  July

  3,313

  786

  August

  2,610

  652

  September

  2,702

  610

  October

  3,033

  758

  November

  2,986

  832

  December

  2,294

  574

  January

  3,120

  780

  February

  3,239

  810

  March

  2,885

  742

  Total

  33,659

  8,256

  1993–94

  Quarter 1

  7,136

  1,826

  Quarter 2

  6,959

  1,976

  Quarter 3

  7,348

  2,054

  Quarter 4

  —

  —

  Total

  21,443

  5,856

  Minimum Wages (United States)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 227, what is the current national minimum wage rate for the United States of America provided under the Fair Labour Standards Act 1938.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current rates above which individual states in the USA are free to set minimum wages are set out in the fair labour standards amendments of 1989. A copy of this legislation is available in the Library.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department spends on child care; on what provision the sum is spent; how many children receive the child care; and if he will make a statement about child care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: The sum of £430,000 in 1993–94 across the Employment Department group as a whole. This includes net expenditure on nursery places and holiday play schemes and financial help with additional child care costs incurred through attending training courses or other work-based functions. About 2,500 children are estimated to have been helped through this expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  School Milk Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many children were direct beneficiaries of the school milk scheme in(a) the 12 school weeks prior to and 12 school weeks after the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the school milk scheme and (b) the 12 school weeks before and 12 school weeks after the reduction in funding for the school milk scheme was effected.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of school children benefiting from the school milk scheme is not held on a weekly basis. During the academic years 192
  1992–93 and 1993–94, 8,139,417 and 8,048,510 school children respectively were eligible beneficiaries of the school milk scheme.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of EC funding available for the subsidy of milk and dairy produce in schools was accounted for by the United Kingdom before and after each reduction in funding for the school milk scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The United Kingdom accounted for 24·29 per cent. of total EC expenditure on the school milk scheme in the 1992 FEOGA year and for 22·62 per cent. in 1993. This reduction reflects the removal of cheese and buttermilk from the scheme, in the United Kingdom, in April 1993. There is no information yet available on United Kingdom expenditure on the scheme following the 25 per cent. cut in the rate of subsidy and the technical amendments adopted in October 1993. The new arrangements came into effect only on 1 January 1994.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide a figure for the value of European Community support lost to the United Kingdom as a consequence of the reduction in European funding for the school milk scheme since(a) 1 April 1993 and (b) 4 October 1994.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Based on claims covering the 12-month period prior to the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme, on 1 April 1993 the value of EC subsidy lost to the United Kingdom for those products totalled £9,245,245·97. Buttermilk accounted for expenditure of just £599·99. No information will be available on the value of support lost to the United Kingdom as a result of the 25 per cent. cut in the school milk subsidy, which was adopted on 4 October 1993 and came into force on 1 January 1994, until claims for the period have been received.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ready-packaged one third pint containers of subsidised milk were distributed by local authorities in the United Kingdom six months before and after each reduction in funding for the school milk scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No information is held by the Intervention Board executive agency, which administers the school milk scheme, on the number of one third pint containers of milk distributed by local authorities.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what quantity and value of milk and milk products which would formerly have been distributed through the school milk scheme have since 1 April 1993 instead been redirected; and to where they have been redirected;

  (2) what quantity and value of milk and milk products formerly distributed under the school milk scheme have been redirected since 1 April 1993; and what have been their destinations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  No definitive information is available on the quantity, value or use to which the milk and milk products no longer utilised under the school milk scheme have been put.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the change in spending
  193
  in actual and real terms on the school milk scheme after (a) the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the school milk scheme and (b) the reduction in funding.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  The change in spending by local authorities in actual terms since the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme on 1 April 1993 has amounted to a reduction of £5,549,137·98 when comparing the cost of subsidised products in the term before, spring 1993, and the term after, summer 1993, the removal of cheese and buttermilk from the scheme on 1 April 1993. No information will be available on the reduction in funding resulting from the 25 per cent. cut in the rate of subsidy and the technical amendments to the scheme until claims for the period have been received.

  It would be inappropriate to express the reductions in expenditure on the school milk scheme in real terms because the changes to the scheme have been single events rather than the result of changes over a period of time.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in real terms what was the average cost of each local authority school meal in(a) the 12 school weeks prior and 12 school weeks after the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the school milk scheme arid the 12 school weeks prior to and 12 school weeks after the reduction in funding for the school milk scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  No information is collected by the Intervention Board executive agency, which administers the school milk scheme, on the cost of school meals.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the relationship between the cost trend for local authority school meals and change in the availability of ingredients formerly subsidised as part of the school milk scheme and the reduction of funding for the scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No assessment has been made of the relationship between the costs of school meals provided by local authorities and the changes in the products covered by the school milk scheme. Furthermore, neither MAFF nor the Intervention Board executive agency, which administers the scheme, has any information which would enable such an assessment to be carried out.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to the local authorities in terms of the funding allocated for the purpose of making up the deficiency in their accounts arising as a consequence of cuts in the value and scope of the school milk scheme since(a) 1 April 1993, (b) 4 October 1993 and (c) in total.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Neither MAFF nor the Intervention Board executive agency, which administers the school milk scheme, have any information on how local authorities have covered the deficiency in their accounts created by the reduction in funding following the 25 per cent. cut in the rate of subsidy.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the administrative costs of(a) distributing milk through the school milk scheme and (b) alternative provision for disposing of milk.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The administrative costs for the Intervention Board executive agency and the 194
  Department of Education for Northern Ireland in distributing milk through the school milk scheme were £134,871·80 for the financial year 1993–94. There is no information available on the administrative costs incurred by local authorities. The costs of alternative provisions for disposing of milk not taken up under the school milk scheme would depend on the products into which this milk was manufactured, the volumes involved and the disposal method used. The cost of disposing of one tonne of milk in the form of butter or skimmed milk powder is estimated at around £96.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is responsible for the disbursement of funds for the school milk scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Responsibility for the disbursement of funds for the school milk scheme rests with the Intervention Board executive agency in Great Britain and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in the Province.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of milk and other products eligible for the school milk scheme were consumed in(a) the 12 school weeks prior to and (b) 12 school weeks after the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme, (c) the 12 school sitting weeks before and (d) the 12 school sitting weeks after the reduction in funding for the scheme was effected.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is no information available on a 12-weekly basis on tonnages of milk and milk products consumed under the school milk scheme after removal of buttermilk and cheese. 30,608,186·49 tonnes of eligible milk and milk products, for which subsidy was claimed, were consumed in the school term, spring term 1993, immediately prior to the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme on 1 April 1993. A total of 30,621,821·121 tonnes of eligible milk and milk products, for which subsidy was claimed, were consumed in the school term, summer term 1993, immediately following the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme on 1 April 1993.

  Similarly, there is no information available on a 12 weekly basis on changes in consumption before and after the 25 per cent. cut in the subsidy and the technical amendments were introduced. No information will be available until claims for the period have been received.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will chart any changes in the local authority spending on milk and other products eligible for the school milk scheme in(a) the 12 school sitting weeks before and 12 school sitting weeks after the removal of buttermilk and cheese from the school milk scheme and (b) the 12 school sitting weeks before and 12 school sitting weeks after the reduction in funding for the school milk scheme was effected.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No information is available on a 12-weekly basis to enable changes in local authority spending before and after removal of buttermilk and cheese from the school milk scheme to be monitored, nor on the changes following the 25 per cent. cut in the subsidy and the technical amendments introduced on 1 January 1994. Local authority spending on eligible milk and milk products during the term, spring 1993, prior to the removal
  195
  of buttermilk and cheese from the scheme on 1 April 1993 and the term after, summer 1993, decreased by £4,360,333·99. No information on changes in spending before and after 1 January 1994 will be available until claims for the period have been received.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the local authorities which since 4 October 1993 have(a) increased, (b) reduced and (c) left unchanged their provision of subsidised school drinking milk and other eligible products under the school milk scheme as part of a school meal.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No information will be available on changes in uptake by local authorities under the school milk scheme following the 25 per cent. cut in the subsidy and the technical amendments to the scheme, introduced on 1 January 1994, until claims for the period have been received.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Willets
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps she is taking to encourage the positive management of set-aside to benefit the countryside environment.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I support the positive environmental management of set-aside. I have today placed in the Library of the House a handbook entitled "Managing Set-Aside Land for Wildlife". This publication is the result of work commissioned by my Department from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology to investigate the possibilities of using set-aside land to create or restore wildlife habitats. We have drawn on many of its conclusions in setting the management conditions for set-aside under the arable area payments scheme, and I hope that farmers and conservation advisers will find it equally helpful.

  Vintners Company
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members of the wine standards board of the Vintners Company.

  Mr. Jack
  The members of the wine standards board of the Vintners Company are:

  Mr. P. J. Purton (Chairman)

  Dr. A. T. Woodrow

  Ms C. Kent

  Mr. A. Foster

  Mr. P. M. Boyling

  Brigadier G. Read CBE

  The board is funded jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Vintners Company.

  Regional Flood Defence Committees
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations she has consulted to seek nominations for membership of regional flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority of people who have expertise in hydrology, coastal processes, town and country planning, emergency planning, financial management, fisheries, recreation and the built heritage.

  Mr. Jack
  The following organisations were invited to submit nominations:196

  Association of Drainage Authorities

  Confederation of British Industry

  Country Landowners Association

  National Chambers of Commerce

  National Farmers Union

  Transport and General Workers Union

  In addition English Nature and the Countryside Commission were asked to submit a joint list after consultation with other environmental and conservation bodies. Candidates were also sought from the central list held by the public appointments unit of the Cabinet Office.

  The objective is to reflect a range of interests in the ministerial appointments to each committee, having regard to the expertise provided by those committee members appointed by local authorities and by the National Rivers Authority.

  Baby and Infant Milks
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the definition of independent person, name of preparatory infant formulae and brand name as used in European Commission directives 91/321 and 92/52.

  Mr. Soames
  Neither Commission directive 91/321 nor Council directive 92/52 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae define such terms. Any interpretation of these terms where used in the law would be a matter for the courts.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will extend the ban on advertising of baby milks and the giving of free samples to include follow-on milks and specialised baby formulae for infants under one.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are currently reviewing the comments received during the consultation exercise on the proposed United Kingdom regulations on infant formulae and follow-on formulae to implement the relevant EC directives. Our decision on the final form of the regulations will be announced as soon as possible.

  Wine
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the price at which British wholesalers buy wine per 75 cl bottle, (b) what she estimates the price of wine per bottle would be in a free market without European Community price intervention, (c) the levels of European Community production and consumption of wine, (d) the level of common agricultural policy expenditure on wine subsidies and (e) the cost to the British Exchequer of European Community intervention in the wine sector.

  Mr. Jack
  The price at which British wholesalers buy wine is a matter for commercial negotiation and varies by consignment.

  It is not possible to estimate the price of wine without European Community price intervention for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 11 January at columns 65–6.

  The European Commission estimates that European Community wine production in the 1992–93 wine year was 184 million hectolitres—mhl—that 127 mhl was consumed as wine in the EC, net exports were 7 mhl and other uses—for example, vinegar, vermouth and eaux de vie—15 mhl.
  197
  Total common agricultural policy expenditure in 1993 on the wine regime was 1,510 million ecu—£1,186 million —provisional outturn.

  The Exchequer cost of CAP support for wine in the United Kingdom is estimated at £591,000 for the 1993–94 financial year. The United Kingdom also contributes to the European Community budget as a whole, which funds the cost of the wine support system in other member states.

  Flood Defence Committees
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many MAFF-appointed members of regional flood defence committees of the National Rivers Authority receive direct or indirect pecuniary benefits from the flood defence operations of the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Jack
  The terms of appointment of ministerial members draw attention to the provisions referred to in paragraph 14 of schedule 4 to the Water Resources Act 1991 whereby if a member or his or her spouse has any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in a contract, proposed contract or other matter which is to be considered at a meeting of the committee at which the member is present, the member must disclose the fact and refrain from taking any part in the proceedings relating to that contract or other matter. In addition, members are requested to avoid any conflict of interest between their RFDC responsibilities and any personal or business interests.

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice her Department gives to farmers to avoid soil erosion in flash floods.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Department published the code of good agricultural practice for the protection of soil in December last year.

  The code provides practical guidance to help farmers and growers avoid causing long-term damage to the soil and specifically deals with techniques to combat soil erosion caused by water.

  Copies of the soil code have been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Helicopters
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects of low-flying helicopters on animal livestock in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Low-flying helicopters have been accepted as the cause of claims from farmers for dead or injured livestock, resulting on a number of occasions in the payment of compensation.

  Ceremonial and Guard Duty
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much ceremonial and guard duty is required of how many horses and troops; at what average annual cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Ceremonial and guards duties are currently undertaken primarily on a full-time basis by 824 198
  Army and Royal Air Force personnel at an estimated cost in 1993–94 of £18,650,000. Included in this sum is the cost of 362 horses involved in mounted duties.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to revisit Bosnia to examine the conditions of British troops.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I maintain a close interest in the conditions under which British forces are deployed in Bosnia. I make regular visits there, most recently last month, and I was particularly impressed, as are we all, by the dedication and courage demonstrated by our forces in carrying out their work under difficult and dangerous conditions.

  Ferranti
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consequences Ferranti's decision to call in the receiver has had for Britain's armed services.

  Mr. Aitken
  The receivership of Ferranti International has had no consequences of any significance for the armed forces. The receivers are continuing to trade, and my Department has co-operated fully with them to avoid disruption to MOD contracts.

  Women Personne
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the defence relationship with the American armed forces and on the implications of their policy on women personnel for the United Kingdom services and on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom's defence relationship with the American armed forces is wide ranging and involves frequent contacts at all levels. The American armed forces' policy on the employment of female personnel is unlikely to have any material implications for the United Kingdom armed forces.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the difference in real terms between the planned level of defence spending in 1994–95 and the actual expenditure in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of previous and planned defence spending between 1978–79 and 1996–97 are contained in table 3.3 of the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", 1994–95, Cm 2519, which was published on 25 February.

  Contracting Out
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards contracting out RAF engineering and maintenance work.

  Mr. Aitken
  Engineering and maintenance activities in support of the Royal Air Force are currently being drawn together as part of the new RAF Logistics Command, which will come into being with effect from 1 April 1994.
  199
  However, as the House knows, the defence costs study "Front Line First" is examining the whole of the defence support area to ensure that current plans provide the most cost-effective approach to supporting the front line, and its recommendations are awaited.

  D-day
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role his Department is playing in planning the celebration of the 50th anniversary of D-day.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence is chairing the steering group responsible for co-ordinating the United Kingdom's involvement in the D-day commemorations.

  Personnel Reductions
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the percentage cut in the regular armed forces and in the reserves since "Options for Change"; and what reductions are planned for the next five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Between 1 April 1990 and 1 January 1994, the total strengths of the regular and volunteer reserve forces reduced by 15·6 per cent. and 149·5 per cent. respectively. On current plans, a further reduction of 5·1 per cent. in the strength of the regular forces will be made by 1 April 1995. These figures exclude the former Ulster Defence Regiment, which was part of the volunteer reserve forces until it formed the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment on 1 July 1992 and became part of the regular forces. At the present time, it is not possible to forecast any further changes in the manpower levels in the regular or volunteer reserve forces.

  Space-based Missiles
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on space-based missile defence.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no recent NATO ministerial discussions on space-based missile defence but the overall issue of ballistic missile defence remains under regular review and this includes regular discussion at official level within NATO.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many main battle tanks will be in service with the British Army by the end of the century.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many main battle tanks will be in service with the British Army by the end of the century.

  Mr. Aitken
  One hundred and twenty-seven Challenger 2 tanks are already on order from Vickers Defence Systems. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1 December, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contractual terms we intend to place a further order for up to 259 more of these tanks. The number of main battle tanks that will be in service with the British Army by the end of the century will therefore be up to 386.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed services personnel are currently serving offshore and on the ground in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently some 2,260 armed forces personnel serving in the Adriatic and some 2,450 on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. In addition, some 650 Royal Air Force personnel are based in Italy in support of United Nations and NATO air operations in theatre.

  Peacekeeping Forces
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of Britain's peacekeeping forces worldwide; and what proportion of this cost is reimbursed from the United Nations.

  Mr. Hanley
  United Kingdom military personnel have been involved in five United Nations peacekeeping operations during the financial year 1993–94; the additional cost is likely to total between £100,000,000–£110,000,000. Reimbursement from the United Nations for the same period so far amounts to £23,000,000. The United Kingdom stands to claim up to a further £25,000,000, subject to other member states paying their assessed contributions.

  10 Squadron
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1994,Official Report, column 347, if he will place in the Library copies of the criteria used for determining repayment charges for non-defence tasks carried out by 10 Squadron; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Rosyth Naval Base
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the cost involved in the change of task at Rosyth naval base in terms of redundancies and associated costs for civilians and the transfer of naval personnel;

  (2) what are the numbers involved in the change in task of Rosyth to a minor war vessels operating base for both civilian and royal naval personnel as at (a) July 1991, (b) January 1994 and (c) completion of change of task to a minor war vessels operating base;

  (3) if he will provide an update on the annual savings over five years expected from the change in task at Rosyth naval base;

  (4) if he will make it his policy that the social and economic implications of changes at Rosyth will be taken fully into account during the current review;

  (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the terms of reference for the studies regarding minor war vessel base porting being carried out at Rosyth, Plymouth Devonport and Portsmouth.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Lady to my letter of 3 March 1994; a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual value for the past five years
  201
  of refit, docking and essential defects and other work carried out by Rosyth royal dockyard on minor war vessels based at Rosyth and elsewhere; and what percentage this represents of the total shipwork expenditure on minor war vessels.

  Mr. Aitken
  The annual value of refit, docking and essential defects and other work carried out by Rosyth royal dockyard over the past five years on minor war vessels is set out:

  £ million

  At outturn prices

  1989–90

  26·57

  1990–91

  27·18

  1991–92

  25·73

  1992–93

  21·54

  1993–94

  123·17

  1 Estimate.

  Some minor war vessel work is undertaken by the fleet maintenance groups at the naval bases. Since these organisations are capacity funded, not all costs arising out of minor war vessel work are attributed to this task. It is, therefore, not possible to establish a meaningful percentage comparison with the total shipwork expenditure on minor war vessels. However, broad indications are that in 1992–93 the figure was around 60 per cent. and the estimate for the current financial year is around 80 per cent.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's assessment of the resulting unemployment rates in Dunfermline and Fife if the Rosyth naval base were to be closed as a result of the current review.

  Mr. Aitken
  No decisions on the defence costs study have been taken, nor will they be until Ministers have been presented with the findings of the study as a whole. It is too early to speculate about the outcome of this work.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundant personnel formerly employed at Rosyth naval base have used the redundancy counselling and relocation service provided by British Coal Enterprise; and how many of these have gained employment as a result.

  Mr. Hanley
  Between 12 October 1992 and 28 February 1994, of the 92 employees who registered with British Coal Enterprise, 81 subsequently attended outplacement training. Of this number, 75 decided to pursue full-time employment in the area. To date, 41 have found new jobs and four, who were provided with additional specialised training, are now self-employed. Of the 30 still seeking employment, 15 remain employed at Rosyth naval base.

  Defence Costs Study
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to establish an overall strategy for dealing with the restructuring process arising from the defence costs study; and if he will make it his policy to take into account the social and economic impact on the communities involved;

  (2) what mechanisms are in place for the restructuring of military establishments and the use of redundant assets: and what assessment he has made of the work done to date.
  202
  Mr. Aitken
  The defence costs study is examining all aspects of support to the front line. One aim of the study is to develop proposals for change that will ensure that assets employed in defence support areas are not under-utilised.

  It is too early to speculate about the outcome of this work, but all relevant factors will be taken into account.

  Recruitment
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of current levels of naval recruitment from Scotland and the north of England; and what were the expressed first base preferences for(a) Rosyth and (b) Faslane.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the recruiting year 1993–94 the Royal Navy has recruited 40 officers and 223 ratings from the North region.1 Information on applicants' preference is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1 Note: The North region is defined as the area from Cumbria to Cleveland northwards, including Northern Ireland.

  Civilian Establishments
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's civilian establishments, their locations, their functions and the number of people they each employ.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the interests of security, it is not my Department's practice to publish complete lists of all its civilian establishments and their functions.

  Home Military Bases
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United Kingdom's home military bases, their locations and the number of service personnel based and civilian staff employed at each of them.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the interests of security, it is not my Department's practice to publish complete lists of all the United Kingdom's military bases.

  Submarines and Fishing Vessels
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the internal investigation into the incident between HMS Valiant and the fishing vessel Audacious to be made available to members of the Department of Transport's fishing industry safety committee sub-group dealing with submarine and fishing vessels matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The investigation into the incident between HMS Valiant and fishing vessel Audacious has now been completed and the findings are being examined. As I indicated in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 18 January 1994,Official Report, column 506, the findings of the investigation will shortly be made available to the members of the Department of Transport's fishing industry safety group sub-group on submarine and fishing vessel interaction, which includes representatives of the fisherman's federations.

  Regimental Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the notice required to be given to witnesses or persons appearing before a regimental board of inquiry about their right to be represented.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no set period of notice required to be given to persons appearing before regimental inquiries or boards of inquiry. Reasonable steps are taken to ensure that those witnesses who are likely to be affected by the outcome of the board of inquiry, and are therefore entitled to be legally represented, have the opportunity to seek legal representation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has commissioned within his Department, or from outside consultants, any study on the long-term safety of the high-level liquid nuclear waste storage tanks at Sellafield; and what is his policy in regard to evaluating independent expert reviews of nuclear waste storage safety.

  Mr. Eggar
  No, this is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc subject to the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate's views as to safety. Where appropriate, the NII considers factors such as studies by independent experts in its assessment of operators' safety cases.

  Miners (Employment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many miners were in employment in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) the United Kingdom in each year since 1964.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of wages earners on colliery books at 31 March each year since 1964 were as follows:

  Thousands

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1964

  373·0

  79·4

  52·9

  505·3

  1965

  353·9

  73·8

  49·6

  477·3

  1966

  326·4

  64·9

  44·9

  436·2

  1967

  307·7

  60·1

  41·9

  409·7

  1968

  274·7

  54·1

  36·0

  364·8

  1969

  240·1

  47·1

  31·5

  318·7

  1970

  223·4

  42·2

  30·1

  295·7

  1971

  216·4

  39·9

  30·1

  286·4

  1972

  207·6

  38·0

  28·4

  274·0

  1973

  200·9

  36·0

  26·7

  263·6

  1974

  186·0

  32·2

  24·3

  242·5

  1975

  190·9

  33·1

  24·8

  248·8

  1976

  188·3

  31·8

  23·6

  243·7

  1977

  188·0

  31·2

  22·9

  242·1

  1978

  187·2

  30·2

  21·9

  239·3

  1979

  182·8

  28·6

  21·0

  232·4

  1980

  184·6

  27·6

  21·0

  233·2

  1981

  178·4

  26·6

  19·8

  224·8

  1982

  169·9

  25·5

  17·4

  212·8

  1983

  162·3

  23·9

  16·5

  202·7

  1984

  146·7

  21·3

  13·1

  181·1

  1985

  139·6

  20·5

  11·3

  171·4

  1986

  116·1

  14·7

  7·7

  138·5

  1987

  94·4

  11·0

  4·5

  109·9

  1988

  74·9

  10·6

  3·5

  89·0

  204

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  United Kingdom

  1989

  69·8

  8·0

  2·4

  80·2

  1990

  58·8

  5·1

  1·5

  65·4

  1991

  52·8

  3·1

  1·4

  57·3

  1992

  40·8

  1·6

  1·3

  43·7

  1993

  29·3

  1·2

  1·2

  31·7

  11994

  9·6

  0·4

  1·0

  11·0

  1 Men on books at 28 February.

  Source: British Coal.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many public interest immunity certificates he, or his predecessors, have been asked to sign in each year since 1979; how many he or his predecessors decided not to sign; and if he will make a statement of his policy on signing public interest immunity certificates.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No central record is kept of public interest immunity certificates signed since 1979.

  The use of public interest immunity certificates is currently an issue before Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. I have already given my evidence to the inquiry.

  Newsagents
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he plans to introduce to the current arrangements for retailing newspapers following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on newsagents.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 1 March 1994,Official Report, column 623.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the Government's assistance for exceptional projects scheme of financial support for investment and research and development projects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I announced on 26 January 1993 the suspension of the assistance for exceptional projects scheme from 1 March 1993 until April 1994. I have decided to maintain this suspension until at least the end of June 1994.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to introduce a regional challenge as part of the way in which the European regional development fund will be deployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  It is my intention to introduce, consistently with the council regulations, a new competitive element in the way that ERDF money is allocated in objective 1, 2 and 5b areas of England. Under this regional challenge, modelled on the city challenge concept, a proportion of ERDF money, to be determined in agreement with the Commission, would be allocated separately by competition on the basis of local regeneration or development proposals submitted by local partnerships.
  205
  Competition would take place only within each community support framework area. The distribution of the structural funds between the regions would not be affected.

  I believe that this initiative will stimulate local communities to work together to produce imaginative proposals, encourage a more coherent overall approach to local issues, lever in significantly increased private sector funding and enhance value for money. Relevant United Kingdom public expenditure programmes, including the single regeneration budget, will in principle be available within existing public expenditure provision to contribute towards successful bids alongside the ERDF and other resources. The arrangements will be administrated in each region by the integrated regional offices.

  Regional challenge should enhance the effectiveness of the structural funds in each community support framework area. The initiative will be worked up in consultation with the local partnerships and with the agreement of the Commission, with the aim of introducing it when the community support frameworks are adopted later this year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intends to open discussions immediately on the introduction of a separate regional challenge scheme in the Principality.

  Inertia Address Listing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the regulations governing inertia address listing.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Persons who do not wish to receive unsolicited mail can have themselves removed from most mailing lists by registering with the mailing preference service. I see no need for additional regulation in this area.

  Communication on Superhighways
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department is currently sponsoring research into communication superhighways.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department sponsors a diverse range of activities at European and national level which underpin the developments of advanced information highways.

  At the European level, the Community has so far spent over 1 becu—£700 million—through the research in advanced communications for Europe—RACE—programme. The research carried out will assist the development of integrated broadband communications.

  At a national level, my Department jointly sponsors with the Science and Engineering Research Council, the following relevant link programmes: personal communications, £20 million, higher performance interfaces and protocols, £8 million, computer supported co-operative work, £13 million, and optoelectronic systems, £30 million.

  A recent study conducted for the Department of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom telecommunications infrastructure concluded that the United Kingdom's existing information infrastructure can stand comparison with the best in the world. The work referred to will help to ensure that United Kingdom maintains this position.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to announce the recommendations of his consultants and his conclusions on the consultation period on the proposed privatisation of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am still considering the report by the consultants on the review of the Patent Office, along with the views which have been put to the consultants and direct to my Department during the course of the review. I shall announce my conclusions as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 828–30, what was the estimated percentage United Kingdom content of the cars manufactured in the United Kingdom in 1973; what is his estimate of the content in 1993; and if he will estimate the number of each category of cars produced by Rover and the overall United Kingdom content, including the operating profit but excluding licence payments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  This question can be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 319, what are his reasons for expecting the takeover of Rover by BMW to make Rover more competitive than it would have been under the pre-existing arrangements with Honda; and whether his expectation includes (a) overseas markets as well as the United Kingdom market, (b) cars as well as utilities, (c) medium cars as well as small cars and (d) contract suppliers as well as Rover itself.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement to the House, on 31 January,Official Report, columns 615–16.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, columns 615–16, if he will make a statement on the reasons why the number of fraudulent trading convictions submitted by bodies other than the Insolvency Service fell from five in 1992–93 to two in 1993–94.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of cases submitted by bodies other than the Insolvency Service which contain allegations of possible offences of fraudulent trading, and the number of prosecutions arising from such referrals, is small. The variations from year to year are erratic.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to how his consultants on the privatisation of the Insolvency Service should compare the efficiency of the Insolvency Service with that of insolvency practitioners with regard to mechanical processing work in the absence of data on the number of voluntary liquidations completed in any year.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The consultants' work will involve a comparison between the value for money offered by
  207
  private sector contractors with that provided by official receivers in performing those mechanical, processing tasks carried out by official receivers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the current proposals being drawn up by the Insolvency Service agency for major information technology expenditure where the proposals have not yet been quantified or approved.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Insolvency Service continues to explore the possibility of productive investment in information technology across the range of its functions and in the light of its likely business needs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the expenditure on information technology during the last five years and the expected expenditure during the next five years by the Insolvency Service relates to(a) mechanical processing work and (b) investigation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The bulk of the service's information technology expenditure over the last five years and during the next few years has been and will continue to be made in three areas. These are:

  (i) development and support for the Insolvency Service information system mainframe system;

  (ii) development and installation of the service's local office information system—LOIS—which will replace ISIS in due course; and

  (iii) the development of a new computer system for central accounting unit.

  Both ISIS and LOIS supports the range of the service's functions.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 30 November,Official

  Fraudulent trading cases 1 April 1989–4 March 1994

  Years(1 April-31 March)

  Total number of fraudulent trading trials

  Number of successful fraudulent trading trials

  Number of unsuccessful fraudulent trading trials

  1989–90

  18

  14

  4

  1990–91

  14

  11

  3

  1991–91

  27

  8

  9

  1992–93

  27

  17

  10

  19931

  29

  18

  11

  1 To 4 March 1994.

  Note:

  "Trials" means contested cases where one of the main counts is fraudulent trading.

  "Successful" means a conviction is secured for fraudulent trading against one or more defendants in the trial.

  "Unsuccessful" means no conviction for fraudulent trading was secured against any defendant in the trial. It includes cases where one or more convictions were secured in other counts, for example for Theft Act offences or for failure to keep proper accounting records.

  The figures are for cases prosecuted by the DTI. Other agencies, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, also prosecute offences of fraudulent trading.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of employing consultants on the privatisation of the Insolvency Service; and if the cost will be met from the Insolvency Service budget.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The purpose of the review of the future of the Insolvency Service is to examine the ways in which official receivers may concentrate more on their investigatory role by involving the private sector more in the mechanical processing work in insolvencies. The cost of the review, which is commercially confidential, will be met from Insolvency Service resources.
  208
  Report, columns 419–20, what assessment he has made of the reasons why authorising bodies have struck off only one unfit insolvency practitioner since the introduction of the Insolvency Act 1986 where the initial complaint did not originate with the Insolvency Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Many complaints about the conduct of insolvency practitioners are made initially to my Department's Insolvency Service, notwithstanding that the particular practitioner concerned is authorised by one of the recognised professional bodies. This may be because the complainant is not aware of the authorisation procedures introduced by the Insolvency Act 1986 or, alternatively, he does not know by which of the bodies the practitioner is authorised.

  The Insolvency Service refers such complaints to the appropriate authorising body to take such action as may be appropriate.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trials for fraudulent trading resulted in an acquittal for each of the past five years; and how many of those trials were instituted by the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The figures for trials in proceedings brought by my Department where any defendant pleaded not guilty to one or more charges of fraudulent trading are set out in the following table. Records are not kept in such a form that information about the origin of all these cases is readily available, but I can say that in 1992–93 seven of the unsuccessful trials arose from investigations by the Insolvency Service and that in 1993–94 all of the unsuccessful trials arose from such investigations.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many compulsory insolvencies distinguishing between companies and personal bankruptcies were dealt with by insolvency practitioners in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of compulsory insolvencies passed to insolvency practitioners and the number of final accounts received from them on conclusion of their administration were as follows:
  209

  1991–92 Cases to Final

  1992–93 Cases to Final

  1993–94 Cases to Final

  IPs

  a/c's

  IPs

  a/c's

  IPs1

  a/c's2

  Bankruptcy

  5,150

  2,844

  5,258

  3,024

  4,125

  2,969

  Companies

  1,514

  927

  1,417

  1,030

  1,119

  1,015

  Total

  6,664

  3,771

  6,675

  4,054

  5,244

  3,984

  1 9 months to 31 December 1993

  2 11 months to 28 February 1994

  Disqualification
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directions to proceed with disqualification were issued in official receiver cases in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement as to the reasons underlying the change in numbers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In 1992–93 there were 164 directions to proceed with disqualification proceedings in official receiver cases. In 1993–94 there were 50 directions for the nine months ended 31 December 1993.

  The decline in the number of proceedings issued is a consequence of the reduced investigative time available to official receivers in the light of recent high levels of compulsory insolvencies.

  EC Assistance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those areas in the United Kingdom originally designated for European Community objective 5b assistance but subsequently removed from such designation, giving the size and population of each area.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In its announcement of 21 December 1993, the European Commission proposed an objective 5b population for the United Kingdom of 2·816 million. It did not designate precise areas but invited the Government to define in detail areas within the population total. The Commission subsequently increased this total to 2·841 million.

  In order to accommodate a small number of additional areas originally proposed by the Government for objective 2, and in order to express the population of all the areas concerned on a different statistical basis requested by the Commission, it was necessary to propose a marginal adjustment to many of the areas originally proposed for objective 5b.

  Where an adjustment led to a net reduction in the proposed population for an area it was in the range from 2 to 11 per cent. The sum of these adjustments led to a total net reduction of 136,000.

  There were no implications for the United Kingdom's financial allocation under objective 5b.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of optical character recognition equipment in sorting offices for employment levels in the Posit Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made no assessment of the 210
  implications of the introduction of optical character recognition in sorting offices for employment levels in the Post Office as this is an operational matter for the Post Office board. I understand from the Post Office that any reduction in staffing levels to date has been achieved without compulsory redundancies and that it hopes to continue on this basis.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the regulatory regime in the United Kingdom on the ability of British Telecom to be a major player in global telecommunications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Current telecommunications regulation achieves a good balance between the need to ensure real and effective competition and the need to avoid over-burdensome restrictions on companies. BT has benefited from its experience in the liberalised United Kingdom environment. This has been in large part responsible for its development into an internationally successful company.

  Advertising
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 513, if he will make a statement on why Classic FM was used by his Department in its advertising campaign regarding the submission of company accounts; and what other media outlets his Department considered, or employed.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Responsiility for the subject has been delegated to the chief executive of the Companies House executive agency for which my Department is responsible. I have, therefore, asked Mr. David Durham to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. David Durham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 March 1994:
  On 2 March you tabled the following Parliamentary Question: "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his Answer of 18th January, Official Report, column 513, if he will make a statement on why Classic FM was used by his Department in its advertising campaign regarding the submission of company accounts; and what other media outlets his Department considered, or employed."
  Following the answer given by Mr. Neil Hamilton MP, I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House.
  I have made use of Classic FM because it was an appropriate radio station for a national filing awareness campaign, having the most appropriate demographic profile of the national commercial stations.
  As I commented in my previous letter, the introduction of Late Filing Penalties in July 1992 has provided a major boost to the completeness of the company register. However, many companies appear to remain unsure of their filing obligations and continue to file late.

  211
  Companies House does recognise that awareness of the legal obligations, which include dates by which company accounts must be filed, is an important aspect of the process of enabling companies to meet their obligations under the Companies Acts. We were deeply disappointed to learn from independent research that 55 per cent. of company directors did not know what their due dates were. We see it as our duty to ensure that we use all reasonable means to make the business community aware of the deadlines for filing all accounts and the mandatory penalties which apply.
  A variety of media are considered to ensure that company directors are aware of these facts and the penalties that apply. These include commercial radio, inserts in technical press, national press and direct reminders, all of which have been used at various times to good effect. In addition, as indicated in our winning Charter Mark submission, we attend roadshows, exhibitions, hold customer days, issue Notes for Guidance and provide a central enquiry unit.
  Independent market research is commissioned to monitor the effectiveness of our communications. Recent results indicated that 75 per cent. of accountants and 49 per cent. of companies thought it was important that Companies House should advertise to inform and remind companies of their due dates for filing.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ministerial Instructions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override his Department's accounting officer's objections.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: From records currently available there have been no such occasions in the Department of Trade and Industry, but formal directions have been issued to ECGD on three occasions, all of which have been reported to Parliament —Official Report, 8 July 1981, columns 125–26; 16 October 1990, columns 771–72, and 30 June 1993, column 511.

  Legal Advice
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade from what sources he receives outside legal advice for his departmental duties.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: In the first place I look to the solicitor to the Department of Trade and Industry and his staff. I also have access, where necessary, to advice from the law officers. In cases where special expertise is required or where the effective use of resources makes this desirable, I make use of the services of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and of the Bar or solicitors in private practice.

  Investigating Accountants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether present arrangements are sufficient to ensure that no conflict of interest arises when investigating accountants are appointed as receivers of a company; and if he will make a statement.
  212
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: This issue has been brought to my attention many times but a convincing case for statutory intervention has yet to be made.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to review the arrangements whereby investigating accountants can be appointed as receivers of a company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 March 1994]: My Department has already contributed to a review of ethical guidance initiated by the insolvency profession which covered, amongst other things, the issue of investigating accountants being appointed receivers and I do not believe further action is appropriate at the moment.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made about value added tax exemption being removed following the possible privatisation of the Royal Mail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: The EC sixth VAT directive requires the supply of services by the public postal services to be VAT exempt. A privatised Royal Mail would continue to provide public postal services. The Government are therefore satisfied that VAT would not be charged on stamps sold by a privatised Royal Mail.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now extend the current review of the enforcement of fire safety legislation to allow further consultation with fire service authorities and with particular reference to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: The review of fire safety enforcement and legislation involves consultation with all interested parties. These include representatives of all the various fire service bodies, including the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Companies Legislation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the SRU report on the options for changing the structure of Companies House and company registration.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 March 1994]: We are currently considering the SRU report and have yet to take any decision on its publication.

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

Marine Nature Reserves
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the designation of the third statutory marine nature reserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we have no immediate plans to designate any further marine nature reserves. The Countryside Council for Wales is currently consulting with local people about submitting the Menai Strait for designation as a reserve. We are undertaking similar consultations about Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather disappointing Answer. He will be aware that it is over a year since the consultation papers on Menai were issued. Given that it has taken 13 years to designate two of the seven sites which were first identified in 1981 does not the Minister consider that it is time the Government took a different approach to marine protection? Would it not be more sensible to implement a wider protection measure rather than specialised protection, as is the case with many nature reserves? How otherwise will we be able to implement the habitats and species directive?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the obvious frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. In particular, I know her enthusiasm for the establishment of marine nature reserves. But she will agree that the government line has always been that it was only intended to designate a few selected sites and that a number of voluntary sites are in operation at the same time. The EC habitats directive will lead to the designation of a network of special areas of conservation, as the noble Baroness implied. Those may number several hundred altogether. Some of them will be marine areas of conservation. The list is to be agreed by the EC Commission in 1998.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, why has it taken such an inordinately long time to come to a decision about the Menai Strait? The people of Anglesey are decisive people and he should be able to get a quick reply from them.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have no doubt about the decisiveness of the people living near the Menai Strait. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will probably agree that it is better to have a successful outcome on a voluntary basis since legislation can sometimes be a clumsy tool, particularly for selecting
1332
marine nature reserves. As regards the Menai Strait, consultations are taking place on the establishment of a marine nature reserve. There are outstanding objections to that proposal, particularly, I gather, from the yachtsmen. There may be a need eventually for a public inquiry.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that many years ago I answered Questions on the environment? When the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked a question I answered at some length for the Government, to the extreme displeasure of my Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was to say that the Government were actively considering the matter and would shortly produce results. Is it not sad all these years later to find that we seem to be in the same old place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the situation has improved since then. We now have two designated statutory marine nature reserves and we are considering two further areas, in addition to which there are 16 voluntary sites. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will agree that the situation has improved considerably since 1981.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, whether or not matters have improved, I do not know. Several Ministers have responded in much the same terms. Is it not the case that the yachtsmen have been objecting to the marine nature reserve in the Menai Strait certainly for the past two years, because I can remember asking a Question myself, and possibly for longer? Is it not also the case that the sub-aqua association objected for more than five years to the Skomer marine nature reserve and finally managed to give its agreement? Is not the problem one of government policy in that the Government require total unanimity of view before they designate a marine nature reserve when total unanimity of view is almost impossible to achieve?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, despite the objections of the yachtsmen and other people in the area, would not the noble Lord, Lord Williams, agree that unanimity of view on the establishment of marine nature reserves on a voluntary basis is the best way forward?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for asking me that question, which I shall now proceed to answer. I had no idea that government Ministers asked questions of Opposition spokesmen, but I shall respond. I believe that it is right to attempt to achieve unanimity of view, but where that is not possible I believe that the Government have to take strong action and say to people who are holding out for no serious reason,"Come on. The time has come. We are going to designate this as a reserve". That is the Opposition's view.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have heard and listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. The Government's view is that there may come a time when we can go no further on a voluntary basis and may have to propose a statutory framework.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with regard to the proposals for the Menai Strait, will the Government advise the House of the date for the deadline for receipt of responses to the consultation? When will the public inquiry start?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have not said that there will be a public inquiry. I said that there may be a public inquiry.

Guy's Hospital: Future
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received representations from the staff of Guy's hospital concerning the contribution the hospital can make to the National Health Service as a whole; and whether they will reconsider their decision on the hospital's future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we have received a number of letters from staff at the Guy's and St. Thomas's Trust about the future of those two hospitals. The proposals recently announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are subject to more detailed work and in due course to statutory public consultation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that slightly encouraging reply. I am sure that she is aware that the staff, patients and relatives of patients at Guy's hospital are deeply perturbed. It is a world renowned hospital. Surely the Government understand that it has great service to give to London and to our nation.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no need at present for patients or their relatives to be concerned. It will take a long time for the proposals to come about. Therefore, we can guarantee that those patients now being treated will have the best possible treatment available.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not taking a long time for a decision have an adverse effect on the staff of the hospital? They are left in a state of uncertainty.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree. Uncertainty is most damaging for any organisation or institution. We have taken a decision in terms of the proposals that we want to put forward. But it is important that the trust works those out in detail. After that we are bound to go out to public consultation.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, outpatients' clinics at Guy's are famous for their variety and for the large number of patients using them. I wish to ask the Minister two questions. First, when do the Government propose to shut the clinics down? I assume that they are to be shut down. If not, what is all the fuss and ado about? Secondly, can we have an indication of the time span?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question at the moment that the outpatient department
1334
should be closed. The proposals are for continuing care in Guy's hospital, but it will be different care in future. We see it being much more based on community services, and on day services and high-tech day surgery. I have forgotten the second part of the question.
Lord Mellish: When will the transfer to St. Thomas's take place?
Baroness Cumberlege: That will depend on the business case that is being drawn up by the trust. We have asked the trust to be expedient so that we can receive its proposals as soon as possible.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as chairman of the Guy's and St. Thomas's Trust. While recognising the great strength of feeling among those on the site of Guy's about the Secretary of State's decision, does the Minister agree that the right way forward now is for all concerned on both sites to work constructively together so that these two great institutions have a great future? That is certainly possible provided that the funding comes forward for the capital expenditure necessary for both medical and educational work on both sites. Those combined hospitals will continue to provide patient care of the highest quality as well as being an institution of excellence so far as concerns medical teaching and research.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I am grateful to him for the work that he does chairing the trust board. I know that the Secretary of State and her Ministers have great confidence in the trust. My noble friend is right that those two very noble institutions will continue, albeit in a slightly different form.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Marsh: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Benches !
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the vote of confidence. Given the very high passions which exist in both hospitals on the issue, does the Minister agree that it is inconceivable that any government will achieve agreement? It is therefore absolutely crucial that the Government declare a clear policy, stick to it and get on with it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. The noble Lord is quite correct. We see the new Guy's hospital as a place that offers a unique opportunity to build on considerable academic and research strengths. By bringing together the King's College London and the United Medical and Dental Schools on a single campus we will create a powerful centre for medical education and academic excellence.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the recently published research by Professor Brian Jarman—until now he has always been regarded as an authority—states that far from being over-bedded, London is under-bedded. Therefore, has not the main argument of the Secretary of

1335
State and the Minister from the Front Bench now been totally undermined? Is it not absolutely vital that the whole issue should be carefully reconsidered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. We have to go forward. It is important that these longstanding issues are grasped. Indeed, we know that for over 30 or 40 years there have been problems in London. We cannot see London simply squeezed of money. We need to build up the plan.
I turn to the Jarman research that has been carried out. Professer Jarman agrees that hospital provision needs to shift from inner to outer London and the shire counties and that care needs to shift from hospital to the community. Professor Jarman's research was based on all beds in the whole of London. The research that we carried out was on acute services in inner London. So there was a different basis for the two parts of the research. Professor Jarman gave evidence to the Tomlinson inquiry. We respect the work that he has done and understand that he feels that there should be more provision for the mentally ill and for those needing long term care. So do we. But those beds are not suitable in high-tech hospitals. We need to see them in a different kind of provision altogether. That is what we are aiming for.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the figures produced by Professor Jannan and published in a number of newspapers recently? They show that there are fewer beds pro rata in London than in the rest of the country.
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, we do not accept all those f gures. Professor Jarman says that in some instances—and it depends which beds we are looking at, whether they are acute or long-stay beds—that is not the situation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what are the proposals for the National Poisons Unit which is at present based at Guy's hospital? If it is to be moved to the St. Thomas's site, will she ensure that the unit has its own laboratories in which to work, rather than a joint laboratory? It does specialised work which is extremely valuable in different kinds of poisonings.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that will be a matter for the trust board when it builds up its business plan.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molloy rightly drew attention to the anxieties of patients and staff. Is the Minister aware that as well as Professor Jarman's comments on the situation, the South East Thames Health Authority, which covers both Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals, recently said in its current five-year strategy that,
"the current level of hospital activity [in our area] should not change significantly over the next five years"?
Are the Government not prepared to accept that local advice?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the future of London has to take into account the changes in
1336
population needs, medical practice and also rising costs. There is an extremely good letter from my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding in The Times today to which I wish to draw noble Lords' attention. It sets out extremely succinctly the case for change.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, my noble friend briefly mentioned the dental school. Will she give an assurance that in view of the excellent undergraduate and postgraduate training for dental students at Guy's, its future will be assured?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give that assurance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is unity on almost all sides of the House that this great hospital should in no way be done away with? Would it therefore be possible for the noble Baroness to meet representatives of all staff and also of patients and then report to the House? Then, when the decision is made, it will be a truly British democratic decision.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of either of the hospitals being closed. As my noble friend Lord Hayhoe, the chairman of the trust board, said, those institutions will continue but in a different form. It is appropriate that staff should meet the board and I believe that much discussion has taken place. They also have an opportunity to meet with the chairman of the London Implementation Group, Sir Tim Chessells. I believe he is going out of his way to meet some of them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to ask how the Government can justify statements of their policy being written in the newspaper by someone who is not even a member of the Government rather than it coming from the Government's Front Bench?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would go through the letter in detail but I do not think it appropriate to do so at this time and in this place. It is just information which I thought your Lordships might value.

Overseas Aid and Arms Expenditure
2.54 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What account they take of expenditure on armaments by recipient governments when deciding the level of assistance to be provided from the overseas aid budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, excessive military expenditure is one of the factors we take into account when deciding allocations of bilateral aid.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that anxieties stretch further than Malaysia? For example, why has Indonesia—which is now the fourth largest third world importer of British arms—seen a 100 per cent. increase in the British aid programme in the past

1337
few years? If regimes of that kind are pursuing repressive measures such as we have seen in East Timor, with all the moves against the population there, how can the Government justify an official government aid programme to such countries?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's experience and expertise in such matters are well known; but I should point out to him that our concern is from a development perspective. The word "excessive" is of importance in that context. Excessive military expenditure should not harm a country's development by, for example squeezing out social and economic spending. The record of Indonesia in economic development is impressive. Part of that may be because the proportion of defence expenditure of the Indonesian budget is at present no more than about 2 per cent. of GDP.
As regards East Timor, I believe that the noble Lord is as well aware as I am of the undertakings which we have received, and of our understanding that there is no proof or evidence whatever that Hawk aeroplanes have been used by the Indonesian Government in order to suppress the population of East Timor.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, whether or not the Hawks are used directly in action against the people of East Timor, the sale of the weapons systems to the Indonesian armed forces gives them the British seal of approval. In effect, we are saying that these are armed forces to which we think sales of weapons from Britain are appropriate. What external defence needs do the Government perceive Indonesia as having when her neighbours such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Australia are all peaceful and friendly?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to Article 51 of the UN constitution which gives any independent nation the right to defend itself. That is why in an earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I emphasised the use of the word "excessive" and its role in assessing our judgment of what is and what is not appropriate in the way of arms sales.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the excessive growth of armaments as part of this country's exports has certain consequences of which he does not seem to have taken note? The consequence of the lethal growth of such exports is to condition our foreign policy. Will the Government therefore give greater support to exports which do not have that effect, rather than our export drive continuing to grow? That is highly unsatisfactory and it contains conditions which we might find onerous and awkward in the future.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it grieves me very much to have to say that not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and I find ourselves in complete disagreement on a matter appertaining to defence. I can reassure him that the sale of arms does not lead the formation of our foreign, defence and security policy. We are careful to restrict the sale of weapons so that it
1338
does not inhibit our foreign policy objectives. Further, contrary to what the noble Lord said, I believe that the country should take a good deal of pride in, the achievements of defence sales over the past few years. Those sales have contributed substantially not only to employment of many people in this country, but also to the stability of a number of our friends and allies worldwide.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what is the Government's attitude to the quite appalling level of arms expenditure in third world countries? Does the Minister feel that in view of the level of expenditure, it is for the British Government to advise restraint rather than to increase the arms expenditure by means of the deals about which he has been talking?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I find myself in rather less difficulty in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, than I did with his noble friend Lord Jenkins. Indeed, that is why I tried to emphasise throughout these exchanges the importance of the word "excessive" as the criterion which we use in judging these matters. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that not only, for instance, is the overall defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP so far as Indonesia is concerned no more than 2 per cent., but, for India, for instance, it is about 3 per cent., which is considerably less than the arms expenditure that we have in this country.
Lord Ennals: I said "worldwide", not just for Indonesia.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is extraordinary that when Belgium, Denmark, the US and Canada have cut back on their aid programmes to Indonesia because of the cruel repression in East Timor, Britain has increased its programme by 100 per cent. in the past few years? The Minister uses the word "excessive"; but is he aware that in relation to aerospace last year the Indonesian research and technology Minister was quoted as saying that the Hawk planes would be used as trainers and "for ground attacks"? Does he agree that we are increasing aid at the same time as we are increasing arms sales to a country whose human rights regime is absolutely deplorable?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I merely say to the noble Lord that the Indonesian Government are well aware of our views in these matters. We have made them plain at repeated intervals. We have been given assurances about the use of the weapons that we sell. At the same time I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Indonesian Government preside over a country whose economic development has been very dramatic over the past few years. That economic development is in itself an increasing encouragement to more liberal policies in terms of government and other matters.

Coal Mines: Private Operators
3.2 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What would be the position of coal mines currently licensed to private operators by British Coal after the industry as a whole has been privatised.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, under Clause 25 of the Coal Industry Bill, holders of licences granted by British Coal under Section 36 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 would not, so long as those licences remain in effect, require a licence from the Coal Authority to carry on coal mining operations. The authority would, broadly, take over the functions of British Coal under those licences for the balance of their term.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for reminding me of Clause 25 of the Bill, with which I am familiar. In the event that the conditions of the licences presently granted by British Coal differ markedly from the licences granted by the Coal Authority after the Bill that is presently before another place has gone through Parliament—should that occur—what would be the position? Would there be two groups of licences co-existing, and would that not cause further confusion in the coal industry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point is that the existing licensees have licences from British Coal enabling them to carry out mining operations. The Government see no benefit in injecting unnecessary uncertainty by interfering with the existing arrangements and insisting that they negotiate new licences with the Coal Authority before the expiry of their current licences.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the private licensed mines sector the five-year average fatal accident rate between 1988–89 and 1992–93 was well over five times the rate for the equivalent period in the British Coal sector, and that in 1992–93 it was over 20 times the rate? Is that a matter of concern to the Government? And what is being done about it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, safety remains the very top priority in deciding on licensing arrangements and other arrangements for private mining operators. The Health and Safety Commission has been very clear that the regulation of health and safety is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The commission argues for the retention of a clear separation of licensing and health and safety regulations. Its advice is that the use of the licensing system to enforce compliance with health and safety law, or to impose penalties on offenders, is neither necessary nor desirable.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Viscount concerned that the licensing of individual mines now, and the subsequent possible licensing of groups of mines under privatisation, could lead to a substantial
1340
fragmentation of the coal industry at a time when it should be as strong as possible to face up to the competition from other fuels?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to the position of the existing private mine operators and the transitional and future arrangements that will pertain to those operators. I have expressed the case that the situation will come under the Coal Authority, but that the existing licences will continue and that new licences for the duration of the existing licences will not be required.

Sunday Trading Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be, now read a second time.
In commending this Bill at Third Reading in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office said that few laws can have attracted so many attempts at reform but with such little success as has been the case with the Sunday trading laws.
Your Lordships, though, have not found it as difficult as another place to reach an agreed view on what should replace the Sunday trading laws in England and Wales—at least in the past. I hope that that happy position will continue with this Bill. I hope that this Bill will finally enable Parliament to lay the whole subject to rest.
Few, if any, of us come to this debate without a personal view on how the law should be changed. But I fancy that most of us are mesmerised by the complexity of the detail which attaches to the various options. Fortunately—or perhaps unfortunately—this is not an issue which divides us along party lines. But where, I think, all sides are agreed on the subject of Sunday trading is that, in the immortal words of Edward VIII in 1936,"something must be done".
The Sunday trading provisions in the 1950 Shops Act are simply anachronistic; and the way in which they operate in practice is now absurd. The law is widely ignored; and that is bad. Law breaking—whoever does, it and wherever it occurs—cannot be right. Shops now quite openly sell on a Sunday items which are not permitted under the 1950 Act. And we cannot continue with a law which commands so little respect in this country.
We have witnessed, too, the debilitating examples of cases going through our courts, and then being tossed backward and forwards like some unexploded bomb between our courts and the European courts. It has not been an edifying spectacle. People have done their best: local authorities; trading standards officers; and the courts. But it is the law itself which is the problem.
The need to reform the 1950 Act is, therefore, compelling. I do not think that there is anyone who would disagree with that. The difficulty comes in deciding how to reform it.
I think that we need to put aside, to a certain extent, our own personal preferences in order to try to find a

1341
workable solution. What we need is Sunday trading laws which make sense; which work; which can be enforced; and which will be enforced.
There have been laws forbidding activity on a Sunday for over a thousand years. Way back in the year 906 Edward the Elder forbade executions from taking place on a Sunday. I suppose that that was, at least, a start. But it was the Sunday Observance Act of 1677 which had perhaps a more significant influence on the provisions which are in force today. It carried the puritan influence of those days and it was not repealed until 1936. The exemption which allowed milk to be sold on a Sunday, for example, is contained in the 1950 Act, but it dates back to the days of 1677. Curiously enough, so, too, does the exemption for alcoholic drinks—and I dare say that your Lordships may find some contentment in that. The 1936 Shops Act was an attempt to bring the law up to date.
But the 1950 Shops Act really only consolidated the various pieces of legislation which were then in existence. It is not surprising, therefore, that it ended up by being a hotch-potch. The Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act, as everyone knows, just do not meet modern needs. It is difficult to defend the logic of an Act which allows the sale of beer and partly-cooked tripe on a Sunday but prohibits the sale of tea and baked beans; or the absurdity which allows you to sell milk and cream, including clotted cream, on a Sunday, but prevents you from selling dried milk or tinned cream unless it is tinned clotted cream. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary so nimbly put it the other day: "If Peter Piper was still in the habit of picking a peck of pickled peppers, he could not pick them from a shop on Sunday, although he could pick a peck of fresh peppers if he wanted to". That is, if I may say so, a curious pickle to be in.
But for good or ill, life in Britain has changed since 1950 and certainly since 1677: more women work; more people work part-time; there are more cars; and more people now shop on a weekly basis rather than on a daily basis. These changes in society, and in retailing, have seen a growth in the demand for Sunday shopping. Opinion polls suggest that shopping is the most popular leisure activity outside the home, although I am bound to say that I find it extraordinary that people should enjoy shopping to that extent. But there it is. It takes all sorts to make a world.
Because of the pressures for change, the Government set up a committee in the early 1980s to consider how the law might be reformed. That committee was under the chairmanship of Mr. Robin Auld QC, now Mr. Justice Auld. Your Lordships may remember that the Auld Committee came to the conclusion that there was, in its words,
"no combination of interests which justified the retention of regulation."
In other words, it was in favour of total deregulation.
So in 1985 the Government introduced a shops Bill into your Lordships' house. Among other things, it attempted to introduce deregulation of Sunday trading
1342
in England and Wales. The Bill completed its passage in this House successfully, but it was defeated on Second Reading in another place.
Since then there have been further attempts to reform the law on Sunday trading. In all, since the 1950 Act, it is an amazing fact that there have been no fewer than 29 Bills which were, in some way or another, aimed at reforming Sunday trading—including, if I may remind your Lordships, a valiant attempt by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who, in due course, saw her own ship sunk by Parliament. I am delighted to say that, never disillusioned, she returns to the bridge once again and will conclude the debate this evening. But each of those Bills failed to secure support because, in the majority of cases, the deep divisions in another place were simply irreconcilable.
But we could not continue in that way. So, the Government committed themselves, in their manifesto before the last election, to have another shot at reforming the law on Sunday trading. In practice, though, we realised that only a radical approach could do the trick. Ever full of new ideas, the Government devised a unique procedure. We would suggest to Parliament three options, and it would be up to Parliament to choose which one it wished to see incorporated in the final Act.
Before explaining what those options are, I should make it perfectly clear that the Government themselves did not and do not recommend any particular one of the options. The Government, for once, do not "have a view". Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have been neutral between the options, and will remain so. The overriding concern of the Government is that the law should be reformed and that the current "shambles" should be sorted out. The main interest groups were invited to work with officials to draw up models for reform, and I should like to pay tribute to the energy and the genuine effort which they brought to that task.
When the Bill was introduced in another place it contained three options. The first option was full deregulation, under which all shops would be free to open at any time on a Sunday. That is, by and large, the system which operates in Scotland.
The second option was a "regulatory" scheme, which was proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. It would require the majority of shops to close on a Sunday, but a limited number would be permitted to open. All shops, though, would be allowed to open on the four Sundays before Christmas.
The third option was "partial deregulation", which was proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. It would allow all small shops to trade at any time on Sundays, but would restrict large shops to only six hours' trading between the hours of 10 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock in the evening on a Sunday. The large shops would be defined as ones which have a floor area which exceeds 280 square metres. If your Lordships are not too familiar with these kinds of calculations, in round terms it is about the size of a tennis court.

1343
The principle that reform was needed was confirmed in another place when the Bill received its Second Reading there on 29th November last year with a majority of nearly 300. The choice between the options was then decided on a free vote in a Committee of the Whole House. The first option of total deregulation was defeated by over 200 votes. The second option—the "regulatory" scheme which was proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform—was defeated by a much smaller majority of 18. But the third option of partial deregulation secured a majority of 75. That is the option that now finds itself incorporated in Schedule 1 to the Bill, which is in front of your Lordships.
The vote in favour of partial deregulation was confirmed at Report. An amendment which would have prohibited large shops, with very few exceptions, from trading at all on a Sunday was defeated by 61 votes, again on a free vote. Another amendment to restrict trading by large s hops so that they could only open on Sunday mornings also failed—by 50 votes. At Third Reading in another place, the Bill as it appears today was secured by a majority of 93—again, on a free vote. Whatever your Lordships' views on the subject may be, I hope that your Lordships will agree that this shows that, while the chosen option may not have been the first choice of all of tine Members of another place, it has been clearly accepted in another place as the best solution which was available.
The Bill now comes to your Lordships' House to be put through the proverbial wringer. I would just say that your Lordships will also be able to make the same choice between those three options.
I propose, therefore, to table two groups of amendments. The details of them are set out in a memorandum which I have placed in the Printed Paper Office. The first group of amendments would take out of the Bill the scheme of partial deregulation which it contains at present, and would replace it with total deregulation. The second group would replace partial deregulation with the regulatory scheme which is preferred by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. It is, of course, open to noble Lords to bring forward any other amendments that they may wish, and they could include any other options for reform towards which your Lordships may feel disposed. I would only add, with a certain degree of humility, that there is considerable advantage in making sure that any option is simple and understandable and that the fewer amendments on the Marshalled List, the greater is the concentration of the mind.
I hope that we might begin our Committee stage with the consideration of those groups of amendments which would replace the scheme in the Bill with any other options for reform. The detailed scrutiny of the Bill can then take place, once we know the choice upon which your Lordships have settled. To that end, I shall ask your Lordships immediately after our debate this evening to approve a procedural Motion. This will provide that only Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the Bill are committed in the first instance to a Committee of the Whole House. That will be sufficient to enable the choice in principle between the options for reform to be made.
1344
The Motion will also provide that, after the Committee has considered Clause 1 and Schedule 1, those provisions should be recommitted, together with the rest of the Bill, to a Committee of the Whole House. So, it will be the whole Bill, as it will stand after the choice between the options has been made, which will be considered in Committee by your Lordships. It is, therefore, only amendments which would introduce new options for consideration which need to be tabled for consideration on the first day of Committee. I suggest that all the detailed amendments to the winning option and to the rest of the Bill need not be tabled until after the first day of Committee, when the choice of your Lordships will have been made and the pattern of the Bill will have become clear.
If your Lordships approve that procedure, day one of Committee will be about the choice between the options for reforms. The remaining days in Committee will consider in detail the option which your Lordships will have chosen. I hope that that procedure will, meet with your Lordships' approval. The Government will offer no guidance on which option should be the preferred option. Like another place, certainly on this side of the House, there will be a free vote and your Lordships can vote which way your Lordships like—a practice, I might add, with which your Lordships are not unfamiliar even when there is not a free vote. There will also he a. free vote both in Committee and on Report on amendments to whichever option might ultimately secure a majority. There will be a free vote, too, on Third Reading.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that I fully sympathise with people who feel that Sunday should be kept as a special day, but that the restrictions of earlier years have, for better or worse, been overwhelmed by the facts, the attitudes and the practices of today. And personally, shall take the simple view that, as another place—miraculously and unprecedentedly—reached a conclusion, there would seem little advantage (and considerable disadvantage) in asking it to go through all that terrible ritual dance again in the quite unlikely proposition that it may, but almost certainly will not, come to a different conclusion. I really think that we will risk inviting continual and unprecedented chaos.
However, having divested myself of that completely "impartial" view, it is only fair to say that there are plenty of people, both within the Government and without, who take a totally different view. And it is equally only fair to say that there would be absolutely nothing improper if your Lordships were to decide otherwise and if your Lordships were to pick a different option from that which was chosen by another place.
In addition to the scheme for partial deregulation which I outlined, the Bill contains other measures. Schedule 2 makes special provision for shops which are owned by people who observe the Jewish sabbath. Those were drawn up in consultation with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and they have their support. We think that they represent a far simpler and fairer procedure to those provisions which were contained in the 1950 Act. Those provisions allow shops which have a floor space which is larger than 280 square metres to open all day—not just six hours—on a Sunday, provided that they notify the local authority that they

1345
intend to close on the Jewish sabbath and that they enclose a letter from the rabbi confirming that the occupier of the shop is of the Jewish religion.
Clause 2 and Schedule 3 together give local authorities the option of adopting a procedure to prohibit deliveries before 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. Clause 3 protects leaseholders from being required to open on a Sunday simply because their lease requires them to keep the shop open during "normal business hours".
The Government do not argue for or against those measures, nor will they take a position on amendments to them. Indeed, as a general proposition, while I am more than happy to act as a source of advice to your Lordships as to what individual amendments might achieve—if that were to be considered in any way helpful—I intend to refrain from advising your Lordships on whether any specific amendment might be, in the words of 1066 and All That,
"a Good Thing or a Bad Thing".
Schedule 4 to the Bill is, though, quite different. This is government policy and it will be treated as such. While the issue of shop opening hours crosses party lines, there has always been a clear distinction about the place of employment rights in the statute of the country. Schedule 4 provides a comprehensive list of measures which ensure that no shopworker need fear that he or she could be required to work on Sunday against his or her will. It provides that all existing shopworkers, unless they are employed only to work on Sunday, will have immediate protection from being required to work on Sunday. Those rights apply irrespective of their length of service or of the hours which are worked. The protection extends also to anybody who has agreed to Sunday shop work before the Bill comes into force. The Bill also gives new rights to future shopworkers. Even if they agree to Sunday working, they can opt out of that agreement at any time, subject to three months' notice. Protection is not limited to sales assistants, but it extends to the people who work in or about a shop which is open at any time for Sunday trading—the shelf-fillers, the canteen workers, the managers and so forth. The protection extends to all shopworkers if the shop opens at any time on a Sunday.
We believe that those measures will provide proper and reasonable protection. We know that many shopworkers choose to work on Sundays. Some like to work because it fits in well with their family responsibilities. Others may do so because Sunday working pays good wages. Whatever their reason, shopworkers will be able to decide on Sunday working, safe in the knowledge that, if they later change their minds, then their employers will be obliged to respect their wishes. And those who, for family, religious, social or any other reason, have no wish to work on Sunday, need not do so. It will be up to individuals to choose whether or not to work in a shop on a Sunday.
There is a formidable list of your Lordships who have indicated a desire to speak today, and I have no doubt that most will argue for or against the various options for reform. I have not done so because, as I said, it is central to the Government's position that it is more
1346
important that the law should be reformed than that any specific option should triumph. I would only suggest to your Lordships that the Sunday trading laws in England and Wales really must be reformed, and the sooner the better. I think that this Bill will secure that result and I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, to some of us sitting behind him it sounded as though he said that the second option was rejected in another place by 80 votes. Can he confirm that the figure was 18?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was my articulation rather than my noble friend's hearing that must have been at fault. The figure was 18.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill with his customary clarity and panache. How he can do that in the midst of two other enormous Bills escapes me. But he is certainly keeping up his well-deserved reputation in this House.
The noble Earl saved me a great deal of time with his excellent recitation of the history of attempts at restriction on Sunday trading. I can advance rapidly up to and even beyond the Shops Act 1950 which, as he rightly said, is anachronistic not only in the sense that it was badly drawn up in the first place, being a poor and unprofessional consolidation of earlier legislation, but also in the sense that it related to shopping patterns and social habits of what must now appear, after 44 years, to be a bygone generation.
Shopping patterns at a time when few households owned refrigerators, freezers or cars cannot be the same as in a society where nearly every household owns a refrigerator and probably a freezer, and two-thirds of households possess cars. It cannot be the case that, as in 1950, people need to shop on every single day or even most days in order to meet the needs of their families. The Minister therefore is right in saying that the law needs reform and needed it even before the Auld Committee reported.
The noble Earl skated over some of the embarrassments to the Government of the Shops Bill of 1985–86—understandably and perhaps excusably. But what he cannot get away with is claiming that the Government brought the legislation forward at the earliest possible opportunity. It must be said that not only is the present legislation brought forward seven or more years after the earlier legislation, but also that delay has been extremely damaging for the rule of law in this country. In the intervening period there has been widespread breaking of the law by retailers and by shoppers; principally by retailers since they are legally liable for what they do whereas shoppers are simply taking advantage of that illegality. It has been an act of cowardice on the part of the Government over a number of years now not to have come back to Parliament after they lost the vote on the very inadequate Shops Bill of 1985 to 1986. The damage is plain for all to see.

1347
I shall not dwell on the illegalities that have taken place in recent years. However, in view of the participation of the Episcopal Bench in the debate, I think I ought to say that only two days ago in the Cathedral shop in St. Paul's a wide range of goods that it is illegal to sell on Sunday was on sale, including sweat shirts, teeshirts, teapots and tea spoons, mugs and toy soldiers. Those items did not carry the Cathedral logo. It is also necessary to say that in Liverpool Anglican Cathedral—I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool is not in his seat—the Cathedral shop situated in the centre of the Cathedral offered for sale a wide range of goods which it is illegal to sell on Sunday. There had been previous reports that the Cathedral shop was trading illegally but that has not made the Cathedral shop trade legally. As well as church souvenirs that it is legal to sell, the shop was offering for sale cuddly toys, household ornaments in brass, silver and carved wood, and a huge display of toiletries, including bubble bath. Birthday cards, books, cassette and compact disc music, and jam were also on sale.
What then is the present situation in 1994? Our island is divided. In Scotland, where there is legal deregulation of shopping on Sunday, approximately 25 per cent. of shopping capacity is open. In England, where a great deal of Sunday shopping is illegal,38 per cent. of shopping capacity is open. Any suggestion that deregulation, even to the Scottish limit let alone to the limit proposed on the face of the Bill, would result in an enormous increase in Sunday shopping in England is, I suggest, misconceived. At present 11 million adults shop each Sunday. I think it is unlikely that that number would increase very greatly if deregulation took place; indeed, even if this Bill is passed with any of the options likely to be available to your Lordships.
What is the present situation regarding the protection of shop workers? It is most unsatisfactory both in England and in Scotland. With deregulation in Scotland there has been no employee protection. Indeed, at some stage, although the Long Title forbids it now, someone will have to bring in some kind of protection for Scotland equivalent to that which will be available in England and Wales. In England, because of the illegality of much of the opening, there is no legal protection. Despite that fact, all the research and survey work shows that most of those who do not work on Sunday do not want to work on Sunday and most of those who do work on Sunday do want to work on Sunday. We can assume from that research that whatever legislation is passed many people will want to work on Sunday and will and many people will not want to work on Sunday and will not. Schedule 4 to the Bill, as it has been amended in another place, goes far along the road of securing that.
The Bill has many virtues. It has the virtue of a good deal of employee protection. I shall go further into what that means and what further ought to be done. It also has the virtue of offering options to Parliament in order to secure a good debate. I know that some people in all parties think that it is cowardly of the Government to put forward a Bill without expressing their own opinion. I do not take that view in this case. I think it is entirely
1348
proper for the Government to seek to give Parliament a range of options. Our voting procedures make that a little difficult. If we insist on walking through only two Lobbies when there are at least three options, those of us who are engaged in the assessment of public opinion will say that that is a fairly antiquated procedure. There are, after all, other ways of dealing with more than two options, and our Division Lobbies are not the best way of doing it.
I shall not spend time going through the options that have been described by the Minister. I have no doubt that nearly all noble Lords who will take part in the debate have already investigated them and have formed their own views. I have no doubt that we could draw a few vertical lines down the list of speakers and mark each speaker off in terms of which of the options they will fit into. I certainly propose to do that because it will save time in future debate.
I want to express, as the Minister did, a personal opinion and then move rapidly on to other more important issues. In my view—and I shall say a few words about this at the end of my speech—total deregulation is the only rational solution. I do not expect all my noble friends to agree with me; and even if they do agree with me I am not asking them to follow me into any Division Lobby. I must emphasise that we shall have a free vote just as there will be a free vote on the government side. However, I take the view that all legislation which seeks to intervene in the behaviour of individuals in this country and to regulate where there should be no regulation is bound to land up by trailing behind public opinion and public action. If we insist that it is the role of the law to tell people what to do when there is no public interest in telling people what to do, then we will be following public opinion rather than leading it. I suggest that that is not a very dignified role for Parliament, particularly when the experience is that we follow public opinion at a very great distance—a very great lapse of time.
Having made that brief intervention I want to say something about employee protection. The gains that were achieved in the consideration in another place on 9th February were very substantial. We must not in any way underestimate them. What has been achieved in Schedule 4 as it reaches the House is protection for all shop workers on Sunday whether they are full-time or part-time, whether they are management, shop floor or outside, whether they are current or future employees, and from the first day they start work. The amendments that have been made reduce the fear which was expressed by many of my right honourable and honourable friends about the inadequacies of the industrial tribunal procedure. Amendments are still required. My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden, who will be dealing with these matters in Committee and on Report, will go into this area in more detail. I would simply say, in order to put down a marker at the beginning of the debate, that there must be some form of guaranteed enhanced pay for shop workers on Sunday, that there should be a limitation on the hours of work to no more than eight on a Sunday, and that the three months' notice required for opt out should be reduced to one month.

1349
It is proper that I should say a few words about the religious objections. I fully appreciate the sincerity of those Christians who feel strongly about Sunday, just as I sympathise with those of the Jewish faith who would feel strongly about Saturday—or the Sabbath, which is not the same thing—or indeed those of the Moslem faith who would feel strongly about Friday. I suggest to your Lordships that those who wish to observe any religious faith should be enabled to do so but they should not be in a position where they should change the law for other people who do not share those faiths. Those who felt strongly on Sabbatarian grounds for a restrictive Sunday Trading Bill must surely agree that their objections to the Bill are very much less if Christian shop workers are no longer to be required to work on Sunday. It is for that reason that freedom in Sunday shopping hours must go hand in hand with employment protection if it is to overcome the genuine religious objections of those who feel strongly about these matters.
At the end of the passage of this Bill things will not look very different. To a visitor from Mars our country will look the same: neither heaven nor hell will result from the passage of this Bill in whatever form. People already shop on Sunday and they will continue to do so whether or not the law allows it. What the public wishes will determine what happens rather than the way in which we choose to legislate. That is as it should be.
What we can secure is that the law passed is logical—in other words, it achieves public respect; that it is fair both to the public as shoppers, to employees in the industry and that it is enforceable by local authorities. As I said earlier, if the law tries to legislate where it is not appropriate and tries to intervene in people's private behaviour, then we shall trail behind public opinion and put the law into disrespect. I hope that at the end of our debates we shall have a Bill that is logical, fair to everybody concerned and enforceable at law.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is perhaps a trite observation, but nevertheless true, that 44 years since 1950 is a very short time in the context of human history, but a very long time to many of us. For my generation 1950 is a long time ago and also for many people who are now in the middle of their working lives and who use shop facilities. I cannot remember 1950. I cannot remember anything much before the Coronation which, to many of my contemporaries, was more importantly the occasion when television became readily available in our homes. To me it is rather a grey area of the post-war period and a time of rationing. I mention that simply to point up the words of those who have spoken already in this debate—as many of your Lordships will no doubt do—that the 1950 Act was enacted in a very different world. Indeed, it consolidated legislation which went back to 1936.
Our task today is easier than it will be at the Committee stage. The question at Second Reading is whether there should be change. I agree wholly with the Minister and with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there should be change. But, as has been said to me by those who have been concerned with lobbying for the
1350
different options, the proper debate will be on the options. There is probably no single right answer: As with many decisions which we have to make, we have to balance competing interests and concerns. The Minister has rightly said that this is a matter of emotion. I freely admit to carrying my own emotional baggage.
However, we need to recognise that we have moved on from the days of spinsters on bikes in the early Sunday morning mist and warm beer following church. Society has moved on and in particular the position of women has changed. Now more than 70 per cent. of married women work outside the home. I feel embarrassed in saying that, because I recognise that those women who work inside the home also work. But the comparison is that in 1950 about 26 per cent. of married women worked outside the home and some 50 per cent. of those had children under the age of 16. The needs of that sector of society may not be the whole issue, but they are a very important aspect.
But as regards today's question and whether there should be change, to that I would say yes and yes again. The current legislation has no confidence among the public, business or the local authorities whose business it is to enforce it. It is very difficult and costly to enforce. We often express concern about a particular law being in disrepute. This particular law seems to have attracted more snooks being cocked at it than any other I can think of. The local authorities are caught between members of the public who simply do not understand the fuss and who think that there should be no regulation and others who have very strong views about Sunday being a different day.
On the other side, there are the retailers who seem to be able to take legal proceedings in their stride, pay the fines and ride the injunctions. The local authority has to get proof in order to start proceedings against those who are breaking the current law; not just that the shop is open, because that is relatively easy, but that it is selling fresh tomatoes and not tinned, fresh cream and not tinned cream. I did not know until the Minister mentioned it that tinned clotted cream is a commodity that can be sold on a Sunday, but then west London does not produce a great deal of it. That may be more of an issue for other parts of the country. Other examples are that proof of the oil being bought off the shelf is olive oil and not vegetable oil; that the margarine being sold is for spreading and not for cooking. The list goes on and on. No wonder that the public are baffled and uneasy.
I for one—I believe that I must be quite typical in this—do not like being associated with an activity which is in breach of the law. I do not shop on Sunday if I can avoid it. I accept that even by saying that I am ducking the issue. But recently I needed a fuse on a Sunday afternoon. I felt uncomfortable about shopping, but I told myself that this was one of the things which could be sold on a Sunday. But I was wrong. The fuse that I needed was not for my car, which would have been all right, but for my house.
The public are uneasy because they want to enjoy what is now regarded as a leisure activity. We may regard it as puzzling that shopping can be a leisure activity. We may think that it is morally reprehensible

1351
not just because it takes place on a Sunday but because that activity represents a facet of our consumer society with which we are uncomfortable. But that is the current position.
As regards religious concerns, I believe, much as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does, that this is a matter for personal conscience and not legislation. An individual's views should not be imposed on the rest of society which may have equally strong but different religious views. I am not at all qualified to discuss the religious aspect of this matter, but I cannot help but observe that Ireland, for example—a country which has very strong religious feelings—seems to cope with going to church on Sunday and going shopping immediately afterwards.
The new law must have regard to fundamentals: the right of the individual not to work on a Sunday if he or she chooses not: o. There is also the question of the protection of the employee's rights. I look forward to the debate on the payment of a premium, the length of notice of the intention to opt out, and so on. I hope that we can concentrate on Schedule 4 at a later stage. I accept that we must not be too glib or naive as regards employee rights. The words may look right but enforcement may be a good deal more difficult.
The environment is also a fundamental question. But many of the concerns which I have expressed are not those which should be laid at the door of the deregulation of shopping on a Sunday. For example, there is the matter of traffic congestion. That arises from over-large, out-of-town retail developments which is an allied but separate issue. There are also the pressures on the small shopkeeper. Again, I do not believe that deregulation is the whole issue. The reduced number of small shops is very largely to do with other factors such as the unified business rate, the development of forecourt shops at petrol stations and the structural change of town centre development.
I have to nail my personal colours to the mast. Like everyone else, my colleagues on these Benches will be voting freely, as will the other groups. If anyone were to suggest that they should not, no notice would be taken of that anyway. My personal colours are that because total deregulation does not carry with it enough support, I shall be supporting partial deregulation on the lines proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council—in other words, the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the breaches of the law that he has observed in cathedral shops. I would not wish to see anomalies in the future, such as shops in petrol stations being allowed to function, but not shops in our high streets. I take another venue as an example—not a cathedral, but one which will attract lots of custom. It would be anomalous if at a classical, pop or rock concert taking place on a Sunday programmes could be sold but not recordings of the music or T-shirts commemorating the concert. The new law must be clear, enforceable and logical. It must allow those who want to shop on a Sunday to do so and those who want to work in a shop on a Sunday also to do so.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Chapple: My Lords, I shall be brief for two reasons. First, nothing has been said by the foregoing speakers with which I disagree so I have no need to tackle that problem. Secondly, I may have to leave this evening before the vote is taken if it is taken very late, so I apologise for that. In addition, so much has been said about Sunday trading that when I saw that was again on the agenda for discussion in your Lordships' House, I thought that we would all end up like Cratylus simply wagging our fingers at each other.
When he introduced the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that there are two issues with which we have to deal. The first is to find a workable rule to solve the problem. The second is that life has changed. I endorse both comments. Life has changed and the world outside is changing. If we do not attempt to legislate to accommodate that, we shall simply end up with more law-breakers than we would wish to have. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that indecision on this matter was leading people to break the law. I go along with him on that.
It may be cowardice on the part of the Government that they have not offered stronger leadership, but I think that they have done the right thing here by throwing the matter open to debate and allowing us all to make up our minds. It is a matter of conscience. Those people who want to keep Sunday special for religious reasons are perfectly entitled to do so. My objection is that I do not want them to interfere with my right to shop on a Sunday and to do the things that I want to do in respect of which I do not break the law other than on this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a good point when she said that she did not think that there was any right answer. That is possibly true because whichever way we go, whether we choose partial or full deregulation, as a result of the application of the legislation anomalies will undoubtedly arise which nobody foresaw when the legislation was passing through both Houses.
Therefore, on the two issues that are before the House—full deregulation or partial eregulation—I stand with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am for full deregulation simply because I think that partial deregulation will deepen the mess that we are in and that we shall end up with the issue coming back to your Lordships' House once again for further adjudication. I see no point in that. We should deal with the matter today as thoroughly as we can and be done with it.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for introducing the Bill with such wit. We all very much enjoyed his speech. I begin with two points on which I think that all noble Lords will unquestionably agree. First, we are grateful to the Government for allowing a free vote in your Lordships' House on the same options as were considered in another place. That enables this House to fulfil its constitutional role as a revising chamber if it should choose to do so. Secondly, I think that all will agree that

1353
the 1950 Shops Act is in need of reform. It is widely ignored, difficult to enforce, and is bringing the law into disrepute.
It is nine years since the matter was last debated and we would all agree that much has changed and that it is right to consider the matter again. What I ask is that when we consider the matter, we consider the serious consequences of the options that are before us. Although it is good fun to make jokes about an out-of-date law, that is not a substitute for thought. Before continuing with my remarks, I should declare an interest in this matter in that I am a non-executive director of Marks & Spencer.
The first and most important point that I would like to make about the Bill is that in reality there are only two options before us. There is the option from the Shopping Hours Reform Council which goes under the name of the "SHRC option", for which another place voted, which is, in effect, deregulation with the same consequences as the total deregulation option. It would be quite wrong to suggest that that is a compromise. By allowing all shops to open on Sundays and large shops to open for six hours on Sundays—I do not believe that any large store wants to open for more than six hours—that is, in effect, deregulation. We are deluding ourselves if we imagine that it is anything else. That would certainly not help small shops. It would have all the adverse consequences of deregulation on town centres. It would affect Sunday, which is still widely regarded as a special day by many people, in exactly the same way. It is difficult to understand whether those in another place who voted overwhelmingly against deregulation understood the impact of the SHRC proposals. I would say that the SHRC proposals are not a compromise, but deregulation.
We have a choice between that and the other option, which is supported by the Keep Sunday Special campaign (KSS) and Retailers for Shops Act Reform (RSAR) which, broadly, allows a wide range of small shops, garden centres and DIY shops to open every Sunday, and all other shops to open only on the four Sundays before Christmas when on a commercial basis it is known that there is a 40 per cent. increase in demand. I believe that that is a practical reform which is in the best interests of consumers, retailers, employees and the community at large. It is supported by all the major retail chains, with a combined turnover of £ 26 billion and some 400,000 employees. It is easy to argue for total deregulation, but we need to consider carefully the consequences of that.
The first argument about which I know that we shall hear a great deal is the consumer interest. We must all be interested in that. However, there has been one major change since the Bill was introduced in another place—the Government's own Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, under which all shops will be able to open from Monday to Saturday for 24 hours a day. That seems to remove a key argument; namely, that working people cannot shop during the week and need Sunday opening. If there is 24 hours' opening for six days a week, I should have thought that it would be difficult to argue that no one can manage to do their shopping.
1354
We shall no doubt have a lot of debate about what people actually think. A number of polls have been taken. A poll by NOP which was taken in September 1993 showed that nearly 80 per cent. of the women interviewed confirmed that the proposals supported by RSAR would satisfy their shopping needs and that they do not in any case shop on a Sunday. What is absolutely clear is that, from the point of view of a business, there is no extra business to be taken on a Sunday. Six days' trading would be spread over seven days, with the consequence that the consumer will end up paying for the increased cost through higher prices.
We need to look carefully at the second effect; namely the effect on small shops about which I have no doubt that we shall also hear a great deal. Sunday trading by large stores would almost certainly lead to the closure of some 10,000 small shops in the next few years. That point has been researched, and the source of the figures is the report The Problems in Rural Areas published in September 1992. Small shops do 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of their business on Sundays, unlike large supermarkets which do about 5 per cent. The difference for the small shops is the difference between survival and closure with all that means for anyone living in the country without a car, the elderly, the disabled and those in rural communities generally. Considerable research has confirmed that the local shop is a village's most important asset. The closure of small shops will lead also to the decline of the high street—something that the Government have said they wish to maintain. In the long run, deregulation will lead inevitably to less variety, choice or convenience and higher costs for consumers.
I shall of course read carefully what my noble friend the Minister said about the protection of staff, but I wonder whether he can be as confident in that part of the Bill as he said that he was. That is a matter to which we shall return in Committee, but examples have already come to light which show that those employees who opt not to work on a Sunday will be discriminated against, at any rate in their career progression and working arrangements. The Bill does not acknowledge that. I suspect strongly that the employee protection conscience clause is not worth the paper upon which it has been written. It is an issue that needs to be looked at closely.
We need then to look at the effect of the proposal on the community at large. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had to say about that. She is currently involved in local government. There are many people in local authorities who believe that deregulated trading will unquestionably lead to more traffic congestion, more pollution, extra costs for policing, traffic wardens and street cleaning. All that will add to the council tax and I see no prospect of the Government compensating local authorities for their increased costs.
Before concluding I should just like to mention the point about Scotland raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. One of the main arguments used by many people is that if deregulation works in Scotland why should it not work in England. At first sight that appears to be a compelling argument, but shopping patterns are different in Scotland because the population density is

1355
lower, as is car ownership, there are higher transport and energy costs for shops, and there is an insignificant presence of large food multiples. The situation is different in England, and as the noble Lord said only 25 per cent. of shops open in Scotland, whereas in England and Wales 38 per cent. open currently and under deregulation approximately 65 per cent. would open. Probably 75 per cent. of shops would open in the food sector, so the pattern in England and Wales would be different and so would the consequences arising from it. Indeed, given the situation and the expansion of large supermarkets in Scotland, it is likely that the adverse consequences of Sunday trading will occur in Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. She has declared an interest as a non-executive director of Marks & Spencer. Will she confirm that Marks & Spencer opens in Scotland?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that. I do not pretend that it does not. I am merely saying that the general situation in Scotland is unlike that in England. That is a fact that needs to be borne in mind. Perhaps I may add that Marks & Spencer, unlike other large supermarkets" has never broken the law. I should like that to be noted.
On enforceability, there is no doubt that the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have confirmed that the KSS/RSAR option is enforceable. An amendment made to the Bill in the course of its passage through another place—namely, an increase in the fine to £ 50,000 for those who break the law—will have a salutary effect on whether shops open and whether they should or should not break the law. En any event, enforceability will have increased.
I am conscious that we all have different opinions about this matter. I have stated what mine is. We shall undoubtedly return to consider these matters in great detail in Committee. As I have already said, I welcome the Government's proposals regarding voting on the three options put before another place. It is an important matter not just for retailers, but for the people who work in the stores, consumers, small shops and the countryside. If we vote for deregulation we shall be going into a world that we have not seen before. It is most unlikely that we could turn back the clock. In some countries which have deregulated shopping already people have come greatly to regret that that is the case. I should not like us to fall into that position and to throw away a great many of our Sunday traditions, about which many others will be speaking, but about which I feel strongly. We should not throw them out for something which is, in effect, unnecessary. As I said, we shall return to those issues, recognising that once we go down the deregulation route we shall not be able to put back the clock.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not propose today to discuss the various options and to make comparisons. I should like to make just two brief comments. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who said that the
1356
SHRC option is deregulation by another name, because it would be difficult to enforce. We shall discuss that issue at a later stage. I emphasise also that when the Minister introduced the Bill, he omitted the fact that the RSAR/KSS option includes DIY centres and garden centres opening on Sunday. That is an important point. The noble Baroness mentioned it; I should like to emphasise it.
I wish at this stage merely to put on record my continuing opposition to the proposals which would make Sunday just another working day. I shall give some of my reasons. All over the world, countries with a predominant religion recognise the traditions and practice of that religion in their laws and customs, We still call ourselves a Christian country. Over 37 million of our citizens declare themselves to be Christian. The Christian Church is part of our establishment. Yet we are now being asked to ignore one of its fundamental requirements—that one day in seven should be set aside for rest and worship. Surely that is a basic value that we should not abandon lightly.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh said that if the law is broken consistently, we must change it. He is probably right in this case because, as we have heard, the existing law is ridiculous. The flouting of it has gone on for a long time, and there are no reasons for not: changing it. However, I do not wish to follow him down that road with regard to many other laws.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will permit me to intervene. I did not: say that if a law is broken consistently it should be changed. I would not apply that rule, for example, to criminal offences. What I am saying is that if the law leads to unnecessary interference in people's behaviour which does not damage other people, then it should be changed. That is different.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification, which I am glad to have on record. All the arguments against Sunday trading remain much as they were when we debated the subject in 1985. For example, there is the detrimental effect on family life, and not just for shopworkers. Even now, despite all pressures, Sunday is still a family day for a majority of the population—a day upon which to eat together, to share recreation, to visit friends and relatives and to enjoy the feeling of a day that is different.
Sunday is to the working week what the annual holiday is to the working year; it is a time to refresh and renew. Deregulation would affect not only workers in the retail industry but public health, transport and power workers, police and traffic wardens and a wide circle of suppliers, especially those who supply perishable goods. Can the protection offered in Schedule 4 to the Bill be extended to all those workers? I very much doubt it.
The environmental arguments, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are as valid as they were in 1985. There would be increased noise, litter and disturbance for residents and an increase in the use of energy, which would add yet more pollution problems. The Association for the Conservation of Energy

1357
estimates that an additional 500,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum would flow from heating and lighting if most shops were to open on Sunday. Other organisations quote even higher figures but it is safer for me to take the lowest. If added to that is the extra pollution from traffic the task of achieving our Rio commitments will be made even more difficult. The increased cost of all those effects will eventually fall on the consumer.
Small shops will inevitably suffer, especially in rural areas, about which I have a particular worry. Many operate on tight margins and only a small percentage shift will tip the balance. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that two-thirds of the population is car owning. That is true but it means that one-third is not. The one-third which does not own cars or have access to them includes many pensioners who will be gravely disadvantaged by the loss of local shops.
Much has been made of the support of USDAW the shopworkers' union, for the SHRC option. I propose to deal with that in greater detail at the next stage of the Bill. For now, however, I merely point out that the USDAW change of heart was made without the support of the full membership and in the expectation of the insertion of certain protective clauses in the Bill. Those clauses were resisted by the Government and USDAW must now rely upon an agreement with the employers, which has no statutory backing. The value of that agreement has yet to be tested. Many of my honourable friends in another place are uneasy with the situation. In any case, some 2 million shopworkers are not covered by the USDAW agreement. Their rights must be considered too and if we do not consider them, who will?
The consumer need for Sunday trading is less than it was in 1985. Many convenience stores now open late in the evenings and, more importantly, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there is a clause in the forthcoming Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which will allow 24-hour opening from Monday to Saturday. I should have thought that even the most avid consumer would be satisfied with that. Members in another place were unaware of that proposal when they made their choice of options. I know for certain that some would welcome an opportunity to reconsider their decision. I hope that when the moment comes this House will fulfil its most important role and invite the other place to think again. We have done so on many occasions and should certainly do so in respect of this Bill.
4.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, there does indeed need to be a reformed and workable law. There is no disagreement about that on these Benches. However, I do not believe that we should accept the argument that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, appeared to be making; that because another place had at last agreed on a way forward we should fall in line and support it. The role of your Lordships' House is often to be a revising Chamber. In that role there are times when the elected representatives in another place are very glad that actions of this House allow them to think again. I
1358
believe that there is good reason why they should think again about the way they voted on 8th December. I hope that when your Lordships' House votes on the options it will not shrink from returning different answers from those of another place.
Since 8th December two significant changes have occurred which give a new perspective to Sunday trading. The first is publication of the Deregulating and Contracting Out Bill. The second is the failure of the Opposition to persuade the Government to put into the Bill effective protection of workers. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out that the deregulation of shopping hours appears to have shifted the ground of one of the main points made by protagonists for the Bill.
In a future where all the pointers suggest that there will not be enough employment to go round, there should be no need to work impossibly long hours. The convenience of shoppers can be met without recourse to the opening of large stores on Sundays. It seems very remarkable to me that in all the long debate on 8th December no mention was made of the fact that a government proposal for deregulation from Monday to Saturday was just around the corner.
The other change is that since 8th December it has become clear that the Bill does not provide effective worker protection. While the Bill is before Parliament, one might have supposed that employers would be on their best behaviour in this respect. Yet there are already examples of pressure being brought on employees to work on Sundays, whether they want to or not.
If the Bill becomes law there is little doubt in my mind that those who do not want to work on Sundays will face discrimination in obtaining employment and in obtaining supervisory posts. Advice from lawyers—namely, Dr. Simon Deakin of Cambridge University and Professor Keith Ewing of King's College, London—warns that for several reasons sanctions such as industrial tribunals are inadequate. No legal aid is available. Although the Minister, Mr. Lloyd, disagreed, the lawyers pressed the point that the burden of proof that dismissal has taken place because of refusal to work on Sundays rests on the employee. Surveys carried out by Durham University Business School and the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge University show that a majority of shopworkers do not want further Sunday trading. They value the possibility of Sunday being a day which is different for every member of the family.
There is much rhetoric in our public life about strengthening family ties. I have no doubt that those who vote for the opening of big stores for six hours on Sunday—adding on travel-to-work time and time to prepare the store—are voting for a weakening of family ties. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made the point about children spending more time with their parents on Sundays, the elderly receiving more visits and Sunday lunch being far from an institution which has disappeared from our family lives. Do we really want to weaken all that?
I have tried to put myself in the shoes of those who support the Shopping Hours Reform Council. I met the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her colleagues, and I

1359
listened carefully to their arguments. I believe that there is a wish for a more streamlined, more modern structure to our week, which is rid of the clutter, as they see it, of regulations. They ask why there should be any interference with the freedom and the convenience of the consumer.
The answer to that is the answer that we would give in defence of all law which limits the freedom of the more powerful; it is that freedom for the more powerful often removes freedoms from those in weaker bargaining positions. That includes, shopworkers, as I said. It includes many others who are increasingly left behind in the scramble for a streamlined world of convenience. I know the theory about marching columns; that if the columns at the front go forward faster those at the back are drawn along with them. I do not believe one single word of that. We are creating more groups of those left behind as the front-marching columns thrust further forward.
Shopping Hours Reform Council leaders told me that they expected large supermarkets mostly to be open in out-of-town centres. That is all very convenient if one has a car, and we have been given figures for that. Many like to assume that because a majority of people own cars everyone in Britain has access to a car. I should like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to look at the 1991 census figure for Merseyside. There are wards in Liverpool where 80 per cent. of households do not have a car. In urban priority areas and perhaps even more in rural communities, elderly and sick people and those on the lowest incomes, need good corner shops. They are of very great importance to our communities. Those who vote for this proposal, sponsored by the big battalions, are certainly voting for a further loss of such shops. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave figures with regard to the loss of those shops. A vote for the RSAR option would be a significant touch on the rudder, offering a better climate in which our small shops could thrive. I have no doubt of the desirability of that in our national life.
The experience of Sunday opening in Scotland is often quoted as though it is universally acclaimed. The Church of Scotland says the reverse. In last year's General Assembly it firmly supported the more regulatory option. I have with me a letter from the Convenor of the Church of Scotland's Church and Nation Committee to the Home Secretary. He wrote:
"Any suggestion that the system in Scotland is successful and is good practice is mi; leading and in contradiction of the facts".
This Bill is a matter of great significance to the Churches. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, I quoted my friend Archbishop Derek Worlock's strong attack on further secularisation of Sunday by the Bill. Christians do not have the right to lay down the law to all people about Sunday observance. But we have the same right—no more, but no less—as other citizens to argue for what we conceive to be for the health of the whole; a rhythm of work and rest for communities as well as for individuals. Indeed, we may have been too coy, because it appears to defend our sectional interest.
Other sectional interests are not very coy about Sunday trading. This creeping secularisation has its effect on the spiritual life of so many. Our critics like to
1360
tell us that we in the Churches have grave responsibility for strengthening moral values. We believe that beneath moral values there need to be spiritual roots. Those spiritual roots need cherishing. The task of the Churches will be made more difficult if there is a further shift in the pattern of Sundays.
I hope that those who use the rhetoric about the importance both of family life and of the spiritual health of the nation will help to keep Sunday special by their vote.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I do not know whether the obviously sincere and somewhat emotional speech of the right reverend Prelate is delivered on his own behalf only or whether he speaks for the Church of which he is an extremely distinguished member.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I do not have the figures at my finger tips, but the General Synod of the Church of England voted by more than 300 to nothing to support the more regulatory option. I speak as chairman of the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England, and I do indeed speak for the Church of England.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as 1: understand it, the Church supports the more regulatory option. Therefore, it supported a move away from the present law. That was not apparent from the speech made by the right reverend Prelate which, as I understood it, attacked any relaxation of the present law on Sunday trading.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, my first words were:
"My Lords, there does indeed need to be a reformed and workable law. There is no disagreement about that on these Benches".
I did not think that I needed to say more and that is certainly my position.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does that mean that the right reverend Prelate supports partial deregulation and does it mean also that the cathedrals will cease to open their stalls for the selling, of ordinary products on Sundays?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I certainly hope that they will keep the law, as they do now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that we are getting ourselves into something of a tangle. It is more like Committee stage than Second Reading. I believe that we should try to stick a little more closely to the rules.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I always give way when someone intervenes and I was glad to gather that the question of stalls in cathedrals is being looked at. It is not good enough to denounce Sunday trading with the vigour and determination shown by the light reverend Prelate when, at the same time, the great institution of which he is a leading figure breaks the law consistently.
Indeed, it is clear that unless one or other of these measures is carried, the Church will continue to be in

1361
breach of the law in performing what many of us regard as an extremely sensible method of raising funds. I speak with some feeling about this matter because I am a member of the Church of England and I am a church warden. I believe that the Church has got itself into a considerable tangle and the right reverend Prelate did absolutely nothing to disentangle it.
By way of contrast, I found myself wholly in agreement—for the first time in my life, I think—with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I found nothing in his speech with which I could possibly disagree. That made me wonder whether I can be right. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he seemed to speak extraordinarily good sense in advocating what is the only possible solution to our difficulties.
There is before your Lordships' House a choice between total deregulation, such as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, advocated and on which he has my full support, or partial deregulation by one of the other expedients proposed. However, it is clear that if we adopt the partial deregulation alternative extremely complicated difficulties will continue to arise and there will be difficult marginal cases. We shall then have to return to the subject.
I cannot see why opening a shop should be an act which requires special legal permission. Most other activities are open to ordinary citizens. They are not regulated and controlled in that way. One can open an office and all kinds of organisations without the slightest need to consider what restrictions apply. What is so peculiar about shops which means that there must be special, rather complex legal restrictions on them? That does not seem to make sense.
If your Lordships and Parliament adopt the alternative scheme under which some regulations will continue to apply, we shall undoubtedly find in a few years' time that the situation has become impossible and final legislation will have to be introduced. Now Parliament has the opportunity to clear up this legal mess and to deregulate entirely.
The only argument of any strength in favour of the second alternative was that put forward by my noble friend Lady Young when she referred to the position of small shops. One must accept that total deregulation will have an adverse effect on small shops. On the other hand, can it really be argued that because the competition that would be released in that way would be effective and perhaps damaging to small shops, one should use the legislative process to prevent the development of that competition? It seems to most of us that opening a shop is a perfectly ordinary procedure. Why should it be restricted because it will have an adverse effect on other activities in the same direction?
I do not believe that such restrictions are right and wise. I am quite certain that they will give rise to just the same problems which we have at present of prosecutions continually having to be instituted and with continual access to the courts in order to enforce what is plainly unenforceable and which no one outside the small shop area wants to see maintained. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am much obliged. Perhaps I may attempt to salvage a shred of my political reputation by disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Does the noble Lord have any evidence to show that small shops in Scotland have suffered as a result of deregulation?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have not been referring specifically to Scotland and I do not pretend to be an expert on the area. I was simply accepting the argument put forward by my noble friend, for what it was worth, so that I could deal with it. I was not accepting that she was right. Indeed, if I suggested that my noble friend was right then I have entirely misled the noble Lord, because I believe that she is quite wrong. My noble friend is wrong for the reason that it is surely not appropriate to use legal powers restricting otherwise ordinary, sensible action because it will hurt other people. I see that my noble friend wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I was referred to in that exchange, perhaps I may make one point about Scotland. There is already evidence to show that small shops are closing in Scotland. I suggest that that trend will accelerate as more multiples open up in Scotland. That is an established fact. As regards my noble friend's other argument, one really has to consider one-third of the population which is non-car owning and the effect that the proposals will have upon those people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend's arguments lead her further than she realises. She is saying that an ordinary, reasonable action should be stopped by law if it is liable to injure the interests of one particular section of society. I believe that is a very dangerous argument to adduce. If my noble friend really thinks about it, she will realise that that is what she is saying. She is saying that we should forbid an otherwise acceptable activity because it will prove to be too competitive for small shops. Sorry though I would be for the small shops, that seems to me to be a very dangerous argument.
There are many points to cover, but we have a very long list of speakers. Therefore, I shall add but one further point. In my view, the Bill provides proper protection for employees who may find themselves faced with a demand for Sunday working. I have some experience of the situation. Some years ago I was chairman of a cement-making company which, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, is a continuous process industry. I received one or two complaints. They came from employees who said that the foreman obviously had a grievance against them because he had not allocated them vacancies on the Sunday working rota. Of course, Sunday workers in that, as in most other industries, are paid more than on week days. The only grievances that came to me as chairman were not that it was persecution to be asked to work on Sundays, but that it indicated prejudice against you if you were not in fact given the opportunity so to do. That is my practical experience of the matter.

1363
Finally, I ask your Lordships to consider very seriously the views of the Consumers' Association. In a letter to me—and, indeed, to many other noble Lords—the association said:
"As may be seen, our preferred option for reform of the 1950 Act remains total deregulation of opening hours for all sizes and types of shops".
Surely we are really concerned, above all, with the interests of consumers. We shall have to decide on a choice between two alternatives. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated that because another place had taken the partial deregulation line it would be wise and save trouble for us also to adopt it. I do not take that view. Now that we have come to legislate after a gap of some years on such an important subject we ought to go for the alternative which seems to us to be right and best and give another place the opportunity to think again as to whether the whole difficult subject can be safely put out of the way by going for complete deregulation and treating shops like any other economic activity in the country.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, it is generally accepted today that the 1950 Shops Act is an anachronism icy today's society. There is no doubt about it. In 1950, only 26 per cent. of married women went out to work. However, today the figure is 70 per cent. and that is just the tip of the major changes which have taken place in our society. I support partial deregulation. I was concerned to hear some views which seemed to say that if you believe in family activity and family values you will really be opposing that option. It is because I believe in such activities and values that I support the option.
I find it very difficult to accept that it is regarded as an acceptable family activity on Sunday for a family to go to a garden centre or even a boot sale, while to go shopping together (as families increasingly do today) is not so regarded. There is no doubting the fact that our society has changed considerably. It is not people turning their backs on the Church or on Christian values who are seeking such changes but a recognition of the way that society has changed.
Today there are many illegal openings of shops. However, it is no argument simply to say that we should therefore now make Sunday trading legal. I totally reject that argument. It is equally no argument to say that, because of the deregulation Bill, shops will be able to open Monday to Saturday for 24 hours a day. Many working women with families often work a hard day, often on a split shift, with long hours. Therefore, to say that because the shops are open 24 hours they can do their day's work and then do their shopping afterwards does not answer the question of who looks after the children. The fact is that, by and large, women in Britain today are still responsible for the family shopping. It does not answer the anachronism that you can buy a newspaper but you cannot buy a toilet roll, or that you can buy pot plants but you cannot buy the family groceries. That is my standpoint.
The employment opportunities which have become available, and the changes that took place in the other
1364
place which provide some kind of employee protection, are to be welcomed. However, they do not go far enough. Those are the issues that I want to see dealt with in Committee. For example, it seems wrong that an employee has to give three months' notice of his desire not to work on Sundays. It also seems wrong there is no guarantee of enhanced pay. There needs to be some improvement in that direction.
There is no provision for protection against working long hours on a Sunday. There are also no guarantees that alternative days of working will be found. One can debate all those issues in Committee. I feel that the partial deregulation recognises the changes that have taken place. I believe that to go for full deregulation would be wrong. Equally, I cannot reconcile in my own thinking the alternate view that because consumer demand increases by about 40 per cent. it is all right to open on four Sundays before Christmas, but it is wrong to open on other Sundays in the year. If the principle of Sunday opening is right, it is right; but, if it is wrong, it is wrong. I believe that partial deregulation recognises those facts. It provides some employee protection, although not enough. I hope that it will have the support of the majority in this House.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I join in the tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the immaculate skill and judicious impartiality with which he opened this notable debate. If I have any quarrel with his arguments, it is only with the suggestion that because a law has been broken it should be abolished. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the logic of that argument would lead to our opening up all the prisons because the law has clearly been broken.
I listened with particular gratification to the reflection of some of my own thinking in the notable speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Nicol, and above all that of my dear friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who delivered a speech which was spiritually elevating and, to me, of particular value.
It may be argued that I have enough unfinished business trying to prevail upon Jews to observe the. Jewish sabbath on Saturdays without adding the Christian Sunday to my commitments. I do so because, born as I was to a people that gave the world its weekly day of rest, enshrined in the Ten Commandments, I have a sense of almost proprietary or at least hereditary interest in the continued existence of this weekly day of rest.
A 19th century American economist, Henry George wrote:
"That there is one day in the week that the working man may call his own, one day in the week on which hammer is silent and loom stands idle is due, through Christianity, to Judaism".
The preservation of that unique spiritual and social treasure cannot be a matter of indifference to any citizen of this land, least of all to Jews.
In history two attempts have been made to eliminate the weekly day of rest: one after the French Revolution when a 10-day week was tried and the other in the 1920s by the Communists in the Soviet Union who wanted a

1365
five-day week. In both cases the avowed aim was to destroy Christianity and religion in general. Both attempts failed. The seven-day cycle is almost innate in man. In fact, an early Jewish source suggests that the cycle is reflected in nature itself. In the height of man six-sevenths is made up of the body while one-seventh is the head, crowning and controlling the body—one elevated part to six more mundane parts.
The loss of the sabbath would deprive Britain of the last visible vestige of national spirituality and sanctification. For most citizens regular worship every week was given up long ago and is now a dim memory of former generations. The sanctification of the family through lifelong marital faithfulness also endures in ever fewer homes. But at least on Sundays even the streets proclaim that man does not live by bread alone, that the material quest for profit can be interrupted and that there is more to human happiness than the pursuit of wealth and of power over others.
Representing, as it were, the originators of the sabbath, perhaps I may say a few words on its special significance to us in the modern world. By closing our shops and work places we proclaim the equality of all men. The rich do not earn more than the poor. For once we do not measure all values in life by their material price or rewards. [Interruption.]
Of course, I recognise that what the Bill demands in keeping Sunday different is still a far cry from the severe Jewish impositions to sanctify the sabbath. For us the sabbath requires that for one day a week we suspend the exploitation of the powers of nature, that we become creatures instead of rivalling the Creator.
Perhaps I may explain. Under our relatively rigid laws, on the sabbath we have to abstain not only from physical toil and hard labour but also from creative work. We must not switch on the light, nor use the radio or television, nor drive by car or use the telephone. For one day we are to be liberated from the tyranny of the machine. And what a tyranny the television and the telephone can be! Nature is to be emancipated from, and remain untrammelled by, man's domination. We are to demonstrate once every seven days that we are not the ultimate masters of the universe after all, that there is a master above us, and that greater than the capacity to harness the infinite forces of nature is the capacity of man to know when to stop. For the sabbath celebrates not the six days of creation—they are not holy days—but the seventh day on which God ceased creating in order to control what he had created.
Perhaps there is no lesson that we need to learn more urgently in our time of the ceaseless drive for technological and scientific conquest than knowing when to stop. The supreme lesson of the sabbath is to teach us that, greater than the God who called the heavens and the earth and all their infinite powers into existence, is the God who knew when to stop and when to call a halt in order to control what he had created.
It may be that the entire future of man will depend on our capacity to learn when to call a halt, at least occasionally, to what man's inventiveness has created, whether in scientific or medical research, in the exploitation of atomic energy, or in the disposal of
1366
waste material without polluting the air we breathe, our soil, the rivers and the seas on which human life depends. On that capacity to keep what we create in check and to stop occasionally in order to survey where we are and where we are going, on such a sabbath periodically suspending our work, human survival may depend.
Reinforced as I am by three and a half thousand years of uninterrupted sabbath observance, I therefore plead with your Lordships not to abandon this priceless national and human asset and not to allow the creeping secularisation of life to make further inroads into the last remaining bastion of spirituality.
Of the sabbath in relation to the Jewish people, it has been said, more than we kept the sabbath has the sabbath kept us. Likewise, I can assert, so long as we keep the sabbath special, it will keep us safe from moral decay and self-destruction.
4.50 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I have always admired the speeches of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, I was sad today to hear him make somewhat mocking comments on the excellent speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Liverpool. In particular, my noble friend asked,"What is special about shop opening?" I would reply that it is the same as house building: we are restricted as to where and when we may build a house because that is in the national interest. That is the case that those of us who agree with my noble friend Lady Young maintain on this subject.
There is no disagreement that the Sunday trading law must be reformed. Now is not the time to go into detail on how that should be done. There will be plenty of time to discuss it at Committee stage. The question today is whether we should have any restrictions on the Sunday opening of shops. The Bill as drafted amounts to complete deregulation, as my noble friend Lady Young has already said.
There are two main issues: religious and the common good or quality of life. Scripture teaches us that one day a week should be different—ideally no work. That was possible long ago but not now when many have to work to keep services going. When provoked, Jesus said,"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath". I believe that that implies that we should be sensible about work on Sunday, but not insensitive.
Another religious argument sometimes used is that opening on Sundays will discourage people from attending church. I am not sure that that is a strong argument. There are already many tempting alter-natives, and those who wish to go to church on Sundays will go to church, whether or not shops are open.
I believe that the Christian case for regulation rests mainly on the need to keep Sunday different while taking a sensible, balanced view in today's circumstances. That brings me to the questions: what is sensible? What is best for the common good of the people, of society? Broadly, the case for deregulation, for freedom to open, rests on the argument that consumers want it, the public want it, and the retailers should therefore provide it.

1367
I had an interesting conversation not long ago with the chief executive of a large retailing group which supports deregulation. He said,"We will sell more and that is good for customers and our shareholders, and shareholders are very important to us". That implies that those retailers would not open unless it was profitable for their shareholders despite consumer demand. So much for the consumer argument. Much of the increased profits, if profits are to be made on Sunday opening, will inevitably come from the small shops which will in time close. That attitude is revealing; and the opinion expressed by the chief executive to whom I spoke is shared by most retail supporters of deregulation.
It is relevant, too, that deregulation is an example of more individual freedom. In principle, greater freedom is good. But it has to be tempered by the restraints of public interest. We have speed limits. As I made clear earlier, we have planning regulations. There is evidence from other examples where we have greater freedom: the permissive society led to weaker discipline, easy divorce, abortion, and removal of censorship so that virtually anything goes. Can we be sure that such additional freedom; have contributed to the sum total of human happiness? I think not. Therefore we need to be very careful before taking the steps advocated in the Bill as now drafted.
The arguments against major change towards complete deregulation are strong. The feverish pace of life today gives little time for relaxation and quiet rest for those who seek it. If we have virtually complete deregulation our high streets on Sundays will have more cars and buses, and lorries delivering supplies, with consequent problems of traffic control and the like. That will greatly detract from the peace of Sunday for those who want it. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, just a matter of individual freedom. It is a question of the right amount of freedom taking account of the values and wishes of other people.
The loss of a regular, quiet day for worship, for relaxation with family and friends and for taking part in community activities is surely not something that we should advocate lightly. Surely the concept of deregulation providing extensive opportunity for family shopping outings is a very weak argument, particularly as in future the working week will be shorter and the weekday shopping hours longer.
As I indicated earlier, small local and village shops would suffer greatly by the increased competition. They are a vital part of community life for many people, in particular, those without cars, older, less mobile people and lone parents. It is also relevant—it has not been mentioned previously—that the "Continental" Sunday, permitting free opening, is a myth. Only one quarter of the European countries allow free opening on Sunday.
Another myth put about by the SHRC is that two—thirds of the public want deregulation. In fact what the two-thirds said was that the law should be changed to allow other shops to open on Sundays. That is a very different thing, for all the alternatives that we might propose would satisfy that.
The alternatives to complete deregulation will be discussed in detail in Committee. Suffice to say now that the law is unworkable and must be changed, but not
1368
necessarily to complete deregulation. There are satisfactory alternatives which provide fully adequate freedom to enjoy Sunday as a day of rest and relaxation while maintaining the value of Sunday as a special day. There are many supporters of such alternatives: Churches of all denominations, the Chief Rabbi—it was indicated in the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits—major unions, major retailers who have not broken the law, small and medium-sized retailers and voluntary youth bodies such as the British Youth Council, including the Young Conservatives.
Therefore I submit that we should be extremely careful before we change the law in the way that the Bill suggests. We should look most carefully and sympathetically at amendments at Committee stage in line with the RSAR and KSS compromise which provide a much better alternative than would be obtained by complete deregulation. I hope that we shall consider carefully those alternatives at Committee stage. I would support those carefully thought out proposals.
5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an important interest in the Bill. I chair the Shopping Hours Reform Council which, as your Lordships have heard this afternoon, gained substantial majorities for its option on a sensible compromise Bill in another place. Declaring my interest in it this afternoon is not only to observe the rules of procedure in your Lordships' House, but because the Shopping Hours Reform Council has often been wrongly caricatured—and it has been caricatured in that way this afternoon—as simply representing the big retailers, the supermarket bully boys. I wish to speak as an ordinary shopping consumer. My personal interest in the Bill is as an individual member of the shopping public. I chair the SHRC but I have no commercial investment in the successful reform of Sunday trading. The SHRC and its option for change have broad support.
Of course, many of the well-known retailers have played a crucial role in its campaign, but so have consumer associations and many individual members of the public; and recently—I think most significantly—so has USDAW, the shopworkers' trade union.
Perhaps I may expand a little on my personal reasons for supporting Sunday trading reform. I went shopping last Sunday and so did about 16 million other people. Many of them were probably women like me who had been juggling the commitments of a busy career and running a home. Others perhaps were families shopping on a day when they were free to go together, perhaps to choose something for their home or garden. Technically, as has been pointed out this afternoon, we were all breaking the law, colluding with the shopkeepers who "commit crimes" by opening their stores on Sunday.
It has been widely mentioned this afternoon that the Shops Act 1950 is anomalous. It seems that in your Lordships' House, perhaps with one or two respectable and well respected exceptions, there are few people who feel that the approach of the 1950 Act is sensible. The

1369
question is therefore not so much: "shall we change the law?" but "how shall we change it?" I think we face a stark choice: effective and lasting reform or modest tinkering; a modern law for a modern age or a re-hash of the current Sunday restrictions which are so patently out of step with most people's contemporary lives.
Other noble Baronesses who have spoken—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Dean—have mentioned the change in women's lives since 1950. That lies very much at the heart of the issue for me. Were I a full-time housewife with a well stocked freezer of home-made dishes and time to shop at my leisure, I might feel rather differently. But not many women of working age in 1994 live like that. As my noble friend Lady Dean said, since the Shops Act 1950 came into force, the number of married women under 60 working outside their homes has almost tripled from 26 per cent. to the current level of over 70 per cent. Those changes reflect the widening opportunities for women which probably represent the biggest social transformation in my adult lifetime.
I welcome that transformation; but we have to recognise that it has led to demands for other changes. Access to shops outside the traditional opening times is one of those changes because, again as my noble friend Lady Dean pointed out, one of the traditional roles which has not changed for women is that of the family shopper.
I have often heard the argument, and it has been made this afternoon, particularly in the context of the forthcoming deregulation legislation, that shops do not need to be open seven days a week because well organised women should be able to do their shopping in six. In my experience, male Members of Parliament are particularly vociferous on this subject. The implication of course is that if we women could get ourselves properly organised, there would be no need for an extra shopping day. I find that view extraordinarily patronising. In any case, it is not just the working women who want to see the law reformed; it is quite clear that most of the population supports Sunday trading.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who spoke before me, raised the question of the validity of opinion polls on this issue. One could argue that polls only tell you what the listener wants to hear. That is clearly debatable; but what one cannot deny is that if public opinion is one thing and debatable, public action—voting with the shopping trolley—is quite another. In 1994 a total of 28.8 million people shop regularly—that means at least once every four weeks—on a Sunday. That is not just public opinion; these are people who want the shops to open because they serve a real need.
Opponents of reform argue that the need is stoked up by the cunning greedy retailers. We are becoming, it is said, a nation of "shopaholics"—degenerate, mindless slaves with an insatiable compulsion to shop.
There is no doubt that some people find shopping a pleasure. Why not? I do not find that reprehensible, I do not find it socially destructive. But if I may say so in the privileged surroundings of your Lordships' House, I am certainly not one of them. I expect my retailing friends
1370
will find this difficult; but like many people, I shop from necessity, not from a shortage of other things to do. I do not think that my life is either disorganised or decadent because I shop on a Sunday. But it is certainly easier.
Of course, more choice and convenience for consumers has to be matched by choice and convenience for the people who work in the shops. I am a firm supporter of statutory protection for shop staff. I welcome the measures now included in the Bill to ensure that staff cannot be forced to work on Sundays. All the evidence shows that consumers like me do not want their shopping lives improved at the expense of the very people—and many of them are women, too—whose work would make improvement possible. They must be properly protected.
I hope that we will be looking at amendments in Committee to further strengthen the shopworker protection measures which have come to us from another place as my noble friend Lord McIntosh mentioned in opening the debate from this side of the House. However, it is worth noting, in this Second Reading debate, that USDAW, the shopworkers' union, stated after the debate on employees' protection in another place:
"Shop workers will be best served by the speedy passage of the Bill. To return to the Shops Act 1950 would cost shop workers their jobs".
I fully sympathise with those who have feared that shopping hours reform might lead to shopworkers' exploitation. But I am afraid that I have far less patience with the minority who threaten that some indefinable "special Sunday atmosphere" will disappear in the wake of the new laws.
For substantial periods of my adult life over the past 20 years I have lived in the United States, a country where far more people attend Church services on Sundays than in Britain, but where the supermarkets and department stores are regularly open. Nowadays, I spend most of my holidays in the far South-West of the Irish Republic—as remote and peaceful a community as any I know. But even in my tiny village, there the shops are always open immediately after Mass on Sundays—and very busy they are. Sunday trading has never been outlawed in Ireland (another country where the Church plays a more prominent role in most people's lives than it does here) but where the Church does not oppose its congregations both worshipping and shopping on Sundays.
Scotland has been mentioned several times this afternoon, and some noble Lords have reflected on whether Sunday trading in Scotland has improved lives for people who live there or has made life more difficult; whether it is popular in Scotland or unpopular. I think the way to look at Scotland is to turn the question on its head: what would happen if the Scots suddenly found themselves without the freedom to shop on Sunday? Do we really suppose that there would be some visible moral improvement? That the fabric of family life north of the Border would be noticeably enhanced? Would the Church attendance—which is anyway already higher in Scotland than in England and Wales—rise dramatically? Would the traditional values that we have heard about return? Would the Scots be better people for being

1371
told how to spend: heir day of rest and relaxation instead of being able to choose? I really do not think we can possibly make that case. What would simply happen is that Scottish consumers would be inconvenienced and people who depend on Sunday work would lose their jobs.
We need to ask the simple question: why cannot we have a similar system here? After all, I think all of us note the need for a different rhythm of life on one day of the week. But today, what makes Sunday special for most people is that it is the one day when they can choose their own activities. They can choose whether they wish to spend time with their family, or with their friends; they have time to wash the car; tidy the garden; go to the pub; or of course go to Church. I saw no change in that relaxed, different Sunday rhythm during the time that I lived in the United States; or during the time that I now spend in my holiday house in southern Ireland; or indeed, I have to say, in the past two years in my part of west London, where many small shops and some larger supermarkets now open their doors on Sundays. Sundays are different and special because most people do riot have to work on that day, not because the shops are closed.
Having said that, I recognise that some people hold deep reservations about Sunday opening. Unlike my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I do not favour a free-for-all with no restrictions at all on opening hours and no protection for shop workers—in other words, total deregulation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will permit me to interrupt. I certainly did not favour a free-for-all with no protection for shopworkers, as I am sure she would agree.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very glad to hear my noble friend correct me in that way. I think he would agree that total deregulation as it was previously understood had little shopworker protection in it. However, let us not quibble over that point. We certainly have a very substantive issue of agreement between us on the need for shopworker protection. But I do not want to see a situation in which there are no restrictions on opening hours. The issue that has been raised by several noble Lords about the question of small shops is met by the compromise position that SHRC have put forward. Many of the small shops would be able to open all day. They would be able to continue to serve their local communities; and there is no reason why that should be taken away. At the end of the day it will be the individual shops which can make that decision. But it will certainly not be a free-for-all. It will simply mean that the larger shops can open for only six hours and the smaller shops will retain their competitive advantage by opening all day.
This question is a simple one of not trying to turn the clock back. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, we may be opening a door and know not where we are going. But I believe that to vote for this Bill is to accept the changes that have already occurred in our society. My Lords, they are acceptable to another place; they are acceptable to the majority of the population. This is the way of life for most people in the 21st Century.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, because of a long-standing business engagement, it might be necessary for me to leave before the end of this debate. I apologise in advance, both to the Minister and to the House. I must also declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of two retail organisations. One is Tesco, which supports the option that has been agreed in the other place. The other is Sears, which is a bit more ambivalent about the matter. I have to say that my views on this issue are my own. They have evolved over many years, taking into account the changing social patterns that exist in this country and the needs resulting from those changing patterns.
Since we last debated this issue in this House in January 1992, much has changed. The current Bill has been presented in the other place and has undergone long-searching, in-depth, closest scrutiny. It has received a considerable degree of support. hope that your Lordships will give it equal support.
As many have already said, the current situation is totally untenable. A complete ban is not practicable: that is absolutely impossible. My preference would be for complete deregulation, rather like the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord McIntosh. I am amazed today, because that principle seems to have been much more generally agreed than I had been led to believe. However, I have been convinced over the past few months that the solution adopted by the other place is probably the better way, bearing in mind the general concerns, and the serious concerns of many sections of the population, not least of those who live close to trading estates and shops.
Many of the points which could, and did, cause concern have been dealt with in this Bill. Worker protection is now assured. In fact, there is a compact between USDAW and Asda, Boots, Safeway, Sainsbury, W. H. Smith, Tesco and others. That compact extends even beyond the provisions of the Bill that is now before us.
There has been a significant change in the attitude of USDAW in the past 12 months. The union has listened to and taken into account the views of its members. Together they are determined to do the best for their industry and to meet customer demand. There is a huge customer demand for shopping on Sunday. The union's support for the Bill is a reflection of the popularity of Sunday working by those employed in large supermarkets and DIY chains. Doubtless due to the fact that check-out operators are paid £ 8 per hour on Sunday, which is double the normal rate, Sunday working has become a very valuable addition to the income of many households. We must not disregard the wishes of supermarket employees. When USDAW convened a meeting of Tesco shop stewards to discuss Sunday trading, some 93 out of 96 voted in favour of Sunday opening and their right to work.
I should like to bring two facts before the House from the Tesco survey. First, when the company conducted independent professional market research to ascertain staff views,70 per cent. supported Sunday opening, and a further 24 per cent. did not have any strong views one

1373
way or the other. Secondly, every Sunday some 19,000 employees volunteer to work. Those staff want a change in Sunday trading legislation.
It is probably not a bad idea to mention that nobody will be forced to work on a Sunday. Certainly those who do work on Sunday will have time off during the week to compensate. There is no suggestion that by working on a Sunday the working hours of any employee will be extended.
On other areas of concern, I fear that there is quite a lot of misapprehension regarding the social and economic situation which now pertains in this country. Worries have been expressed about the probable erosion of the family unit as a result of Sunday trading. For a long time we have subscribed to the myth—I fear that it is a myth—that the ideal family of two adults plus 2.4 children is the norm. That family, so constituted, has long since vanished and now accounts for something like 20 per cent. of all households. Married couples with children (not the narrower category of two children) accounted for 52 per cent. of total households in 1960. Now, that figure has dropped to less than 40 per cent., which is of course a minority.
From my previous experience in the food industry, I can suggest that the traditional "family Sunday" has long since vanished. Roast beef Sunday lunches are the exception rather than the rule. Instead of behaving in the way that we think they behave, today's families are much more mobile. They are "out and about"; and shopping is one of the activities that they take part in together. A visit to a DIY or garden centre on a Sunday will convince one of that—so indeed will a visit to a supermarket. Shopping on a Sunday has become a family activity. That is one reason why I try to avoid it. Supermarkets cluttered up with kids is not my idea of efficient shopping. As for the concerns about those who do not have a car, very many supermarkets provide free bus transport services between their supermarkets and local centres of population. Much research has shown that the lonely (that is, those who live alone) enjoy going shopping. For some it is their only social contact. In 1961 some 3.9 per cent. of households in this country were single-person households. According to the latest edition of Social Trends, that percentage has now risen to 11.1 per cent., which is almost a quadrupling in the interim period. Freeing-up Sunday trading gives those people an outlet. We should not deprive them of it.
For a committed Christian, the religious argument should be the most difficult. But in my case it is not, and for two reasons. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, quoted a high figure of membership of Christian Churches. But sadly, active church membership in this country is only 15 per cent. Does the minority of 15 per cent. have the right to impose its view on the majority of 85 per cent? That is not democracy as we assess it. Secondly, those who have firm religious faith do not compartmentalise their prayer or their worship life into just one day of the week. God is for every day, not just for Sunday. It is no great hardship to attend church services at 8 a.m., long before the shops open. There will doubtless be many genuine concerns about the Bill.
1374
But we must accept that the rapidly changing social and economic scene in this country has resulted in a change in demand for shopping hours.
Much can be said about the pressures on wives and mothers who have employment outside the home. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in a very strong—indeed a marvellous—speech touched on that point. On many occasions it is just not possible to organise the domestic responsibilities so that Sunday can be spent in total relaxation and recreation—would that it were. Most of us know that the frenetic pace at which we live is fundamentally stressful. We do not want yet another stress-inducing issue, making sure that we get all the shopping done before Sunday. Just knowing that one can do it, if one needs to buy essentials on a Sunday acts as a pressure reliever.
We are told frequently that we must allow time and space to recharge our batteries and relax, otherwise, the ever increasing pace of life will catch up on us and damage our health and strength. Of course that is right. I guess that the person whom I most envy in life is my local vicar. Every time I read the church magazine and look through the diary for the week to see in black figures "Monday—vicar's day off', I feel that he is a lucky man. One day I shall emulate my vicar and have a day off. But it will not be a Sunday. There is something wonderfully refreshing and even slightly wicked about having a day off when the rest of the world is working. Those who are employed in shops on Sundays have that pleasure. I am sure that they do not want to relinquish it.
In an ideal world we would revert to the pre-world War Two days and stay cosseted in the comfort of our homes, going as a family to church and eating Sunday lunch together. But there must be very few among us who believe that such a situation is likely. The world has moved on and so must we. We must accept that there is a huge demand out there for relaxation of the current unsupportable position on shopping hours. I hope that this Bill will have a swift and smooth passage through your Lordships' House.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like first strenuously to deny the accusation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that I am a law-breaker. She said that last Sunday 16 million people went shopping and all of them broke the law. I was one of those people. I bought a newspaper, but I was not breaking the law. It is important that we should consider what we are discussing. We are not discussing whether all shops should be shut on Sunday, nor are we discussing a world in which the noble Baroness said—if I heard her rightly—that 28.8 million people shopped regularly on Sunday this year. I very much hope that she will send me the statistics on which that figure is based so that we can discuss them in Committee.
Having risen to the noble Baroness's juicy fly, I return to what I had intended to say some minutes after I came into the Chamber, which is not what I intended to say when I came into the Chamber. It seems to me that some of your Lordships are discussing this matter entirely as though it were a material and economic

1375
question. That includes my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Other noble Lords approach it as though it were an entirely spiritual matter, and that includes the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I believe that those who come in between are right. In fact, we are the physical creatures of a spiritual creator and this is an issue where the spiritual and the physical coincide. One has to consider both elements to get the right answer.
In a most interesting speech, which I shall read again with great interest. the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, took us through the Old Testament origins of the sabbath. He drew attention to an important aspect of human life which I believe that most noble Lords recognise, whatever their spiritual position or none; namely, that there i s a sort of hebdomadal cycle in life and at the end of six days one needs to rest and be refreshed. I accept the origins which the noble Lord gave us because we of the Christian Church have received them from his forefathers. But your Lordships will notice that the sabbath day was created on the last day of the week whereas Sunday occurs on the first day. The transition took place to celebrate the triumphant resurrection of our Lord and Saviour and the fact that He has made available to us all the same victory over death, if we choose to avail ourselves of the redemption that he offers.
I should like to see a perfect world in which we all—the whole of creation—were free to celebrate that marvellous fact on one day a week. In a somewhat less perfect world, most of us would either be doing that or persuading others to join them. But that is not attainable at the moment. Nor is it an argument likely to appeal to this House, the other place or to the electorate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, one therefore needs to look at the simple questions. What are the alternatives? One is total deregulation, to which both Chambers have now made clear they do not want to accede; one is the compromise that we now have; and another is the compromise which is rather closer to full regulation offered by Keep Sunday Special.
I opt for the latter. The simple question I ask is: why? Here we are on ground that can be shared by noble Lords, whatever our political persuasion or religious position. We need a cohesive society, whereas we have one that is fragmenting. We need a society in which people are careful and aware of the personal circumstances of their neighbours and friends, whereas we are decreasingly so aware. That depends on us not only having a seven day cycle of rest but as many of us as possible having it on the same day. One cannot get one's family together round the lunch table on a Sunday if three working members of the family have their day off on Tuesday and another on Wednesday. Nor can one's family be brought together for the same day from one end of greater London to the other in half a day. A day is needed for the travel, the reunion and the dispersal. That goes not only for families but for groups of friends. If you do not work at a friendship, you lose it; and not only do you lose the support of the friend but your friend loses your support.
So we need a society in which as many of us as possible share a day of rest. For obvious reasons I
1376
believe that that day should be Sunday. It already is Sunday and there are the spiritual reasons that I gave before.
It can be argued that we are discussing a day off for only a handful of people: those shopworkers who are not already working on Sundays. A great many already are working on Sunday because of the flagrant breaches of the law openly undertaken by numerous large commercial concerns, thus, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put it, bringing the law into disrepute. He said that if one sought to tell people what to do when there was no public interest in telling them what to do, one would fall rapidly behind public opinion and bring the law into disrepute. I think I remember the phrase correctly.
I differ from the noble Lord in believing that there is a public interest. I have already tried to describe it. It concerns not only those who work in shops on Sundays and in my view should not; it concerns also their friends and relations. It refers to the traffic wardens who will be required to keep the streets passable, to the cleansing departments who will have to keep the streets decent, to the police who will have to be on duty in extra numbers and to the people who will have to serve them. So we are looking at a much larger iceberg than the tip of it suggests.
I ask noble Lords to consider whether they can lightly turn aside the alternative offered by Keep Sunday Special, which was defeated, as my noble friend was kind enough to confirm at the end of his speech, by only 18 votes out of 520-something in another place. It is not a lost cause. It is a cause that was very nearly won in another place. I feel that your Lordships should put to the other place that they should think again, and load that suggestion with the arguments that your Lordships can put forward in Committee.
There is only one other point that I want to make, because I should like to appeal to as many people as possible to take that position. I merely wish to endorse what my noble friend Lady Young said in a powerful speech about the fragility, if not the almost non-existence, of the reassurance given to USDAW (the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers) as to the employment of people on Sunday. What can be put in a contract and what can he proved in a court are apt to be rather different. As my noble friend said, even if you have a contract with cast iron protection of your position if you refuse to work on a Sunday, you will not be the person who springs to mind for promotion. Also there is the question of the terms on which new employees can be taken on.
I ask anybody who reposes confidence in the undertakings of people, no matter how senior and how honourable, in the commercial world as to what their policy will be, to remember that those people will only last a certain time. The more senior they are, the less time they will be in a position to honour that undertaking and after that there is nothing but a memory to defend the unfortunate. This is a question of extremely great importance. I hope your Lordships will persuade the other place to think again.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, that speech is a hard act to follow. The other day I had the pleasure and the privilege to introduce into your Lordships' house a debate on a sustainable economy. That was based on the declaration of the Rio Conference that the world is going to have to settle for a sustainable economy rather than for continual growth. That implication was accepted by all the major nations of the world, including Her Majesty's Government. It means that the seemingly unstoppable stampede of industrialisation—of which the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, spoke—has already been halted and, indeed, is slightly in reverse. The noble Lord was right in saying that its tendency is to crush human rhythms. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was absolutely right to tell us that we must re-establish and keep those human rhythms.
I do not wish to be able to buy ripe strawberries during every hour of the 24 on every day of the 365. I may be eccentric but I do not want it; not for my friends and not for my children. I know perfectly well that my grandchildren will not have the option anyway, whatever happens. They will, I believe, have to live more in tune with the rhythms of the natural world as our parents did and as 150 years ago the whole population of the world did. In history the period in which we now live may be seen as an aberration.
It will be argued—and has been argued—that this is entirely a matter for the individual. I believe that to be nonsense. There is probably no more than one Member of your Lordships' House, if that, who really thinks that there is no such thing as "society". If certain options are to be available to the individual, they have to be provided by society. If we want one day of the week to be less stressed, more available for families to relax together, to be less polluted by traffic and easier in which to move around, we must do it corporately. As your Lordships know, I am a priest of the Church of England. But I must confess that I have no views as to whether the day of rest should be a Sunday, as Christians are used to; a Saturday, as most Jews observe; or a Friday, as Moslems prefer. If Parliament decided to call a plague on all our religions and settled for Woden's Day, I would be quite happy as long as there was one day available for everyone.
If I was arguing the Christian case as such, I might argue that this is the perfect case for saying that one cannot serve God and Mammon. As it is, I shall settle for arguing that one cannot serve civilisation and Mammon. And to those who raise the point of logic and complete consistency in the law, I would point out that civilised life has never been tidy and I would argue that, by definition, never could be. Of course we have to frame laws as best we can to avoid blatant injustices and inconsistencies. But there will always be inconsistencies and we have to live with them. I do not think that we necessarily have to deplore their existence.
I believe that we should opt for what is called the "Marks & Spencers" option—I am sure your Lordships know what I mean. I may say in passing that those who raise the idyllic picture of families shopping together must do their shopping with their eyes and ears closed.
1378
As someone who is rarely involved in the family, I obtain a lot of the ammunition which I need to argue that our families are disintegrating, from watching families in supermarkets on ordinary days shopping together, which they sometimes are.
I do not need to emphasise the spiritual vein because the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, did that; I do not need to emphasise the common sense, civilised and humane vein, because the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did that. I ask those who are tempted to vote for either deregulation or virtual deregulation to contemplate one matter: are you aware that you are voting for traffic wardens seven days a week?
5.36 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am delighted with the prospect that this may prove to be the final joust before we pull down the shutters altogether on this long-running shops saga. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is not in her place. I particularly wanted to pay her a tribute for her role in bringing about this happy development, though I am not sure whether her function was in the nature of maternity or midwifery.
For my money, the true mother—indeed I would almost say grandmother—of this great breakthrough since 1950 was the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. After all, it was her modest Motion in 1981 on the need to amend the Shops Act that initiated me into the mysteries of the schedules with their forbidden fruit. It was the reception in your Lordships' House that emboldened her, with the support of the Repeal Group, to produce a Private Member's repeal Bill. I brought it here today to display it in all its simplicity—a one-page, two-clause Bill which passed through this House on a free vote in all its stages in April 1982. The Chief Whip, the Lord Chancellor, the Leader of the House and all kinds of other Tory swells trooped through the Lobby of their own accord to support repeal.
Though the repeal was not pursued at that time, it was that event which led to the setting up of the Auld Committee in 1983–84, which recommended outright repeal with protection for existing employees who did not wish to become entangled in Sunday working. Following that report the Government courageously brought forth their own Bill for deregulation with protection for existing staff, which passed through this House in all its stages with minor amendment, despite spirited opposition by the Bishops' Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. But it was overturned in the Commons on Second Reading in April 1986.
We now have the great British compromise, which I regard as splitting the difference between good sense and nonsense. I regard the compromise as being unnecessary because today, with some slight exaggeration, everybody admits the anomalies; everybody acknowledges the impossibility of enforcement, and everybody has witnessed the wide consumer demand for family shopping on a Sunday. Today even USDAW is prepared to admit the truth, which it previously denied, that a return to the 1950 Act would severely reduce jobs.
What is the reason for this fantastic conversion in the past five or 10 years? Obviously the reason is good

1379
empiricism; it is the experience that we have had with the virtual abandonment of enforcement over recent years. We have found that de facto deregulation is acceptable. We have found that freedom actually works. Yet in place of the straightforward, one page, two clause Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, we now have 20 tortuous pages of tortured lawyers' English. I thought of the old couplet:
"0 what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive".
When we read through the Bill we find three pages on the meaning and treatment of large shops. We find three more pages of supplementary provisions, including forced entry by inspectors, and all the rest of it. We then find two pages on the certification of members of the Jewish religion. We have a page on the loading and unloading of vehicles. Then, I am afraid, we have eight pages of what I regard as verbiage on the protection of shopworkers who do not wish to work on Sunday. Does anyone suppose that shopworkers or independent retailers would really understand all of that detail? It is a tangled web, but where is the deception? The deception is that all the parliamentary draftsman's gobbledegook is really necessary, when we actually know people are queuing up to work on Sundays and forced working on Sundays is an extremely rare event that has caused very little outcry or difficulty.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the assurances advertised in the Sunday Shopper which the SHRC distributed do not amount to very much. They talk of an "historic agreement" with the union. They say that employers undertake to continue current premium rates. They say that they:
"will only deviate if there is a significant change in the circumstances in which retail work is rewarded".
They continue:
"Employers recognise that a premium will be required to attract sufficiently high quality employees".
Why then all this fuss? What we are seeing is that the market will itself make reasonable provision. The employers have put their name to an agreement which is governed by their ability to employ and to pay premium rates. They acknowledge that if circumstances were to change to make that difficult the matter would have to be looked at again.
We must acknowledge that it is inevitably the needs of a competitive market that will ultimately determine both the amount of employment and the premium rates that might be paid. We should not shrink from the notion of the market deciding, because the market is people. It is those people whom the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, tries to avoid on a Sunday if they have children. She goes elsewhere. Market forces are us going to shops and our friends, neighbours or relatives serving behind the counter at the same time.
I really am distressed that we should run to a 20-page statute with all this fine-sounding, empty nonsense about employee protection. I am not a lawyer, and that is a handicap in some respects, although when I asked two solicitors to ex plain some part of the schedules that I did not understand, they both withdrew and said that it was not their special subject. I did not try offering them a fee because I did not any longer have confidence in their answers. For my money, as a non-lawyer, I
1380
regard the whole of this as bringing the majesty of law into something approaching contempt. Law is defiled and belittled by this kind of free-range writing and scribbling on every feature of shopping that occurs to the parliamentary draftsman's mind.
What is it all for? It is to regulate the right: of ordinary people to go about on a Sunday of their choice to buy things from people who wish to sell things to them. There are two quite distinct issues that divide the openers from the closers. The first is the fundamental economic question which I phrase as being the choice between progress or security. It is whether we put flexibility before fixity; whether we put dynamism before stagnation; whether we put the future before the past; whether in fact we support the liberalism of a Conservative Government rather than the conservatism of the Labour and Bishops' Benches. The second question is a political question: whether we trust the people as free-choosing, responsible agents.
In my view the casual coercion still scattered throughout the Bill would be justified only to prevent a major national public evil. The Scottish experience reveals that there is no such justification, and therefore I look forward to joining the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others, with whom I have riot normally been seen in the Lobby, in supporting the total deregulation option and, as a fallback, the Government's half-way measure which I still think is a courageous effort by the present Government.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I have a long-standing interest in Sunday trading and I am pleased that at last a rational solution seems to be possible. Laws which are consistently ignored and patchily enforced lose credibility. As we all know, that fate befell the Sunday trading restrictions several years ago. Shops—large and small—open on Sundays. Shoppers use them in considerable numbers. Local authorities, with rare exceptions, turn a blind eye.
Society has changed radically since 1950. The workforce is now more evenly balanced between men and women. The conventional nine to five 'working day with one hour for lunch has become increasingly infrequent. Shops have responded to social change by altering their opening times and product ranges. We may well have mixed views about these changes—perhaps not all of which have been beneficial—but we cannot and must not pretend they have not taken place. In an age where the management of continuous change is a constant challenge to business and society, an age where the life cycle of a product can be as short as three months, we are still struggling to make sense of an Act which is 44 years old.
I have discussed and debated the central question on many occasions and in my experience it is hard to find defenders of the existing law. The rules applying to contemporary retailing need to be clear and fair. Consumers want access to a wider range of shops than the 1950 Act permits. And not least, local authorities whom we have entrusted to enforce the law want simple, clear-cut rules which can be upheld with the minimum of expense.

1381
The case for reform, as the Minister said, is unquestionable. Our energies should now be clearly focused on establishing a retail Act for the 1990s and beyond—an Act which is both relevant and credible. The decision taken in another place was that all shops should have the opportunity to open on Sundays but that stores over 3,000 square feet should be restricted to only six hours between 10 in the morning and six in the afternoon. There will be some who disagree with that decision. Certainly, some noble Lords feel that that goes too far. I myself would prefer a complete absence of regulation. That may of course suggest that the other place has probably got the balance about right. Before long, however, we too will be faced with a choice on the options for reform. We must choose whether to abide by the decision already taken in another place or to opt for a more liberal change, on the one hand, or for a more restrictive approach, on the other.
But consider the effects of the 3,000 square foot restriction clause. Tourist shops, particularly those supporting the income of historic houses, often exceed 3,000 square feet, and they would therefore be limited in their ability to contribute to the upkeep of their historic buildings. Large food stores claim a 5 to 7 per cent. turnover on Sunday, but for many businesses Sunday turnover is a staggering 25 to 40 per cent., representing the difference between success and failure. Such businesses include the DIY trade.
London Economics research, commissioned by the Government themselves, stressed that Sunday is the most important day for DIY shopping. DIY materials require a lot of space often greater than 3000 square feet. The other business which fits squarely into this category, and is perhaps the most traditional of all British leisure pursuits, is gardening. I am concerned that the interests of this particular sector of retailing with very special needs may not be met by this Bill.
Here I must declare an interest. I was a full-time working director of a garden centre for 19 years. My experience in this trade and the related leisure retailing industry confirms that it is the customer who has created the demand for leisure services on a Sunday and it is the customers who have ultimately indicated by their actions that more opening is required. A significant number of garden centres exceed the 3,000 square feet limit contained in the Bill as it came from the House of Commons. Garden centres in this position would be allowed to open for six hours only in the period between 10 o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening.
Gardening is a seasonal trade. Any gardener will confirm that spring, and to a lesser extent autumn, are the key planting periods of the year; the time when most work is done in the garden. Any garden centre operator can show that the spring months of March, April, May and June are the busy months of the year for the trade. Around three-quarters of an average garden centre's annual turn over takes place during those months; and Sunday accounts for approximately 40 per cent. of the weekly trade.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Is he aware that the RSAR option places no restriction on the size of garden centres which may open?
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the noble Baroness will see what I have to say about that in a moment. If restrictions on opening hours in the spring will cause problems for customers, by the same token it will be catastrophic for the survival of businesses. Let us remember that the modern garden centre is a sophisticated business, often made up of multiple franchises. In the case of my own garden centre and seven franchises that was certainly true. Between us we employed 40 people on a full and part-time basis on a Sunday. The spring months are crucial to the health of garden centres. Every hour of opening in this period is vital.
In all the years I have been involved with this issue, the Sunday opening of garden centres has never been a matter of controversy. Gardening is complementary to family life and Sunday traditions. Indeed, as I understand it, the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, which led the campaign against widespread Sunday trading, made all-day opening for garden centres a key part of its proposals. It argued, quite rightly in my view, that gardening was one of the country's most popular leisure activities; and Sunday is, of course, one of the most popular days for gardening. Indeed, people who work all week may well find Sunday is the only day they can be in the garden.
The opening of garden centres on Sunday—while not perhaps always strictly legal in every last detail—has always been widely accepted as a feature for many years. It is ironic that the Bill before us will represent what I consider to be a step forward for many retailers. But for some garden centres it will represent a step back—a step, I fear, into bankruptcy. I shall at a later stage be introducing amendments which reflect that view and I shall be asking your Lordships to give this particular case special attention.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am probably one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who has had the practical experience of working behind a shop counter and of attempting to comply with the idiosyncrasies of the Shops Act 1950.
As a dispensing chemist, Sunday was the day that sections of the shop had to be covered with green cloths so that customers could not see what they could not buy and staff would not inadvertently sell those items that were not permissible under the Act. We were repeatedly warned that the unknown customer might be a shops' inspector. It was a stupid and badly drawn up piece of legislation to operate. It is the operation of the legislation which I wish to concentrate on today.
There is no argument that the law needs changing, but the muddle of the past 40 years must not be repeated. I fear that the Keep Sunday Special Campaign proposals can only perpetuate that muddle. There would be uncertainty for shopkeepers and local authorities about who can and who cannot open. The inevitable problems with enforcement and the threat of more prolonged

1383
litigation will be a consequent disincentive for local authorities carrying out their statutory duties, leading once again to widely different enforcement practices across the country. Definitions of types of shops and lists of permitted goods inevitably bring in their wake anomalies and ambiguities. This option would allow some kinds of shop to open as convenience stores but not others. There would be difficulties in attempting to define the type of shop which presumably has to be based on the type of goods which that shop sells. That would take us straight back to the almost identical problems of the 1950 Act and its many anomalies.
The list of exemptions would be formidable. Every exemption would require a tight legal definition if it was not to result in expensive test cases to determine the precise meaning of such phrases as "wholly or mainly". We would be back to my chemist's shop of the 1950s selling "wholly or mainly" medicinal products and surgical appliances. The question would be: what is a surgical appliance? Does it include surgical instruments or apparatus that may be necessary to apply that medical product? What sense would be made of a restriction that permits a large pharmacist to sell antibiotics at any hour of the day yet prohibits the same pharmacist from also dispensing a box of paper hankies outside certain hours? It is a nonsense.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to DIY shops which carry an extensive range of goods from tools and materials to curtains and an assortment of electrical items. To allow large DIY stores to open as long as they sell only permitted goods would lead to immense confusion. A DIY store would be able to sell floor tiles, but riot carpets. So how would one define a carpet tile? Would it require case law to determine whether a carpet tile is a floor tile or a carpet or, similarly, whether a fire extinguisher, legally sold for use in the car, was actually being illegally used in the home? It seems to me to be a beanfeast for the legal profession but a dog's dinner for the consumer, the retailer and the local authority.
While Parliament will determine the legislation, it is the local authorities up and down the country that will have to enforce its provisions. Local authorities all want change, but they must have confidence that the law will be sufficiently robust to enable it to be enforced; that it will be easy to understand and police and that it will make entirely clear, without any ambiguity, those shops which are permitted to open and those which are not. That is why the local authority associations believe that the Bill before us today will command support from their relevant councils. The Association of District Councils only indicated its support after consultation with its individual authorities. A survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy concluded that the majority of local authorities favoured a deregulatory option on the grounds of ease of enforcement.
The CIPFA also looked at the impact of the Bill on local authority resources, identifying, as might be expected, that the cost of enforcement will relate largely to the complexity of the Bill—not an unimportant consideration when local authorities are facing continual budget cuts. In response to comments made earlier on the cost of partial or full deregulation of the
1384
extra services that might be required, the Association of County Councils is of the view that any additional cost will be only marginal.
There will, however, be considerable additional costs if the law continues to be based on restrictions. Those restrictions would involve local authority inspectors in a huge amount of work, as there is no commonsense basis to many of the exceptions. Local authorities have better things to do with their money and officer time than pursue small and large shops that might be breaking the law, checking not only on the size of the establishment but also on the "wholly or mainly" provisions and the stock being carried. While the Shopping Hours Reform Council option will require enforcement, it is the view of the local authorities that it will be considerably more straightforward. Local inspectors could ignore the vast majority of shops under 3,000 square feet, and as the stores have to put up a sign saying what their permitted hours are, the public are likely to report breaches which now carry a £ 50,000 fine for every Sunday that the law is broken. Not many shops will be inclined to break the law.
The ADC, in its response to the Bill, also welcomed the protection in Schedule 3 for those people who might be subject to disturbance from early morning deliveries, and expressed its willingness to work with retailers to develop good practice for the benefit of the residents. It is right that local authorities should only be able to give consent for deliveries before 9 a.m. after consultation with local residents.
Equally, it is right that the future of Sunday shopping should take into account the wishes of the shoppers and the shopworkers, and that means looking at the impact on the lives of women. It is women as consumers, employees, or both, who are most affected by the reforms. Since the 1950s their lives have changed considerably, and, as my noble friend Lady Jay so eloquently showed, they now take on an ever-increasing number of tasks.
It has been said that 70 per cent. of married women now work full or part-time. I was one of the 26 per cent. who worked in the 1950s. Even then it was difficult to find the time to do the shopping. I only wish that the shops had been open for me then on a Sunday. It is not surprising that a MORI poll in October last year showed that 83 per cent. of working women said that they would find Sunday shopping convenient, with 69 per cent. wanting to see more shops open on a Sunday.
Nearly two-thirds of retail sector workers are women, many of whom find it convenient to work on a Sunday rather than the alternative of trying to find work during the week. The latter can often mean working unsocial hours and having the difficult task of finding child care for the hours being worked. Many women prefer to go to work knowing that their children are together and being looked after by another member of the family, which would normally be the case on a Sunday.1 am worried about the restrictive proposals that would deny those women the right to have a job, as part of the estimated 170,000 jobs that would be put at risk by those proposals.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, none of the options would have been acceptable to me

1385
without the provision for all employees, present and future, whether on the shop floor, in the loading bay, or elsewhere, to have the statutory protection to work when and where they choose and to be confident that they will suffer no retribution for declining to work on a Sunday.
It is unfortunate that the provision for statutory premium pay is not included in the Bill, but I believe that it is fortunate for the workers that USDAW secured an agreement with the large retailers that they would continue to pay the current Sunday premium. As has been said, other amendments to protect workers will be tabled in Committee.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that there have been 29 unsuccessful attempts to reform the law. It seems that at last we have before us a Bill which provides an acceptable way forward for the majority. The consensus in favour must be unique. That involves a degree of compromise. Nevertheless, the consensus has the support of the trade unions and employees. Retailers and local authorities believe that the Bill is enforceable. It is accepted as being legally viable and will satisfy those many millions of consumers who have the Sunday shopping habit. It is a consensus to which I believe that your Lordships' House should give its support. This time we must have a conclusion.
6.5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I too am among those who are greatly encouraged that this House is to have the freedom to express its mind on the three basic options with regard to Sunday trading. That issue has now been discussed and debated for so long that I suspect that it is possible that we might all be beginning to suffer from what one might call "issue fatigue".
However, the issue of Sunday trading raises in my mind questions of a considerably more substantial and fundamental nature; namely, about the kind of persons we are, the nature of our society and what I might term "the spirit of our nation". There are, it is true, more specifically religious and Christian considerations of which I would not wish to lose sight. It is significant that the great faith traditions of the world, and certainly the Judeo-Christian tradition, have a built-in rhythm in which there is a regular time for rest, respite, and relaxation not only in an individual context, but in a community and social context. Here, I believe, is a principle which is not simply or only for religious or Christian persons, but for individuals and society as a whole: for our good and wellbeing; for our body, mind and spirit; for our cohesion—indeed, for our very sanity and survival.
There is no doubt whatever—and I agree—that the current legislation is entirely unsatisfactory. That is well recognised by all. However, that really is no excuse for the law to be flouted as it has been and, indeed, still is—and the Church is no exception. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that tomorrow morning I shall be making a clear inquiry of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral in that regard.
Only this last Sunday, driving out through central London and some of the suburbs there was the usual congestion of traffic at various points where such
1386
establishments were open. It was almost as bad as on any weekday. In fact, in some ways it was rather worse because at present the usual parking restrictions do not apply on Sundays. In the run-up to Christmas, the West End was well nigh impossible. Having lived in the West End and now in Westminster, I must say that the prospect of large shops being open every Sunday, even for the proposed six hours, fills me with considerable dismay. Walking about the streets of London on a Sunday, one can almost hear a sigh of relief from the streets and buildings themselves. Even the bricks and mortar celebrate their freedom and welcome the one day of comparative relief. The whole atmosphere is quite different. It becomes almost a pleasure to walk around the capital. There is no doubt that even such legislation as now comes to us from the other place will no longer allow that comparative peace, relaxation and renewal which we presently enjoy over the weekend.
I note also that Sundays particularly are the only day on which vital and necessary works can be carried out. Streets are often closed off, with roadways under repair. I foresee little respite from the traffic congestion of the rest of the week for those who do have to travel. In fact, it might become a good deal worse. In that connection, I noted from a report in the Financial Times towards the end of last year that the cross-party Association of District Councils has warned of the danger of Sunday trading increasing traffic congestion, which would force local authorities to levy the increased cost of traffic wardens on to the motorist through car park charges. There are also serious environmental factors to be considered.
Furthermore, the extension of retailing powers will inevitably push up the demand for public services, as has already been mentioned. I suspect that the needs and demands will become the same as on any other day. Have we really thought sufficiently carefully about the knock-on effects of seven-day trading?
The issue of Sunday trading is an example of where some commercial interests have not just acted unlawfully, but continue to act unlawfully and with little concern for the development of our social and community life. Certain stores have broken the law persistently, ultimately only in order to change the law. Indeed, the irony now is that I have seen posters which say that we should save Sunday shopping.
I am concerned too about the impact of Sunday trading on community life through its effect on families. Traditionally, Sunday has been a day for families; for recreation; for families to go out and enjoy time together; for the deepening of family relationships—a real being one with another, young with the old—and is best still characterised by the family meal (the Sunday lunch) which is certainly doing a roaring trade in these parts. It remains a highly popular, traditional feature of our Sundays.
Furthermore, Sunday trading has major implications for labour demands. That was borne in on me not so long ago when I visited a large shopping complex in outer London and saw the number of behind-the-scenes people—cleaners, administrators, security officers, car-park attendants and so on—which such establish-ments need and demand, quite properly, to enable and

1387
ensure shop-front service. Such demands are large indeed. We shall surely see more people being expected to work on Sundays or unable to resist the pressures upon them from their employers to work on Sundays. I am well aware that it is stated that employment protection will pre vent people from being exploited in that way, but I suggest that there are already cases where exploitation and discrimination are well documented.
Will employment protection really work, or shall we see an equally cavalier attitude to any such legislation as there presently is to the, albeit unsatisfactory, Shops Act? Our society cannot surely allow purely commercial interests to override or neglect the interests of the altogether wider community. Sunday trading is an example of where the choice and wishes of some should be restrained in pursuit of the greater good of all for the sake of our humanity and for the sake of our well-being as a society and a nation.
I hope that when the time comes for this House to express its mind i: will do so clearly and strongly in favour of the joint option from the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR, thus firmly ensuring the continuing traditional place of Sunday in our national life and heritage.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the Bill we are attempting again to meet the needs of three different groups of people. We are trying to meet the needs of those who wish to shop; those who wish to work; and those who wish to have nothing to do with the other two groups. It is almost an impossible task of course; but that is what the Bill is about because, as my noble friend the Minister said at the outset, life in Britain has changed. It has changed enormously over the past 30 years. There is no going back. There is no turning back the clock. The change is irreversible. Social life, family life and work life have changed. I believe that they will change again over the next 20 years. Whatever decision we come to over the next few weeks, I do not believe that it will remain in place for the 40 years that, with all its imperfections, the 1950 Act has.
From listening to nearly everyone who has spoken, there seems to be some idea that Sunday trading is driven by "big business". Nothing is further from the truth. Business is responding to the needs of people, properly expressed. It is trying to manage the change in work patterns and life styles. Why then did the employers happily agree to the arrangements made in the other place for the protection of workers? Because they are right and proper. That is part of the management of that change by business. That fact should be taken into account. Business is responding to that change.
When I have talked to representatives of some of the stores—big ones and smaller ones—they have said,"We are not going to open every Sunday, in such and such a location because we could not staff it. Anyway, there aren't any customers. We might do in such and such an area. We might look forward to additional business around Christmas".
1388
How about staffing? There is no lack of people to staff shops on a Sunday. There is a queue of people—part-time, some ladies, some men, some young people, and, surprisingly, some older people who may have taken early retirement or been made redundant. They have been happy to take seven, eight or 10 hours' work a week, and they provide much of the supervisory staff in such stores. There is no compulsion upon them to work. So there are no problems there. That they, and others, should be protected is right and proper because we have labour protection laws in our ordinary day-to-day business.
I suspect that the change that has occurred over the years, manifesting itself in Sunday trading, has provoked some fear in the minds of a number of people. There is a fear that some of the things that they hold dear will be destroyed totally and absolutely. I do not believe that is so. If you wish to protect your Sunday, you can do so. If you want to find that time in the week when the family gathers together, that is up to you. You can do it. When my children were in their early and later teens, I found that was almost impossible because of the various claims on their time such as sports activities, part-time jobs, and my own work. I used to work on Sundays to serve your Lordships. I ran petrol stations. I managed my string of petrol stations on a Sunday because my ordinary weekday staff did not want to work on Sundays. They managed it Monday to Saturdays while I did something else. I took my day off at a different time. There will always be some disruption in some families, but if one works hard enough one can find that time for reunion.
I must confess, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, and others, that my preferred option is total deregulation. It has been all along. It would prevent some of the anomalies that will occur. It would remove some of the monitoring and policing that will add cost and disruption. From what I gather not many of your Lordships have confessed to that preference; but if your Lordships cannot accept that proposition, we come to the other two. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Young, who supports the KSS/RASR proposition, is not in her place. She suggested that the SHRC compromise. was not a compromise but was deregulation by another name. How on earth can that be so with the firm restriction relating to the number of hours between certain times? There is a restriction, which is contrary to total deregulation.
If your Lordships cannot accept total deregulation, compromise is the better option. However, corn-promises always have detractions and problems. Some of the potential problems are those which we experienced in respect of the 1950 Act. There is no doubt that in our subsequent discussions we shall confuse ourselves about the real issues. My noble friend Lord Norrie suggested that he will table amendments to certain parts of the Bill and that will promote other noble Lords to do the same.
The longer the list of exemptions, the more difficulties there will be. Perhaps the best exemption will be that the stores, irrespective of size, which serve the emergency services, may trade. We must then, of course, define "emergency services". It may be the

1389
pharmacist, the garage repairer and parts supplier or whoever; but we shall have real problems in that respect.
We must take the best of what is available and look a little farther than the law. We must take the spirit of intent which will lie behind it. We must pass a Bill that will work and which for the next five, six or seven years people will be happy to obey because the law cannot be flouted. It may well be that we shall have to return to the subject on another day. I am not fearful of change, which is inevitable. We must grasp the change and take the opportunity to service the three groups of people which I defined. We can make the Bill work if we have the heart to do it.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I speak neither as a Christian nor a Jew. I was born a Hindu and for me there is no holy day in the week. The absence has not caused great spiritual loss to the nation. I am not a religious person but before dealing with the religious objections to the proposals I wish to declare openly that I shall follow the line of my noble friend Lord McIntosh and opt for deregulation. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am in favour of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
My mind is clear on the matter. I am in favour of deregulated free markets which involve commodities that have nothing special about them. When it comes to labour, I am for protection and for unions. When it comes to health, education or housing, I am willing to debate and to defend limits to the market. But when it comes to buying bananas or fresh milk, renting a video or changing money, I do not see why the market cannot be allowed to do what it does best, which is to meet consumer needs.
Much has been said about what will happen to small and large shops if there is complete deregulation. That opinion is based on a static view of what business is about. Some people believe that if large shops stay open all the time small shops will be hurt; that there is a fixed amount of business to be divided up and if one gets more the other gets less. That is a static view of the world. During the past 15 years shopping habits and shopping technology have changed. As many large shops as small shops have closed. I have data showing that in the food sector a larger percentage of multiple outlet shops closed compared with single outlet shops. However, more shops have opened in non-food outlets. Technology and habits change and if shops close that will be due as much to the influence of technology, taste and the wish of consumers as it is to legislation.
It was pointed out by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool that many people in this country do not own cars. As a result, the small corner shop will remain in business. Those people will shop at the corner store, as will many car owners who do not wish to travel further. During the past 10 or 15 years small shops have flourished. That is no surprise because many people who came from Uganda and Kenya were hard working and willing to work extra hours to keep the shops open. They were not bothered too much about a spiritual day of rest. Therefore, in our large cities—I have not lived
1390
in a village and do not know about them—many more small shops are open. They will survive because their location is convenient. Large shops may charge lower prices but people are willing to pay slightly more for the convenience of shopping locally. As an economist, I find that obvious—but perhaps that is why it is difficult for some people to grasp.
We must realise that shopping technology will change even more. Soon people will be able to shop by television and telephone and do more long distance shopping. Recently we have seen many more people travelling across the Channel to buy as much beer and wine as they want. That is a simple effect of the single market.
We must understand that people will change because they need to change. Their family size, working habits and preferences change. As secondary legislators, it is our duty to go with the grain of people's wishes provided it does not do any group any great harm. That should be the principle and from that point of view I see no great problem.
I am told that at present about 46 per cent. of food shops open on Sunday and about 35 per cent. of non-food outlets. If the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council are adopted those figures will rise to 60 per cent. of food shops and 40 per cent. of non-food shops. If total deregulation occurred not all shops will stay open because they cannot afford to. After all, they must make a profit and they will not stay open just because the law allows them to do so. London Economics, a consulting group, calculates that 76 per cent. of food shops will stay open as will 56 per cent. of non-food shops.
If the Keep Sunday Special Campaign were adopted,6 per cent. of food shops would stay open as would 5 per cent. of non-food shops. Therefore, the keep Sunday special option is not a status quo option; it is a drastic reform which imposes a greater restriction on the ability of people to shop.
I am not a very religious person and I have great difficulty in understanding the fact that because it was laid down in the scriptures that there should be a day of rest—for some it is Saturday and for others it is Sunday—on that day one is required or enjoined to do nothing whatever. One may drive a car or work in the garden. Indeed, women have to work in the house. It is not a day of rest for them. They have to cook, wash and look after the children. Therefore, it is not a day of rest for everybody. You can do anything but you cannot shop.
The Keep Sunday Special Campaign says that you shall not buy certain items but you can buy others. It says that your spirituality is not affected if you rent a video from a small shop but if you rent it from a large shop you have a problem. I fail to see the logic of the idea that somehow the act of shopping on a certain day is deeply and morally corrupt.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, adopted what I would call a consistent, logical position; namely, if you are going to be serious about it, be serious about it and do not do anything at all. I recall when I first came to London that I was walking in Golders Green towards dusk when someone came to me and asked me to switch

1391
on the lights in his home. I agreed to do that and he explained why it was necessary. I think that that is cheating, but I shall not go into that.
I do not believe that anyone puts forward seriously that we should return to such strict observances. Once a compromise is embarked upon it is extremely difficult to draw a clear line on principles. It is not as though the Church of England is anti-commercial. I know that the Church is not very good at handling its financial affairs and that it has made large losses, but it is not anti-commercial. Therefore, I do not see where the line should be drawn 2. S regards the day of rest.
It is said that some people may have to work on Sundays, but many people already do that. They do not work in large shops but they do work. The right way to look after people who do not wish to work on Sundays is by supporting and strengthening Schedule 4 so that anyone who does riot wish to work on a Sunday need not do so.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the most unusual people agree with each other on this subject. In this day and age I do not believe that it is possible to compel people to work if they do not wish to do so. I know that unions have been weakened during the past 10 years but I do not believe that we have reached that situation.
Bearing in mind what has been done in another place as regards the age of consent, I do not believe that compromise is always good. If a compromise is adopted, the problem will return to haunt us in another five years. I do not believe that we should worry whether a shop is 280 square metres or 279 square metres. Let us go for straight deregulation, as was advocated by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I came to the debate today with no particular feelings about the merits or otherwise of deregulation and Sunday trading. However, it strikes me that if 11 million,16 million or 28 million people—whatever the figure is—wish to shop on a Sunday and if there are people who are willing to serve them, then who are we to deny them?
In listening to the debate, I have become increasingly persuaded that in this regard, the horse is long gone and it is time that we shut the stable door firmly and let it get on with what it wants to do.
My reason for speaking is to raise one small but significant point which is of concern to those in the boating industry. It relates to exhibitions or, more precisely, to exhibition stands. Under the existing Shops Act, exemptions have been arranged with some local authorities in relation to Sunday trading. And that is certainly so in the case of large exhibition sites. Such arrangements will fall if the Bill is enacted.
If one looks at the exemptions in the current Bill, one sees no mention of exhibition stands, some of which are sufficiently large to fall into the category which will be restricted to limited opening hours if, as seems likely, the partial deregulation option is adopted. That seems to me to be an anomalous situation, and I wish to give notice that I shall return to the matter in Committee.
6.35 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, as most of what I was going to say has already been said, I shall not repeat it. I shall concentrate on one area which concerns me. Two weeks ago we had a debate in your Lordships' House about the future of family life in this country. Today we are faced with a Bill which could have a profound impact on the future of family life in this country. We have an opportunity to prove that the strong support for the family which was expressed in that debate was not merely empty rhetoric but rather a commitment to see legislation fashioned to support family life.
A former Prime Minister described the family as the,
"building block of society. It is a nursery, a school, a hospital, a leisure centre, a place of refuge and a place of rest".
The Prime Minister has also stressed his support for the family unit. He said:
"We must strengthen the family. Unless we do so, we will be faced with heart-rending social problems which no Government could possibly cure".
Of course, prevention is better than cure.
The family unit is important in cementing together society and in providing us with a value system and a sense of right and wrong. An understanding of morality needs to be taught and encouraged from the earliest years and the family unit is the place to begin.
We should consider very carefully the possible impact that deregulation of Sunday trading will have on an already damaged family life. Many good reasons can be put both for and against deregulation of Sunday trading. We have come through one of the hardest recessions that this country has seen for a long time and I am aware that commercial interests are keen to maintain and develop new markets. However, I am concerned that deregulation could prove to be just another nail in the coffin of the institution of the family.
It is common sense that if employees are placed in a position in which they must spend long hours away from their children at weekends, their family lives. may be damaged. There will be no time at which the family can go out together for the day, to go for a walk i n the park, to visit the country or to learn to relate to each other. If either parent must be at the shop working all day, then the family unit will be broken and time spent together with be lost.
Deregulation will not only affect the lives of families whose members work in shops; it will affect also those who have to work as a result of the increased commercial activities—employees of subsidiary com-panies, lorry drivers, dustmen, traffic wardens and many other categories of workers. Where there is only one parent in the first place, children will have to be placed with friends or minders and, again, important family time together will be lost.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the expression "latchkey kids". Those children have to return to empty homes as both parents are out at work. With deregulation will come an increase in the number of latchkey kids. Bearing in mind that a large percentage of crime is committed by teenagers, would it not be. good to make sure that a member of the family is around on a Sunday to prevent such trouble?

1393
As noble Lords will be aware, there are several studies which suggest that, where parents are absent, the community will suffer. It is known as the "parenting deficit". In 1979, a study was undertaken among doctors' wives which showed that weaker emotional bonds existed between those husbands and wives with reduced opportunities for time together. With more women than ever before being given the opportunity to work, the need for a mutual day off is all the more important. For some, working on Sunday is a necessity. As a surgeon, I appreciate the difficulties. However, for the thousands involved in high street commercial activity, there is no need to work on Sunday.
Some people argue that deregulation will give families the opportunity of going shopping together and that, therefore, deregulation will enhance family life. They describe it as if a child actually enjoys a trip to the shops as much as a kick-around in the park, a bicycle ride or a walk with the dog. What a strange idea. Some people regard shopping with the family as a type of medieval torture.
A survey in 1989 by the Harris Institute showed that there is not a great demand for shops to be open on a Sunday. People were asked what were the five most popular things to do on a Sunday. In first place, with a figure of 21 per cent., was spending time with husband/wife and children. In second place, with a figure of 15 per cent., was having a quiet day at home. In third place, with a figure of 12 per cent., was visiting relatives and in fourth place, with a figure of 11 per cent., was a day out. In fifth place, with a figure of 8 per cent., was going to church. Just I per cent.—they occupied 1lth position—said that they would like to go shopping on Sunday.
Some people argue that the concept of a family Sunday is rather old-fashioned and outdated. However, I suggest that a walk in Battersea Park may disillusion those who think so. For example, last Sunday, by 11 o'clock in the morning, the park was full of families enjoying a break from the activities of the week and relaxing together. Opinion polls have shown that the significance of Sunday as a family day should not be underestimated. A further study by the Harris Research Centre showed that 82 per cent. of adults eat Sunday lunch together as a family on a regular basis. Not surprisingly, over half the women surveyed agreed with the statement that,
"Sunday is just about the only day we eat together as a family and I would not want to lose that".
Moreover,91 per cent. of women interviewed agreed with the statement that,
"Sunday is a family day when you can give time and attention to those around you".
In addition,78 per cent. of women felt that,
"More than any other day. Sunday gives you time to spend with your husband".
With the divorce rate rising all the time, it seems both common sense and a good, statistically proven fact that there is a need for Sunday to be protected so that it can perform its vital function of giving time to family life.
A further argument of those who favour deregulation is that there will be no need for anyone to work on Sunday who does not want to do so. A number of
1394
much-publicised cases has shown that such employment protection does not work in practice, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool so clearly stated in his splendid speech which I do not think should have been criticised in the way it was.
It is always encouraging for me to hear the clear, unmistakable call from our spiritual leaders—namely, the bishops and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits—not to abandon the sabbath. I believe that the proposals of the Retailers for Shops Act Reform and the KSSC are a very sensible compromise.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, last night, I was sitting worrying about how to open my remarks today when I happened to switch on the television and watch ITV's "News at Ten". After viewing that depressing bulletin for half an hour, the problem was solved: the opening words fell naturally into place.
At a time when the incidence of murder, rape, burglary, vandalism, car theft, mugging, ram-raiding, joy-riding and every sort of violence and assault upon persons and property is at an all-time peak and in a week when a man has just been sentenced and convicted for raping his 13-month old—not 13 year-old—daughter and an 85 year-old lady walking to church in a quiet Dorset village was stabbed to death, here we all are gathered together solemnly to debate whether it should be a criminal offence, punishable by a massive fine, if Smith wants to purvey to Jones perfectly harmless and probably extremely useful and necessary goods outside a restricted window of time on a specific day of the week. Viewed from that perspective, it all seems rather odd.
I dare say that the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, among others, will agree with what I say. After all, we are not talking about goods and services which, while giving pleasure to millions, may nevertheless have some harmful side-effects; for example, tobacco, alcoholic drink, drugs, firearms or the provision of gambling facilities. No, we are talking about a varied range of goods and services which are beneficial and useful and which range from armchairs to doorknobs, to screwdrivers, light-bulbs, and floor polish; to pairs of jeans, pairs of tights, reference books, novels, sunglasses, and lamb chops; and—to pick up on something that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—fully-cooked tripe, or frozen chicken tikka.
Trade—that is to say, the interchange of goods and services—is a feature of all civilisations. Indeed, not only is it a feature, but it is also a prerequisite for the evolution of such civilisations. Trade is a consequence of specialisation and the division of labour. Without trade we would be no further advanced than the Australian aborigines. Therefore, it follows that, provided you exclude the narrow range of potentially slightly harmful goods to which I have already referred, trade ought to be restricted solely to the extent that it causes nuisance to others; in other words, when, and only when, the rights of buyers and sellers clash with the rights of others to enjoy a reasonably quiet life. When I talk about "nuisance", I mean something that can be

1395
measured objectively. Considerations such as religious sensibilities and the so-called public good are subjective.
Having once been in favour of total deregulation, I am now persuaded that the latter principle would be breached by total deregulation, which would cause too much nuisance to too many people. Therefore, the proposal for a six-hour limitation for the larger stores is, broadly, the right one. However, the proposal needs fine tuning: it should be made a little more restrictive in some respects and a little less restrictive in others. This is not only because of considerations of nuisance. Long before the extravagances of the common agricultural policy, most governments and electorates thought it right to subsidise modestly their farmers, partly for strategic considerations and partly in order to keep the countryside neat and attractive.
In other words, people generally were prepared to pay a little more for their food for reasons of amenity. The same considerations apply to small shopkeepers, whose disappearance would be regretted not only by elderly people and the immobile but by the public at large. To that extent I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although I would not go nearly so far as she suggested to protect the small shopkeeper.
It should be remembered that at present the playing field is not exactly level in that small retailers have to pay their wholesalers much more than large retailers because they do not qualify for large discounts. In order to give a little more protection to small shopkeepers and because of the nuisance aspect, I believe that the eight hour time frame within which large stores in urban areas would be able to open individually for six hours each is excessive. It might cause almost as much hustle and bustle and traffic congestion as the eight-and-a-half hour opening period on the average weekday.
Therefore, subject to two exceptions, I suggest that large stores should be permitted to open only between either 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. or 11 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. This would be easier to police and would, incidentally, fit in much better with the times of church services for those, whether shoppers or shopworkers, who want to attend. If that meant that a family setting out for a picnic on Sunday morning were obliged to buy their bread, cheese, tomatoes, fruit, and so on, at the local corner shop rather than a big supermarket, and that somebody who wanted to put up a shelf had to buy his Rawlplugs, screws and Polyfilla at a high street ironmonger rather than a big DIY store, all well and good if it keeps the small stores in business.
However, I suggest two exceptions to that tightening up. Garden centres were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, among others. Garden centres are nearly all situated out of town. By and large, they do not compete with small shops. I see no reason why they should not stay open for an extra hour or more in the evenings.
My other hobbyhorse is bookshops. What could be a more quintessentially suitable and seemly Sunday occupation than browsing in a bookshop? Yet as the proposal stands, a young person—or a not so young person—could spend the entire day browsing through racks of pornographic magazines in a newsagent or at a petrol filling station but be highly restricted in the time
1396
that could be spent in a respected and well-run bookshop reading rather more improving literature. I believe that that restriction could well go.
I apologise to your Lordships if I have introduced what may seem to be Committee stage arguments this evening, but I may be away for part of the Committee stage and this may therefore be my only opportunity to make these points.
6.52 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the way in which he introduced the Bill so clearly, so wittily and with such panache, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said.
There are three reasons why I am so pleased by the way in which he introduced the Bill and by the fact that the Bill comes before your Lordships now.
First, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend—as I believe everybody else speaking in the debate agrees—that the present law on Sunday trading needs reform. The Bill seeks to tackle the inadequacies in the present law and also to stop the dreadful law breaking which has been taking place and which brings the law, the Government and local authorities into such disrepute.
Secondly, I should like to comment briefly on a number of small provisions in the Bill. The first is Clause 3(1), on which my noble friend commented in his opening speech. That provision relates to the construction of certain leases and agreements which, if entered into before the coming into law of this Bill, would have meant that shops had to open whether or not the shopkeepers wished to do so. That is a very good example of the listening Government which we have today. I believe that solicitors pointed out the difficulties that could arise. I am glad that the Government took account of those problems and as a result introduced Clause 3 into the Bill. It is a very equitable and sensible provision.
I should also like to mention subparagraph (1) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, which has also been mentioned in the debate. It is very pleasing to your Lordships that another place introduced this provision for the maximum fine to be raised to £ 50,000. Here again another place listened to your Lordships. As the House will remember, on 17th January 1992 your Lordships approved at Second Reading the Sunday Trading (Amendment) Bill which raised the fine to £ 50,000. That Bill did not proceed because of the forthcoming election, but it was your Lordships' view that the fine should be increased to a maximum of £ 50,000. Therefore, it is very pleasing that another place agreed with us.
My primary objective is to see introduced into the Bill the joint option sponsored by the Keep Sunday Special campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. Indeed, the third reason why I am so pleased at the way in which the Bill has been prepared is that your Lordships have the option to vote for the same three options as were before the other place. I am pleased that it has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords that the joint option is a compromise. The other two options

1397
—total deregulation or the SHRC virtual deregulation proposal—are at one end of the spectrum of options, but this joint option means that we in the Keep Sunday Special campaign have moved a long way from where we stood in the past. That option is a compromise that we have agreed with the RSAR, and we have moved a long way in order to meet objections. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is the best option.
Of course there are disadvantages in compromise. There are disadvantages in having a law at all on the subject. I am sure that if there were no law of theft and nobody had to worry about what was stolen from anybody else life would be much simpler for those who have to enforce it. But, as has been very clearly pointed out, one man's freedom is another man's restriction. We believe that that option is a fair compromise.
In that option we have sought to tackle three objectives. First, we have tried to meet the reasonable needs of consumers on Sunday so that a wide range of shops will be permitted to open, providing for the recreational, emergency, social and travel needs of consumers. Secondly, there is the important objective of protecting vulnerable groups in society for whom Sunday provides the only respite from work, stress, environmental pollution, hassle and bustle. There are many vulnerable members of society and it is important that they are protected by the laws that we pass in Parliament. Thirdly, we have sought to protect small shops from unfair competition. Clearly it would be grossly unfair if the large superstores were permitted to open on Sundays while their competitors in the high street had to remain closed.
I should like to make one point in relation to surveys. A number of noble Lords have mentioned surveys which have conflicting results. In a survey the answer you receive depends on how the question is phrased. If, on the one hand, you ask the question,"Would you like all shops to be open on Sunday?" you will get one answer. On the other hand, if you introduce into the question some of the problems resulting from all the shops opening, you will receive a totally different answer. I said one day to an American that we were involved in the Sunday trading issue. He said,"Poor you. In the States we had Sunday trading brought on us and it meant a 10 per cent. increase in costs overall". If one asks the question,"Do you wish all shops to be able to open on Sundays if that means a 10 per cent. increase in costs?", one would receive a very big reduction in the affirmative answer.
It has been said that we ought to stick to the decision on the option that was made in another place. I believe very strongly that that is not a point of view which should commend itself to your Lordships. On the contrary, I believe that we should give another place the chance to think again about the option to be chosen. I have two main reasons for saying that. First, our option was narrowly defeated by 18 votes in another place on 8th December, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in the opening discussion. Since that date, the Government have published a Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which was given its Second Reading in another place on 8th January. Clause 17 of that Bill removes all existing
1398
restrictions on opening hours for shops from Monday to Saturday. I wonder how many Members in another place would have changed their vote if they had known that that deregulation Bill was in the process of coming before them. Secondly, a number of Members in another place voted for the SHRC option expecting there to be stronger protection for employees and enforceable rights for premium payments for those who work on Sundays. For those reasons, I have no hesitation in voting for our option and for recommending that your Lordships pass it. We look forward to fighting that battle on another day.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity provided by the Bill to reform the law on Sunday trading. For my part, I agree with those who consider that the so-called compromise solution proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, which now forms Schedule 1 of the Bill, is not a compromise. In practice, its commercial, social and environmental effects will be no different from the total deregulation which I opposed when we last debated the subject eight years ago. In my view, the proposal for a six-hour trading limit, far from being a response to overwhelming public demand, is in reality simply the period that certain large stores—they have already shown their contempt for the law by flouting it—believe that the Sunday market will bear. From such a base it would be a small step to undifferentiated seven-day shopping.
I share the view that increased Sunday trading will not make the retail cake any bigger. If those who work on Sunday are to be properly compensated there will be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, argued, seven days of costs for six days of trading. For the customer that means either higher prices or a reduced quality of service; or both.
It is said that deregulation will offer more choice. I fear that by hastening the closure of small shops it will reduce choice for thousands of elderly and disabled people, and for those without cars, who depend on local shops. Apart from ethical considerations, like a number of other noble Lords who have spoken I further believe that we all stand to benefit from the natural cycle which in every week provides for a day's break for rest and recreation. Moreover, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that so far as possible it is better that there should continue to be a common day of rest with all its attendant benefits for the family and the wider community. Now that it has come to the crunch, I cannot subscribe to what I regard as an unacceptable devaluation of the traditional English Sunday in the Bill as it stands.
I should like to offer one or two comments on the subject of employment rights. Under Schedule 4 to the Bill both present and prospective employees will have the right not to suffer detriment for refusing to work on Sundays. That sounds fine. But to prove what is the real reason for not being employed, or promoted, is what will count. For that to be accomplished without legal aid, and before an industrial tribunal, it will take months to produce some small recompense. The only way now

1399
open to us to ensure true employment protection is to prevent shops above a certain size from opening on any except the four Sundays before Christmas, as advocated in the option put forward by the Retailers for Shops Act Reform.
I would much rather that there was no additional retailing even on those days. But we have to legislate for the world as it is. The option which I advocate, although it cannot be defended in principle, in my view represents a realistic compromise on which I hope we could build a consensus. On the basis of the small majority who voted against it in another place, and the introduction of the deregulation Bill after that vote was taken, we might even persuade Members in another place to think again.
The same arguments apply to the question of premium pay—or pay for abnormal time as it was called when long ago I bore some responsibility for negotiating such payments. Of course, people who work on Sundays should be properly compensated for so doing. But I fear that once the large stores willingly or reluctantly, in order to preserve their market share, are open for six hours it will not be long before, first, smaller shops and then other businesses in the high street, follow suit. If that happens, and Sunday becomes just like any other day, why should work on Sunday any longer be regarded as abnormal, thus warranting premium pay? Again, the only way to make sure that that situation does not arise is to support the RSAR/KSS option. If it is possible for me to be present at the start of the Committee stage I shall certainly vote for the amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which will enable me to support that option.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, perhaps I, too" may start by thanking my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his clear and impartial introduction of the Bill, and of the procedures which will follow today's debate. I must declare an interest as a director of Sainsburys. Sainsburys supports the Shopping Hours Reform Council whose position has been so excellently presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. It is most fortunate that my personal views on Sunday trading coincide with those of SHRC. Through my connections with retailing, I am especially aware of the problems which the anomalies in the existing law have caused. There is no doubt that the law needs to be brought up to date. The option for partial deregulation, chosen by the House of Commons in a free vote, is both sensible and has wide public support. I do not wish to say any more about the choice of options at this stage as it is the subject of later discussion. Speaking at this point in the debate, I shall repeat some of the comments made by previous speakers, but I hope that they will bear repetition.
Since the failed Shops Bill of 1985, considerable change has taken place on several fronts. Disposable incomes have increased, so has car ownership. The growth of edge-of-town and out-of-town supermarkets and other retail outlets has been remarkable. At the same time, people have had the opportunity to find out whether they like shopping on Sunday. The overwhelm-ing evidence is that they do.
1400
Opinion polls—at least the ones that I consulted—show that two-thirds of the population support Sunday shopping. In practice, about half the population now shop regularly on Sundays. Each Sunday millions of people visit a wide variety of retail outlets, including car boot sales, antique and craft fairs, garden centres, DIY stores and many small shops as well as supermarkets.
Before the advent of the modern supermarket, meeting the daily household shopping needs fell largely to the housewife. In many instances she could only buy what she could carry and for any but the smallest urban household that would mean going to the shops or market nearly every day. Today, most household shopping lists will still be written by women, but I suggest that a visit to the supermarket has become much more of a family outing. Members of my family who would not have dreamt of going on a shopping expedition in the past now not only volunteer but enjoy themselves when they get there. Of course, the Saturday morning family visit to the high street for comparative shopping for non-consumables has always been the tradition, certainly where I live in the north of England.
We have an opportunity through the Bill before us to regularise the extension of that family experience to Sunday. By presenting Parliament with a choice of options, the Government have provided an opportunity for a consensus to be reached which not only recognises legitimate concerns but also responds to the interests of customers, workers and retailers.
During its progress through the Committee stage in the House of Commons, the Bill received few amendments and those made were minor. The question of employment protection was widely debated but the provision for statutory premium pay did not receive majority support. However, since then the deputy general secretary of USDAW has reached an agreement with major retailers on a range of employment protection measures which go beyond those contained in the Bill. The measures include a commitment to continue to pay premium rates of pay for Sunday working.
More than half the nation's workforce are women and almost three-quarters of married women now work. Similar comments were made earlier. Not surprisingly, Sunday opening is strongly supported by working women on two counts: first, because they wish to retain the right to choose whether or not to work on Sundays and the Bill protects their right not to work; and, secondly, because for many working women Sunday opening provides an opportunity to shop enjoyably and at leisure rather than in an exhausted rush at the end of the working day.
The Bill provides an excellent basis for a reform of the law which would be both practical and popular. I strongly support it.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, perhaps I should state the conclusion of my speech before I start. I am opposed to total deregulation. The SHRC proposals are embodied in the Bill as it has come from the other place, ably defended by my noble friend Lady Jay, and I have yet to be persuaded that that falls short

1401
of the degree of deregulation which is our objective. Perhaps I should say why I am opposed to complete deregulation.
My first reason for opposing it has to do with the difficult but nevertheless important idea about what seems to be a continual privatisation of public and collective values. We have seen the gradual erosion of the idea that we as a society can collectively endorse certain kinds of values and in their place the issue is put entirely in terms of individual choice. The values that we have are the values that we choose, and that is all there is to it. The economic market is the best exemplar of that. After all, the market is an institutional embodiment of subjectivism about values. The value of something is determined by preference in a market. Thus I am worried about the idea—and Sunday trading is only one small part of it—that we can have a gradual erosion of collective common values in our society.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has just entered the Chamber. The institute ably headed by him has had second thoughts about those issues. It has recently published a range of interesting pamphlets on the moral foundations of market institutions and civic capitalism. There is the idea that markets have to be embedded in a set of collectively endorsed moral values. We have no experience of running societies in which there is no collective agreement about values.
In my youth I used to believe that the liberal state should be neutral between conceptions of the good and therefore the framework of law should facilitate the opportunity for each individual to pursue whatever he or she valued in their own way. In a sense, the deregulation of Sunday trading would be consistent with the idea that the state should be neutral between different ideas of the good, and between different values.
However, I am less convinced now of the feasibility of that idea. I believe that social and public policy has to be underpinned by values. I see the total deregulation of Sunday trading as an abandonment of the idea that we can share, endorse collective values and hold up to ourselves as a society not just one but various ideas of what might consist of a worthwhile life. I am worried about the consequences of that because we have no experience of running a society, particularly a market-based society, in which the moral underpinnings of the market, the moral inheritance on which the market has traded is continually being eroded. I am worried about the country.
We must also look at the impact of the erosion of collective values on private values. I have never been able to understand the idea that morality is entirely a matter for private life and that there are standards in private life but we cannot have collective moral values. I believe that that does not work. My own party has a strong belief, for example, in the value of the community and social justice. Those are collective values. If we persist in going down the road that we must always reduce values to individual choice and preference, then our own distinctive moral values as a political party—and the Conservative party too has emphasised throughout its history the idea of
1402
community—those values will not exist for us to build on when we need them. I believe we shall need them in the future.
That is a rather arcane theoretical worry; but, nevertheless, it is real. We can only learn individual responsibility and individual values if we live in a community in which there is a community sense of responsibility. We must believe that we are responsible for the outcomes of markets; they are not just matters of individual choice. We must learn individual responsibility and individual values in the context of community values and a sense of community responsibility. The social values that are threatened by total deregulation are those of community and social justice.
I do not share the confidence of my noble friend Lord Desai that small shops will flourish as a result of total deregulation because if there is a demand, the market will meet it. I believe that those shops exist on small profit margins and if those who are mobile are able to use their cars to go into towns, it will divert enough potential consumers away from small shops to put them at risk. My mother lives in a small village in north Lincolnshire. Those villages which I visit when I go there would be marooned without the local shop.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that we have to look at the economy in a dynamic and not a static way. But it seems to me that if sufficient numbers of potential consumers are diverted into shopping in large shops which are deregulated, then small shops are likely to suffer.
I am also worried about the impact of deregulation on social justice. I do not regard the existing protection outlined in the Bill as adequate. The local shop also has an impact on the community. It also has an impact on social justice; those without cars may well be at the highest degree of disadvantage.
My second reason for opposing total deregulation—as I said, I need convincing about the proposal outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—is, paradoxically, on grounds of liberty. After all, if one reads the greatest text in English on the nature of liberty, that of John Stuart Mill, there is an argument for restricting liberty if it harmfully affects the interests of others. There are cases—I have tried to outline two or three of them—where total deregulation would harmfully affect the interests of others: for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, of those who live close to such large stores. Their whole life would be dominated by shopping, traffic, and so forth. It would have a harmful effect on those people's interests. It is a position perfectly consistent with liberalism to say that liberty can be restricted in terms of some judgment about the harmful effects of action to people's interests. I disagree with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there must be a wholly objective measure. I do not believe that it is possible to produce an objective measure. It is the job of politicians to conjecture what might be; to put forward a defensible account of harm to interest; and write that into legislation and hope that it is acceptable.
Equally, I do not believe that we can say, as many economic liberals do, that if the effect of deregulation is that shops are driven out of business and those harmful

1403
effects do occur, then we are not responsible for them. The argument of the economic liberals is: we can be responsible only for what we do intentionally. Of course, the outcomes of markets, such as the effect on small shops, are not "intended" by anyone. They may in fact be deplored by people. But, it is said, because we did not intend it, we are not responsible for it; it is not an injustice that it has happened. That seems to me to be an absurd argument—despite its having emanated from the pen of the eminent economist, Friedrich Hayek.
The reason why it is absurd is that we are responsible for what we can foresee. It is the job of political chambers such as this one to make guesses about what we can foresee. What I can foresee, and others who support the less than total deregulation line, is a certain range of harmful effects, to obviate which we must put forms of protection in place. That is why I am against total deregulation. I am not sure at the moment, as between the two other alternatives, exactly which I would prefer. As I have tried to argue in this House before, there is a case for looking for what I call the overlapping consensus. I am not sure which of the two proposals I would regard as producing the overlapping consensus. At the moment, I have still to be convinced by those who think that the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, embodies the best compromise between the range of options that are available.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am mindful of the fact that your Lordships must by now have reached saturation point. Therefore I shall put forward just a few very personal thoughts. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that today is the International Day of Women. I speak as the founder member of the Working Women for Sunday Shopping group.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I do remember 1950. I remember 1951,1952 and the years when I was a student here. And I remember the Sundays then. They were indeed special—but not for a young person. They were days when we wondered what we were going to do, and how we were going to fill our time. We were not providing then for a family and there was very little to do, at least in London. I do not know about the rest of the country, but I would assume that there was even less to do.
I became a wife and mother in the middle to late 1950s. It was a time when the shops used to shut very firmly at 1 o'clock on Saturdays. If you had forgotten something, you would not be able to get it. The worst of all times was when a long holiday was coming and you had to plan ahead, order your bread and make sure that you had enough of everything. It was difficult to keep food. As has been pointed out, we did not have fridges and freezers. You had to buy bread on Saturday before the shops shut. If you did not buy it then, you had had it. You had to order it, and if you did not get there by a certain time it was sold to the next person in line. Some of us do remember the problems of shopping in those days, and it is not with a great deal of pleasure.
What amazes me nowadays is that when you go to the shops before Christmas, everybody is buying everything as if the shops are going to shut. They do not shut any
1404
more. All sorts of shops are open. There is no need any more to prepare for a siege. But the mentality still continues, which is quite surprising.
These days, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Dean, I too find that I am constantly juggling with my time and trying to match up all the different responsibilities: to get the shopping done; to get the work done; to go to meetings. How is it that people want us to come and speak at meetings on Sundays? Why do they not keep Sunday special, and not ask us to attend conferences and meetings all over the place? If they could keep those matters out of Sundays, then we would not need all this flexibility and choice about shopping.
It is interesting also that many noble Lords—gentlemen, I might say—have spoken about family values and keeping Sunday special. My memories as a woman of the days when we kept Sunday special are of getting up in the morning, getting everybody's breakfast and then cooking the Sunday lunch. I learnt to make Yorkshire pudding because my husband is from Yorkshire—in fact, I had to work jolly hard all day on Sunday so that the rest of my family (whom I adore and love dearly) could have a special day. Could that have something to do with the fact that so few noble Baronesses have spoken eloquently about keeping Sunday special, while so many of the gentlemen remember Sunday as a very special day? We did not object because our lives were tied into that process. But now life has opened out, and many women are in the position where they do all sorts of things outside such tasks as cooking the Sunday lunch. They need choice and flexibility. For that reason I support the Shopping Hours Reform Council option.
It has been said that some people see shopping as a leisure activity and that families will troop to the supermarket when it opens. I do not believe that that will happen. I do not think that all families will troop to the supermarket as an outing. I believe that they will still prefer to go to the park, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord McColl. What will happen is that if there are very young children, then women will leave those children with their husbands and quickly do their shopping if they have not been able to do it at some other time; or the husbands will go and do the shopping, and then they will go out to the park; or before that, they will go to church. I do not believe that shopping will stop people doing the things that they really like doing. The only time that I like shopping is when I am in another country. I am sure that there are many noble Baronesses here who feel the same way. There it is a leisure activity and part of the enjoyment of being in another country.
I was very concerned that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool should see shopping as a threat to family life. Regrettably, it is an essential part of family life. I do not think that any families can survive without somebody doing the shopping. In the United States the shops are open and the churches are full. Maybe it is time to go and see what recipe they can provide for keeping their churches full.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, spoke very eloquently. Perhaps he is hankering after a golden age.

1405
From time to time I hanker after a golden age but I am not sure that stopping shops from opening on Sunday will bring back such a time.
A great many people now work on Sunday in rotation but they are unseen. Some of the essential services are visible. We see policemen, firemen and all kinds of people who provide us with essential services. They all work on Sundays. But we do not see many other people who make our lives possible by working on a Sunday. We take them for granted. We say that it is all right for such people to work but that nobody should work in a shop. I do not know whether that is justifiable or whether it is hypocritical.
There has been much anxiety over small shops. I should be absolutely devastated if my small shop closed. I can tell noble Lords what will close it. It will not be the big supermarket which opens on Sunday; it will be the big petrol station which has just opened a huge shop 500 yards from my door. That is the threat to my small shop. It is not the supermarket which will open on Sunday that poses the threat. We shall be able to walk down to our petrol stations and buy whatever we want. They are getting bigger and bigger. They are the real threat to the small shops. The small shops need to survive for the sake of all of us and if they are to survive, they should start thinking of service.
When I first came to the area in which I live, the small shops there would deliver. They do not deliver now. Delivery is not heard of. But, given the unemployment now in the country perhaps one could think about the delivery of goods. I am sure that people, especially working women, would pay extra for delivery if the small shops started to offer that service. I hope that small shops will also think about new and innovative practices to make themselves more viable.
People who do not have cars will shop at small shops. Even if the supermarket is open on Sunday, they will not be enabled to go there. Such people still cannot get to the supermarket. If they were able to get there they might do so during the week in any case. I am not sure that the argument is not some kind of a red herring.
Women as much as men are in favour of family life, perhaps more so because we are the fulcrum of family life. We know it. No matter how much equality is achieved, if women do not make the family work, then the family will not survive. But women's lives have changed so much that they need the flexibility of being able to shop on whichever day they have the time in order to find more time to devote to the family. It is choice and flexibility that we are after. We need it very badly. I hope that when the time comes the House will support the Shopping Hours Reform Council option.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, although noble Lords are not supposed to use foreign languages in your Lordships' House I have a strong feeling of dê já vu this evening, having spoken on the Second Reading of the Shops Bill on 2nd December 1985, as did many of today's speakers. That was eight years ago and what was proposed was total deregulation. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing forward originally a
1406
uniquely structured Bill embodying three options; to put it crudely, the two opposite ends of the Sunday trading spectrum and something in between.
In general terms I support the "something in between" and more specifically the RSAR proposal, which in shorthand is gardening and DIY centres and shops under 3,000 square feet open, unregulated, and the rest open for the four Sundays before Christmas.
The pace of life and its accompanying stresses increase daily. I am told that between the two world wars Prime Minister Baldwin used to go on holiday for six weeks in the summer and not read a newspaper throughout that time. Now, after an arduous multinational tour, his successors are expected to speak definitively to the media from the steps of their homecoming aircraft. I think it vital for theological, family life and human resource reasons that one day of the week—Sunday—should be different from the rest. Many of us, in an increasingly irreligious age, still need it for prayer. But I suggest that we all need it to recharge batteries, whether with or without family.
I am minded of the story of the English explorer in Africa in the last century who force-marched through the jungle for 14 days, at the end of which his head porter approached him and said,"Sir, we need a day's rest." Asked why, the man replied,"To let our souls catch up with our bodies." There is much to ponder on in that. I might add that when I ask friends who have returned from holiday in southern Ireland what they enjoyed most, before naming specific attractions they almost all quote the slow and relaxed pace of life. We all need one day off in the week—not necessarily for idleness. We may be rather busy but we need it for variety, which, after all, is the spice of life.
A particular section of the community which needs that time is the family with young and teenage children. We all complain bitterly about the seemingly inexorable rise of teenage crime and the general mayhem which some teenagers cause. Most of us say that it is the duty of their parents to bring them up properly. In my direct experience, Sunday is the one day of the week when most families are together, with all that that implies for love, support, organisation and, to the point of my theme, discipline. The focus is the Sunday meal, whatever it may be and wherever it may take place. Part or full-time employment of one or both parents on Sunday is usually undertaken to earn more money to pay for things which might be better not bought in the first place. It may be a case of wrong priorities. But there is an element of greed in all of us.
The togetherness of the Sunday meal is particularly important to parents who are in full-time employment during the week, and perhaps Saturday too. The Employment Gazette indicates that there were some 21 million full-time employed men and women in Britain at the end of 1993. It is perhaps also very significant in the context of the family that only yesterday it was widely reported on the news services that a parents' forum had asked the Secretary of State for Education to include lessons at school for parents on how to bring up a family. Might a good start be to keep Sunday as a special family day?

1407
In considering the RSAR proposal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, on what seems like the day before yesterday, it is crucial to bear in mind a factor which is both recent and quite absent from the 1985 proposals; namely, the deregulation Bill. The effect of the Bill will be to allow complete deregulation of trading hours to all shops—I have in mind particularly grocery retail outlets—from Monday to Saturday. There is therefore no reason why the Sainsbury's and Tesco's of this world should not soon stay open until, say,11 p.m. on some or indeed all days of the week, if motivated so to do.
I cannot believe that with the new found freedom to open from, say,8.30 a.m. to a very late hour, the needs of shoppers (including shift workers) on the one hand and retailers, who sell their goods, on the other cannot be adequately met. That includes those with young children who cannot easily be left at home. Indeed, on that important point, my personal experience is that most parents now take their young children shopping with them, to their great enjoyment since, apart from producing a certain happy element of variety and chaos to the rather dull routine of shopping, they usually manage, unseen, to insert a favourite item or two into the trolley.
I should like to address the matter of part-time shop workers. The SHRC, in its somewhat polemical February/March 1994 issue of Sunday Shopper, states that,
"more than 170,000 people would lose their Sunday jobs were the House of Commons to accept Keep Sunday Special Campaign's latest cynical amendments to the Sunday Trading Bill".
As I said, I support the RSAR proposals, which are less rigorous. But I suppose that a fairly large proportion of that 170,000 figure—perhaps 150,000—would be affected; less than the total 170,000 because of the freedom to open all sub-3,000 square feet shops, garden and DIY centres. But those people all obtained their jobs illegally under the present law. By analogy perhaps I may mention the burglar. Suppose he commits, say,50 burglaries without being caught. If he then beseeched your Lordships to protect his employment I suggest your Lordships would be outraged. While, of course, never for a moment associating the baser criminal aspects of burglary with the civil offence of Sunday trading, from a strictly dry as dust legal point of view the two cases have elements in common: they are both illegal.
Thus we are asked by supporters of the SHRC option—that is, opening for six hours between 10 and 6—to cherish the illegally obtained part-time work of some 150,000 at the expense of the peace, tranquillity and freedom from traffic and crowds of the 21 million in full-time employment. That is a ratio of 0.007 to one, or 0.7 per cent. Is it really reasonable to expect the employment of less than 1 per cent. of the population to radically affect the lives of the remaining 99 per cent. plus? It seems to me that the tail is very much being asked to wag the dog.
I have not been convinced by anything I have seen that the viability of shops would be threatened by the RSAR proposals. Indeed, I do not see evidence of increased turnover, let alone profitability, through
1408
Sunday trading. Although trading may spread over seven days, there are significant costs to Sunday trading such as premium wages, lighting and policing of traffic congestion. It has been suggested that, to avoid price rises, the big supermarkets would absorb those costs and not pass them on. But from my reading of the financial press those groups are already extremely stretched to maintain the profitability which largely governs share prices. To mention only one, the retail sector's touchstone, J. Sainsbury's 1993–94 high-low share range is 584 p. to 342 p. and was yesterday 372 p.—some £ 2 off the high of nearly £ 6 or a massive one-third for a share which might be considered a sound investment for children, widows and trustees.
In conclusion, I believe that the RSAR specification is the best. I shall support the option which comes closest to it with hope of amendment to the MAR profile.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for initiating this debate. Any opportunity of listening to him is a treat and it was especially so today. After 30 speakers, and I forget how many days, I promise to be brief. But there are 10 points that I should like to make in support of the Keep Sunday Special and RSAR option, which seems to me to be the best and most reasonable way forward.
First, on religious grounds—and I do believe that this comes into it for those of us who object in principle to shopping on Sunday—even the Almighty, when He made the world, rested on the seventh day. I have never seen anything to suggest that any of us is more powerful or less in need of rest than He.
Secondly, there is an argument that shopping with the family is fun and keeps the family together. So it is. No one is trying to shut garden centres or do-it-yourself stores or places where a family, having been to church, or got out of bed, or read the Sunday papers or whatever, can issue out en masse to collect stuff for the afternoon's and evening's amusement.
Thirdly, most people have done their weekly food shopping by Sunday. People used to be paid on Friday and would then shop on Saturday for the week. Now it is not so clear cut. But on the whole people shop for the weekend, when they will be at home for meals. In my grandmother's day vegetables had to be peeled and left in water on Saturday night so that no one worked on Sunday.
Fourthly, with regard to employment, the Bill as framed would allow shopworkers to opt out of Sunday working if they so wished. It would be bound, in the end, to create second-class workers—those who, for one reason or another, did not want to work on Sundays.
Fifthly, we must have regard to infrastructure. The quiet Sunday streets would be alive with the sound of heavy goods vehicles delivering fruit and vegetables in the early mornings. Cars filled with happy family shoppers would come pouring in, many discarding litter as they went, pursued by happy traffic wardens. What difference would there be from any other day?
That brings me to my sixth point—cost. If a shop is open seven days rather than six, there is the extra cost of

1409
staffing, heating, lighting, cleaning and security. The shoppers will have no more money to spend but what they buy will cost one-seventh, or roughly 14 per cent., more. The extra costs of opening will have to come out of the sales of goods.
My seventh point concerns shape—the shape of the week. Everything in this world has a shape, except an amoeba and we have rather got beyond that. Our lives have a shape. We start as babies; work our way through the seven ages of man if we are lucky, and then die. The year has a shape with its seasons; springtime and harvest; summer and winter. The day has a shape with morning and evening, darkness and light. The week has a shape starting with the Monday morning feeling and going through to Sunday when we relax, unwind, recuperate, regenerate and prepare and re-gear ourselves to start again on Monday. To destroy any of those shapes is to destroy part of our humanity, of our existence. I could go on a great deal but I have promised to be brief, and I shall.
Eighthly, what about Scotland? Everyone says that we have total deregulation and it works. So we do. So it does. But there are various factors which do not apply to England. We have many fewer people per square mile. Many of us live in rural areas—shopping involves a car and a total expedition. There are fewer car owners in Scotland. And there is a strong Scottish Sunday tradition. We probably all collect Sunday papers from our local shop or garage. We may buy milk there, or bread, or something we have run out of. On the whole, like my grandmother's vegetables, the shopping has been done.
Ninthly, what of Europe? Of our 11 European partners only Ireland and Portugal have a Sunday free-for-all. The others do not. There are some exceptions in Belgium. There are some exceptions in Greece for tourism. In France and Luxembourg the employees have to be family.
That brings me to point 10, my last point—so noble Lords can relax. I refer to small shops. They are open almost everywhere on Sunday. We all, I think, feel strongly about the small or local shop and not one single option would overset the right of the small shopkeepers to open as they choose. But if everyone were allowed to open for however short a time on Sunday, the future of the small shopkeeper would be doomed. And that would be a sad day for us British, for we are, after all is said, a nation of small shopkeepers.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, this debate has brought some strange coalitions and very odd bedfellows. I find the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, defending a strictly libertarian view of his own interpretation. Well, I am going to challenge him that that libertarian view overlooks social and community values. We seem to be changing places. Of course, if the freedom to shop on Sunday were simply a personal freedom and had no effect on anyone else, then his argument would be right, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant, pointed out—quoting John Stuart Mill very properly in doing so—that the definition of liberty which we support is a liberty which
1410
does not interfere with the liberties of other people. If other people are deeply concerned to see that a particular kind of Sunday is maintained, then the extreme libertarian views, almost to the Manchester school, of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are in conflict with the views of John Stuart Mill, with those of his noble colleague Lord Plant, with my views and with those of many people on these Benches.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take it that the noble Baroness does not read newspapers on Monday.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am not saying that any of us will be consistent about this. People are working. You have to have compromise. We would not be politicians if we did not believe in compromise. It is the only way you can get through in the political scene. You have to make sensible compromises and trust your judgment that those compromises are sensible. I am certainly not arguing the purist view and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is either. He is a great compromiser on most occasions. On this occasion he does not wish to compromise because it does not suit him.
I find it very strange that the Labour Front Bench is entirely satisfied with the protection being given to workers.
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Seear: My Lords, they shake their heads. I hope that they will say more about it. If they really believe that what is written in the Bill will give adequate protection they have come a very long way from the position that they used to take. Those of us who have had experience inside industry know that you can have laws and regulations but that it is extremely easy to get round them. We have legislation for no discrimination on grounds of gender and no discrimination on grounds of race. We surely all know that there is still discrimination on grounds of gender and a great deal of discrimination on grounds of race. Yet we have legislation. It is not enough to say that because there are provisions in the Bill everything is all right. Of course it is not. It is very easy indeed to circumvent the legislation. It will not affect people. They will not be got rid of. Of course not. But how about their promotion? How about all the other things which can be done so subtly to influence people's lives inside industry if they do not agree with what it is required that they should do and what it is assumed that they ought to be doing. I do not believe the protection is anything like adequate. I do not believe you can strengthen it. We have to remember that a great many of the shopworkers are not even in trade unions. I do not think even the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, would be able to persuade that large number of shopworkers who are not in trade unions to join up just to have their position protected.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Why not?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness can try; and if anyone could do it I have no doubt that she

1411
could. But I should be very surprised if she succeeded. The idea that shopworkers are adequately protected simply will not stand up.
It has also been said that women are so different from how they used to be and they need all this time for shopping. In the days when shops closed at 5.30 p.m.I remember campaigning very strongly for the extension of shopping hours in the interests of working women who stopped work at 5.30 and who used to do their shopping in the lunch hour, foregoing their lunches because that was the only time they could shop. However, as everyone has said when it suited their particular argument best this afternoon, times have changed. They have indeed. The deregulation Bill has changed things beyond all recognition. It seems that shops will be able to open all day and all night in the week and all day on Saturday. I have been sitting here wondering what on earth the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, needs to do on Sunday which she cannot do on Saturday and in the 24 hours of all the other days when the shops are open. I can tell her, because I happen to know her district very well, that if she forgets to buy anything on Saturday she can pop round to Formosa Street and do it very satisfactorily indeed. She does not in the least need to have the big shops open. So the argument that women have to have the shops open is totally, but totally, unconvincing.
On the question of worker protection, we have been told that USDAW is in favour; and formally USDAW is. I have heard murmurs that not everyone in USDAW went along with that decision. I have also heard that UNISON is not in favour. We must not assume that USDAW is the only trade union organisation which represents the interests of workers in this regard. I may be wrong on that. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will correct me if I am. But I am sure she will agree that there is by no means universal agreement among workers that this legislation is in their interests.
There is also the straight economic issue. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is not in his place. I have the greatest possible respect, having been a colleague of his for many years, for his vastly superior economic knowledge in comparison with mine. However, I was surprised that he did not make the point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, made, that there will not be arty extra money to spend as a result of the shops being open. The trade will not increase because the shops are open. People have a certain amount of money to spend, and if they spend it on Sunday they will not spend it on Saturday and other days. Someone will suffer.
There will be, as everyone has agreed, increased costs in opening on Sunday. I have not looked at the statistics—judging from the conflicting statistics which we have had flung at us today I do not think I have lost much by not looking at them—but if the shops are open on Sunday it is quite obvious that there will be some heavy costs. There is lighting, heating and cleaning and there are all the back-room people who have to be employed as well as the people on the counters. There are the extra premium payments which the unions will certainly press to get, and probably will get, and probably should get. These all add up to considerable
1412
sums. There are also the additional costs which fall on local authorities. I have no idea how much those will be but there are additional costs that come when people are moving into towns. You have to have greater security, more cleaning and all the rest of it. More money will have to be spent by the shops and there will not be more money spent in total. Something has to go.
What will go without a doubt is the small shop. It is denying facts not to recognise that if the big stores are open and people go to the big stores in their cars and fill the boots of their cars with the good things they want to eat they will not be going to the small shops. The small shops will continue for local people but they have very small margins. If they lose the money from their better off customers, because those better off customers have gone on Sunday with their cars and bought the goods they would otherwise have bought in the local shops, those local shops will go broke. I do not think there is much doubt about that.
I was also surprised that neither the noble Lord, Lord Desai, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made a point that has been made very strongly to me by the Asian traders. The Asian traders have contributed very greatly indeed to trading in this country. The small Asian shops have been extremely valuable. I have had representations, and I thought most other noble Lords would have done, that they are extremely anxious about the effect of the Bill and what it will do for their shops. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, shakes his head.1 do not know why I should have been honoured and he has not been. I can show the noble Lord the letters. I have been approached by Asian shopkeepers. This is a real consideration. We owe a great deal to the Asian traders. They have taught us a great deal about how to trade and how to service customers. They are a great deal better at it than a great many local people. They have built up businesses by hard work and by family collaboration. It would be a great shame if they were undermined by this legislation.
Those are real objections to the proposed changes. I go along absolutely with the people who say that the partial deregulation proposed by the Government is anything other than total deregulation in disguise. If shops are going to be open for six hours a day for a period between 10 o'clock and six o'clock then a great many shops will be open. There will be shops open everywhere and people in the high streets between 10 o'clock and six o'clock. People will be travelling to work before and afterwards. The situation will be practically the same as deregulation.
So let us get this matter quite clear. Either we are voting for deregulation tout d'un coup or we are voting for the modified form put forward by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign. That proposal will save the small shops which are vital to people who have not got cars, who are old and decrepit and vital to rural people. I suppose that a great many Members of your Lordships' House, like myself, are not rural people, but noble Lords must realise that there are many rural areas which are virtually cut off and in which public transport is so inadequate that the local residents rely very heavily on their local shop. It is not only where they go to buy

1413
things; it is a social centre where they go to gossip and learn what is going on. The social shop is very valuable in rural areas and at our peril do we abandon it.
I realise that I have gone on too long. That leaves what has been for many people a major issue; namely, that of the family and the Sunday issue from the point of view of religion, and as a social requirement in our lives for peace and quiet and something different. I am a member of the Church of England. I believe that most church people would find a way of going to church whatever happens to the shopping hours.
But that is not my primary reason for wanting to keep Sunday special. I am profoundly convinced that human beings everywhere, and indeed the animal creation, respond to rhythm. They need rhythm and something which is different, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, said. That runs right through nature; night and day and ebb and flow. We need a day which is different. I believe I am right in saying that in the early days of the Soviet Union they tried to get rid of the one day in seven and they went for the one day off in ten. It did not work, not for religious reasons but because of some deep necessity inside human beings that life can be different and that there is a time for rest and a time for work.
If we get rid of that by making Sunday just like any other day—and as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, if we do that now we shall not reverse it because that kind of Sunday will be gone for good—we shall have lost something which is not only very valuable in our national life but which is deeply important to all of us, psychologically as well as spiritually.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we have had a very good debate this afternoon in which practically every aspect of the subject that could possibly be covered has been covered. On the last occasion Sunday trading was discussed by your Lordships, I was a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House. At that time I took up the position of those who supported the Keep Sunday Special Campaign.
My reasons for doing that were that I thought—and to some extent still do, although I am not a religious person—that there was a case for having one day a week when the whole atmosphere is much more relaxed. I live in a road which adjoins one of the busiest thoroughfares in North London—a road which is also a busy shopping area. It is noticeably quieter on Sunday mornings and that is really a great relief. It is to be noted that this was one of the issues which troubled the Auld Committee which reported on the matter in 1984 and whose report was the subject of much discussion in this House last time.
The committee concluded (I think optimistically) that the trend was towards large, purpose-built shopping centres with their own parking facilities in town centres and out-of-town superstores. Although it is true that there have been developments in that direction, that has not been so marked as had once been anticipated.
1414
Personally, I am rather glad of that because some of these huge stores seem to me to be pretty awful, soulless places.
I myself am fortunate in that I can normally shop on a Saturday morning at my local store although it tends to be very crowded and it is certainly not a pleasure to shop there. I have always acknowledged that for many women the opportunity to shop on a Sunday can be very beneficial. Moreover, many families enjoy shopping together and have only Sunday when that can be done. A number of noble Lords have made that point and it is a very valid one.
My main reason for supporting the Keep Sunday Special Campaign last time was that there was no adequate protection in that Bill for shopworkers who, for various reasons, did not want to work on a Sunday. It is true that that Bill provided some sort of protection, although very minimal, for those already in shop employment at a time when the Bill was to become law, but since that did not extend to new employees, it was quite worthless.
I well remember the debates which we had in 1985 when Lord Stockton roundly declared that we should not attempt to make progress at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable, which is what many shopworkers were and actually still are. It is not too much to say that the reason for the failure of previous attempts to legislate for general Sunday trading was the concern of people from all parties about the pressure that might be put on shopworkers to work on Sundays against their will.
One of the main differences between then and now is that there seems to have been a genuine attempt to protect those whose job it is to provide a shop service. For these reasons, the unions organising shopworkers have moved from their position of opposing Sunday trading altogether into the camp of those who are supporting what is now, I suppose, the "preferred option" because it attracted majority support in the other place. I understand that it is not just USDAW; the GMWU has taken that position as has the Transport and General Workers' Union. As a result of amendments accepted in the other place, there has also been an attempt to protect to some extent the right of residents in shopping areas to have relatively undisturbed Sunday mornings since restrictions are to be placed on lorries unloading.
My own position therefore has changed. Some of my concerns about workers' rights have been met. Perhaps in Committee we shall be able to close some of the loopholes which still exist in that area. The Bill provides that present and future shopworkers may opt out of Sunday working without any penalty and that dismissal of an opted-out worker of whatever age is automatically unfair if the reason for dismissal is the refusal or proposed refusal to do work on Sundays. Of course, it is quite true that it is difficult to enforce employment rights. I accept what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in that connection. But that is true of all employment rights and not simply employment rights enshrined in this

1415
proposed legislation. That is another reason for having unions to ensure chat people who are in them have the capacity to enforce the rights which actually exist.
The Bill stipulates that a worker has to give an employer three months' notice to opt out of Sunday working. That seems a little long to me and there may be a case for shortening that period. I would like to see the number of hours limited that a worker is expected to work on Sundays, because workers are often expected to work before the shop opens and after it closes. Furthermore, should not employers also have a reasonable duty to provide alternative weekly hours of work to reduce the loss of income that might be suffered by a worker who opts out of Sunday working? In Committee we m ay also be putting to your Lordships the notion that workers who work on a Sunday should have a statutory entitlement to enhanced pay. All these points were made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh when introducing the debate on behalf of our side of the House this afternoon, but it is worth emphasising them yet again because it remains the position as far as concerns this Front Bench.
I remain opposed to total deregulation. In my view, Sunday is not a clay like any other. There is merit in there being a day which is regarded as a special day—a day to rest, if one wishes to put it that way—for the majority of the population. There is a religious argument even though it is not one which I am making. It has been made by other noble Lords in debate and it warrants serious consideration. However, if workers are expected to work on that day in order to provide a service for the rest of us who either want to rest or to enjoy ourselves, then they are entitled to special consideration for doing SO.
There is also the undoubted fact that there are employees who like to work on a Sunday, particularly if they receive additional pay for so doing. As time goes by they undoubtedly come to rely on that additional pay. I accept that many people, particularly women, on whom the burden of shopping for the family inevitably falls. will find the opportunity to shop on a Sunday of great benefit.
I do not share the view expressed by some Members of the other place and by a number of noble Lords this afternoon that with the deregulation which we are promised, shopping until late in the evening will become a possibility and that that will mean that Sunday shopping is no longer a matter of importance. Leaving aside the fact that there are arguments to be advanced against deregulation of the kind envisaged, I personally do not rate that option very highly. Many women, including myself, do not like being out late at night and are unlikely to see that as the preferred option. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, women who work during the day will not feel like joining pressurised shopping in the evening.
I accept that a lot of Sunday trading goes on already. Garden centres and DIY shops have been opening on Sundays for a long time and small family-owned shops have also been trading on Sundays. The pressure, therefore, is for a change in the existing law since the present law is widely disregarded and practically all noble Lords who have spoken today have been in favour
1416
of changing the law as it now stands. It seems to me that there is wide consensus around the so-called "preferred option", under which large stores may open to trade for six hours on a Sunday with no restrictions at all on smaller shops. It may well be that there is only a limited amount of consumer cash available anyway. If that is so, some larger shops may well not find it profitable enough to open on a Sunday. Some managements have already indicated to me that that will be the case, but that will be a commercial decision for them to take.
I do not share the view that that option is a threat to small shops. As has already been said, it will be possible for them to continue to trade for as long as they wish to do so. Moreover, their clientele is unlikely to change. My own belief is that the threat to small shops does not come from Sunday trading under this option, but comes about because when their leases fall through, they simply cannot afford to pay the increased rentals that are increasingly being asked of them. It has nothing whatever to do with the competition that they may face from larger shops.
There is a third option, under which only small shops would be allowed to open, plus leisure and garden centres, with other large shops being allowed to open on Sundays in the run-up to Christmas. It seems to me that that is virtually the same as the Keep Sunday Special position, brought up to date a little since it is quite clear that times have moved on since the issue was last debated and there is a move towards Sunday trading among consumers and the public generally. Moreover, worker opposition has been eroded due to the concessions which have been made in the Bill and the fact that the unions, as has already been stated, have been able to negotiate agreements, in advance of the Bill, with a number of leading companies supporting the so-called "preferred option". Of course, a lot of people want to work on a Sunday.
Our position on the Front Bench is that this is not a party issue at all. There is to be a free vote, Our concern remains adequate employee protection, which would remain our concern whichever option is eventually chosen. We shall look at that in some detail in Committee when we hope to be able to effect some improvements in the provisions in that area meanwhile, I hope that when we have finished with this Bill, we shall finally have laid to rest the controversy which has surrounded this issue for a very long time, and that everyone will be prepared to settle for what is eventually agreed as the final word on the subject.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, for saying that I am the grandmother of Sunday trading reform. Your Lordships will appreciate my feelings this evening that at last, in 1994, it is granny's very great pleasure to sum up on today's debate. It is my fervent wish that this time I shall see success not only in your Lordships' House, but that this time that success will be united in our two Houses. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for inviting me to play a part in this debate.

1417
As your Lordships know, I introduced a Shops Bill in 1982 when I sought to abolish all restrictions on shop opening hours. Although this Bill does not do everything which I sought then, I am in no doubt that it represents a considerable improvement on the current situation. I do not intend to speak about the problems with the 1950 Shops Act. They are well recognised. As I said previously, we all accept that a law which permits the sale of prawn balls from a Chinese takeaway but not fish and chips from a fish and chip shop should have no place on the statute book. Then again, why should it be lawful to be served meals in restaurants while not being permitted to buy the ingredients for a meal?
But of course it is not as easy as that. For although the 1950 Act's shortcomings have been recognised ever since its enactment, getting agreement on what to replace it has been far from simple. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented on the time that the Government have taken to bring forward another Bill. My answer to him is that Home Office Ministers spent much of that time consulting a wide-ranging number of individuals and organisations in an ultimately fruitless search for consensus. That work had to be done conscientiously and thoroughly before any further Bill might be brought forward.
The Bill before us today represents one solution to this problem. As your Lordships are well aware, it is not the solution that I would have chosen as a first preference. I have always firmly believed that the criminal law should play no part in regulating shop opening hours. But I recognise that there are others who feel differently and passionately about this. We have heard today from noble Lords who would prefer the majority of shops to close on Sundays. In that category, I include the two right reverend Prelates who have expressed their views cogently and as one would expect of them. Of course, I respect those views. Others have spoken equally passionately in favour of total deregulation. What we have before us is a compromise.
Even though some of your Lordships might personally prefer a different solution, I hope that all will agree that this compromise must be better than the provisions of the 1950 Act which it would replace. And it is a compromise that has been consistently supported on a series of free votes in another place. For that reason, like my noble friend the Minister, I see no purpose in seeking to replace that option with my personal preference, which can have little hope of securing support in the other place, even if this House were to accept it.
Your Lordships have raised a number of points in debate, which in the normal course of events a government spokesperson might be expected to respond to. But this is not a normal situation. Most, if not all, of those points are germane to the issue of the choice between the options; and were I to respond to them as a government spokesperson, that might lead some to see the Government as arguing for or against one or other option. The Government have not and will not do that.
So, the best I can offer in many cases will be some personal views on points raised and, in other instances, to offer no view at all. I hope that that will explain my
1418
omitting to mention some of your Lordships' contributions and your Lordships' names. I shall be able to respond fully on points on Schedule 4, which is government policy. I hope that your Lordships will find this a sensible way to proceed.
Your Lordships will have heard today of the special case that may be made in Committee for certain types of large store, garden centres, DIY stores and motor supply shops, for example, to enjoy an exemption from the prohibition on large shops trading on Sunday for not more than six hours. Again, that is not a matter for the Government. It will be for your Lordships to decide in each case whether to make special provision for those shops. My own view is that I see difficulty in singling out some shops for special favour and leaving their competitors at a disadvantage. If DIY stores are to trade, why not carpet or furniture stores? But that is a matter for your Lordships.
Throughout the debate, there has been much concern expressed about the position of shopworkers. Whatever our view of Sunday opening, I think we are all agreed that if the law is to be changed to allow customers to shop more freely on Sundays, whether for recreation or for necessities, it should not be at the expense of shopworkers.
We cannot be sure how many shops will choose to open on Sundays. I was interested by the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am aware that London Economics, which carried out a study for the Government, predicted that as many as half would open under partial deregulation; but that remains to be seen. In Scotland, where there have been no laws restricting Sunday trading, your Lordships are well aware that the opening levels are far lower than that. But we can be sure that however many shops decide to open, the employment package in Schedule 4 will ensure that all those workers are volunteers.
I shall just remind your Lordships how comprehen-sive those measures are. All existing shopworkers have immediate protection from being required to work on Sunday unless they are Sunday-only workers. To qualify for protection, workers will not have to serve a qualifying period of service; the protection will apply even if they are beyond the normal retirement age, and it makes no difference how many hours a week they work.
The protection is not limited to shop assistants. Whether you are a shop manager, a canteen worker, or the person who collects the trolleys from around the shop, you will still qualify for protection if you work in or about a shop which opens on Sunday.
It is not only existing employees who are covered by the provisions. New recruits will also be protected. If a shopworker takes a position which requires Sunday working, he or she is able to opt-out again, subject to three months' notice. That is recognition that circumstances can change. So, new employees will have the comfort of knowing that if they accept a job which involves Sunday working and they want to be able to spend the day differently—take part in Sunday sport, or church observances, or just spending it slumped in front of the "telly" or lazing in bed—then that will be up to them.

1419
The rights do not extend merely to protecting shopworkers from dismissal, they extend also to protecting them from any detrimental action short of dismissal. That might be a failure to offer promotion, or training or indeed any other measure which the employee felt penalised him or her for a refusal to work on Sunday.
During the debate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of premium pay. The Government have always made it clear that such a provision was impracticable and unwelcome. We believe that pay should be a matter for negotiation between individual employees and employers. Individual businesses know what they can afford. The Government do not. I am aware that many of the large shops are committed to pay a premium rate, and I am sure that Members of this House welcome that. But it is precisely because any shopworker will be able to choose not to work on Sunday that shops will find that they need to pay the rates necessary to attract the staff they need for Sunday working.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the employment rights in Schedule 4 should be amended to reduce the notice period for opting out from Sunday shop work from three months to one month. My reply is that the right to opt out is a radical and far-reaching departure from the normal contractual position under which contractual terms, once agreed, are binding on both parties. The purpose of the notice period is to ensure that all retail employers, large or small, and those employing specialist staff, have adequate time in which to make alternative arrange-ments should any of their employees decide that they no longer wish to work on Sundays. A three-month period is the minimum period which will meet the needs of the retail industry as a whole.
Further comments by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, related to the limitation of hours of work on Sunday to eight. It is a well-established government policy that generally terms and conditions of employment such as hours of work are matters for agreement between individual employees, or their representatives, and employers, without statutory interference. Under each of the options for reform which will he considered small shops will be able to open on Sunday without restriction. If, for example, an employee of a newsagent wishes to work on a Sunday between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.(nine hours) and those are the hours which the employer chooses to employ him, it is not clear upon what grounds the law should seek to prevent that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool I think said that the employment rights in Schedule 4 will not be effective in protecting workers because of the weakness in industrial tribunals. My answer to him is that Schedule 4 gives shopworkers new individual employment rights, enforceable by complaint to an industrial tribunal. They substantially improve the current position of shopworkers. The Government believe firmly that employment protection rights are effective and so do employees. If they did not, applications would not have increased from 43,000 in 1990–91 to nearly 72,000 in 1992–93—an increase of 67
1420
per cent. There is nothing to suggest that the absence of legal aid to fund legal representation will affect significantly an employee's prospect of success. Industrial tribunals are informal and speedy compared with other courts, and their procedures are designed to make representation unnecessary. It is a misconception that the burden of proof is on the employee. The burden is on the employer to show the reason for dismissal.
It is true that a shopworker who does not have the normal qualifying period needed to claim unfair dismissal, will need to produce some evidence showing that he was dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays. That is only right and proper; and it is not a difficult hurdle to surmount.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London commented that changes in the Sunday trading provisions could affect the tenor of life in this country. Some appear to believe that life will never be the same again. Again, speaking personally, those of us who know Scotland find that difficult to believe. Cross the Border and you do not discover a ferment of shops open on Sundays. The environment has not been damaged by the fact that shops are not prohibited by law from opening on a Sunday.
My noble friend Lady Strange was worried about the possibility of the peace and quiet of Sunday being disturbed by morning deliveries. At present, many shops will have deliveries on Sunday so that the shelves are full for Monday shopping; but the Government have included in the Bill a measure which will enable local authorities to choose to adopt a procedure to prevent deliveries to large shops from taking place before 9 a.m. without their consent.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised the issue of the disturbance caused to residents by shoppers parking in their streets on what was their one day of rest. Again, that is not a matter for the Government; but the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 enables a local authority to control parking in any street, by making a traffic regulation order, if it considers that necessary to preserve or improve the amenities of the area.
My noble friend Lady Young suggested that Sunday opening was not necessary because the deregulation Bill includes a measure which will allow shops to open at any time during weekdays. I have to say that that is fanciful. There is nothing to suggest that Britain is going to emulate the example of Hong Kong and go in for 24-hour shopping. Anybody who has tried to make some last minute purchases at ten to six on a Saturday will know that, far from being able to count on a further two or three hours' shopping time, which is what the current law allows, they will need to make their purchases before six o' clock when nearly all shops tend to close. True, there are exceptions. Garages, off-licences and some food shops all stay open in the evenings and sell some of their products legally. The deregulation Bill will allow them to sell their whole product range. But the reason that other shops dc not open in the evenings is simply that there is no demand for them to do so.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting on that one issue. The reason why shops do not open for longer hours on week days is that the law does not allow them to do so. Once the law allows them to do so, they can have later shopping hours so that the people who wish to shop will not be caught by being unable to buy something at ten to six on a Saturday evening, but can make their purchase during an evening in the week or on a Saturday. Therefore, the situation is not quite as my noble friend described.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am still in dispute with my noble friend, but I wish to press on. I have bought many items in Harrods on late-night shopping days—when I have had the money!
I say to my old friend Lady Nicol—if I may call her that—that it is not a question of must, but a question of may. I hope that she will continue to spend her Sundays in the way that gives her the greatest pleasure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said that when the vote on the options was held in another place, Members did not know of the Government's plans to end the restrictions on week-day shopping, and had they done so they might have voted differently. The Government's plans to end closing hour restrictions should not have come as a surprise to any Members of the other place. The Command Paper reforming the law on Sunday trading, which was published in July last year, stated that there had been general agreement that closing hour provisions were anachronistic and ripe for repeal, and that the Government expected that a separate measure to deal with them would be brought forward when parliamen-tary time permitted. That appears at paragraph 53 of the Command Paper. Members of another place had the opportunity of reconsidering the provisions of the Bill on Report. That took place after the deregulation Bill
1422
was published when all the Members knew that the Government intended to end the closing hour restrictions not just some time in the future but this very Session. However, they voted against an amendment to prohibit large shops from opening by a majority of 61.
I do not know how noble Lords do their shopping, but I entirely agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Dean and Lady Jay, that after a day spent working, or even in a more leisurely fashion, there are few people who would choose to keep the kids up late, with the supper in the 'fridge and then spend the evening late shopping. Sunday, however, is quite another matter. Sunday can represent a day when the whole family can get together to make joint purchases. I submit that the family that shops together stops together.
Members of another place gave the Bill an overwhelming majority on a free vote at Third Reading. It offers the prospect of removing from the statute book once and for all the nonsense on the Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950. I look forward to the debates to come on precisely how that should be done. But we are all agreed that it must be done. It has often been said that politics are the art of the possible. I suggest that your Lordships might care to bear that saying in mind in the context of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Sunday Trading Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; that thereafter Clause 1 and Schedule 1 be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House and that the remaining Clauses and Schedules of the Bill be then also committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

  RUSSIA: DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  RUSSIA: DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  HONG KONG: ANNUAL REPORT
  SARAJEVO: ADMINISTRATION
  SARAJEVO: ADMINISTRATION
  POLAND: RESOLUTION OF AIR SERVICES DISPUTE
  POLAND: RESOLUTION OF AIR SERVICES DISPUTE
  TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY: FUTURE
  TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY: FUTURE
  MATERNITY BENEFITS
  MATERNITY BENEFITS
  SECURE TRAINING CENTRES
  SECURE TRAINING CENTRES
  WIND FARMS: PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
  WIND FARMS: PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
  WIND FARMS: ECOLOGICAL SURVEY
  WIND FARMS: ECOLOGICAL SURVEY
  MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY: RESPONSE TO LAW COMMISSION REPORT
  MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY: RESPONSE TO LAW COMMISSION REPORT
  ECSC TREATY SUBSIDY RULES INFRINGEMENT: UK POLICY
  ECSC TREATY SUBSIDY RULES INFRINGEMENT: UK POLICY
  BRITISH STEEL: FINE
  BRITISH STEEL: FINE
  CAP: EFFECT ON PRICES
  CAP: EFFECT ON PRICES
  ROYAL PARKS: TRAFFIC SURVEY
  ROYAL PARKS: TRAFFIC SURVEY