Sitting of 29 March 1994

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

    Pre-school Playgroups
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what future role he sees for the pre-school playgroup movement.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Good playgroups with a sound educational base have a very important part to play in pre-school provision. More than 750,000 children now attend about 20,000 playgroups throughout the country. Pre-school playgroups have a vital role in the educational future of the country, so I can announce that, subject to parliamentary approval, the grant to the Pre-school Playgroups Association for 1994–95 will increase to about £1.2 million for its training activities, an increase of 35 per cent. over the previous year.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by people who run playgroups and by all the parents who participate in, and are grateful for, such activity? Will he offer further reassurance that there is no threat to the validity of the pre-school playgroup experience in the light of the fact that there is to be a spread of nursery education?
    Mr. Patten: There is none whatever. I know that there are some excellent playgroups in the Saffron Walden area. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the future of the pre-school playgroup movement is safe in our hands. I believe that pre-school playgroups are an integral part of the English way of life and a very important part of English village life. They will also be a very important part of educational provision for children aged three and four under the terms of the announcement that we shall make, in the not-too-distant future, about our plans.
    Mr. Spearing: The House would certainly agree that there is a need for pre-school playgroups and I agree with the Secretary of State that they perform a most useful function. Does he agree, however, that they are complementary to nursery education, its known accom-modation, staffing and practice standards and the personal qualifications of its staff? Does he therefore agree that there should be further debate, if that is possible, of a Bill relating to the assessment of need for nursery education, so that the two wings can be balanced to the benefit of all concerned?
    Mr. Patten: That is the first time in 15 years that the hon. Gentleman has said publicly that he agrees with me. It is a pretty unusual afternoon. The hon. Gentleman has made me rather worried, although I recognise his expertise as an ex-teacher.
    Pre-school playgroups, whether run by voluntary organisations or by the private sector, have a very important part to play. They are run on the sites of a good number of local education authority primary schools. They are complementary, I think, to the work that is done by state-provided nursery schools and nursery classes and also to the work done by the private sector in pre-school provision, as well as the Montessori groups. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we aim for mixed provision for three and four-year olds in the future.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's support for pre-school playgroups, but does he agree that one of the best ways to increase parental choice would be to introduce a voucher system, which would allow parents to take advantage of the excellent private and voluntary provision, as well as public provision, of pre-school education?
    Mr. Patten: I am reviewing all possible ways of developing pre-school provision along the lines that I have just described to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). At present, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I feel that it would not be right for any of us to speak about education today without first expressing our sympathy to the parents of Nikki Conroy and the people at the school in Middlesbrough who were affected by the tragedy yesterday.
    When will the Secretary of State take control of policy making on early years education? One day the Prime Minister tells us that he is mad keen on nursery education and the next the Minister of State says that she regards it as inappropriate. When will the Secretary of State stop playing piggy-in-the-middle—or is he so concerned to protect his own bacon that he does not dare to disagree with either of them? Valuable though the contribution of playgroups may be, it is no substitute for quality nursery education. When will the Secretary of State show some commitment and give a lead on nursery education?
    Mr. Patten: There were a lot of questions there. First, may I associate myself entirely with what the hon. Lady said about the tragedy in the constituency of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Those in my office were in touch with the hon. Gentleman yesterday and I have written to the chairman of the school governors to express the Department's sympathy. The whole House shares the hon. Lady's feelings and I am pleased that she mentioned the matter.
    On nursery provision, it is important that we look in future not at fixed models of the past but at innovative and fresh ways of providing a better standard of pre-school provision for three and four-year-olds. As I said earlier, nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. But I am sorry for the hon. Lady, who has recently been criticised by leading Labour figures such as Mr. Neil Fletcher, the last Labour leader of the Inner London education authority, and Professor Michael Barber, the recent deputy general

    779
    secretary of the National Union of Teachers. Both have accused her of being backward-looking; I would only add, neanderthal.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. If all the questions take that long, we shall not even reach Question 6. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will set the pace for us.

    Funding
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage the injection of private sector finance into state-funded education.
    Mr. Patten: I welcome the existing investment in education by the private sector, and have asked the funding councils and the Funding Agency for Schools to make further expansion a high priority. I shall publish in the summer an information pack designed to encourage wider investment, and am reviewing the possibility of further and perhaps quite radical action.
    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Hastings college on its success in attracting private finance? Will he undertake to draw those initiatives to the attention of East Sussex education authority, which is known to campaign actively against grant-maintained schools, to ensure that that authority realises that private sector financing will not displace public funding?
    Mr. Patten: On the first point, my hon. Friend is right; Hastings college has a splendid record of attracting private sector investment, on the back of funds coming in from foreign students, to build new buildings in Hastings. On the second point, I regard as disgraceful Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled East Sussex county council's recent behaviour in attacking grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Grocott: Before the Secretary of State gets too excited about private funding of public education, will he take the opportunity to acknowledge the dismal failure of the funding policy for city technology colleges, 80 per cent. of which are paid for by taxpayers? Given his unwillingness to answer any questions whatever about the operation of those colleges, will he acknowledge that they represent the only area of public life where taxpayers foot 80 per cent. of the bill in return for 0 per cent. of the power?
    Mr. Patten: Our 15 technology colleges are 15 beacons of educational excellence in our inner cities. They are popular with parents, and students are queuing up around the walls to get in. The existing CTCs are being followed by a second wave of technical colleges in which we have had more than 200 expressions of interest. Needless to say, the Labour party has already pledged to abolish them, should it ever get the chance.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that we want as much variety as possible in the funding and type of education and that the Opposition oppose the existence of CTCs, grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, the assisted places scheme and Church schools?
    Mr. Patten: I would be wrong, politically and factually, if I did not take this opportunity to say that my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party's typical backward-looking way has already been picked up by Professor Barber, Mr. Fletcher and other Labour party supporters. If only Opposition Members had listened to Professor Barber, who used to be a special adviser to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Labour party might have some sort of educational policy; as it is, it has nothing at all.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had over his plans for the reform of teacher training; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): We consulted extensively last autumn before introducing the current Education Bill and have discussed our reforms with a number of representative bodies during the past six months.
    Mr. O'Hara: How many of the bodies consulted approved of the Government's plans to reform teacher training? Have parents been consulted about the implications for their children of increased and extended exposure to apprentice teachers under the proposed system?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman has interpreted the Bill incorrectly. For a start, no school will be brought into training unless it chooses to—no compulsion is involved. Secondly, the Bill will ensure the more effective deployment of resources for initial teacher training, and I should have hoped that a majority of hon. Members would welcome that.
    Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will disregard the ill-considered comments of Labour Members. Is he aware that his statement will be widely welcomed by parents, as the reforms involve schools and allow practical teaching to take place more closely with individual children? Will my hon. Friend also join me in condemning some of the extraordinary practices of teacher training colleges in the past?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, with his wide experience, is absolutely right. There will be—there already is—an explosion of interest in school-centred training among teacher trainees, who are interested in this new form of training for those with three or four years of university experience who want more training on the job. It is working very well, and the Bill will cement the new system in place.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister accept that his commitment to high-quality teacher training sits ill with his Department's failure to ensure that highly qualified teachers have the necessary resources at their disposal and high-quality buildings in which they and their pupils can operate? Does he agree that the Department's proposals to tackle the backlog of repairs and maintenance in school buildings are wholly inadequate?
    Mr. Squire: In a word, I do not agree. The House looks forward to hearing which part of the 1 p that the Liberal

    781
    Democrats trail around the country will pay for this proposal. We shall be keeping a close eye on it—the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt of that.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Are we really to be treated to another display of overweening arrogance by the Secretary of State, following the mauling that his Bill has received in another place? Does he really intend to reverse Labour's amendment, backed by some of the most right-wing members of his own party, and insist on school-based courses for teachers' education, with no input from higher education—even though the pilot scheme on which the proposals are based will not have been completed until this sorry Bill has completed its passage through the House?
    Mr. Squire: The Bill is in excellent shape, and we look forward to its arrival here from another place. I note in passing that the idea of a teacher training agency has been accepted by the other place, where their Lordships rejected the Opposition's alternatives. As the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say at this stage, the Government are carefully considering their position on the question of school-centred teaching in response to the amendment.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the remarkable professional behaviour of the teachers at Middlesbrough yesterday showed the high quality of the teaching profession and the fact that schoolteachers have a substantial contribution to make to the education of new members of their profession?
    Mr. Squire: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he congratulates the teachers involved in yesterday's horrific incident. Day in, day out, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that teachers do across the country, exhibiting skills which, fortunately, do not usually have to be deployed in such dreadful circumstances.

    Mentally Handicapped People
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will hold urgent discussions with the voluntary organisations representing the mentally handicapped about the local government reorganisation and local education authorities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Voluntary organisations, like other bodies interested in these matters, will wish to ensure that their views are made known to the Local Government Commission. The commission is required, among other things, to undertake consultations with local interests.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that the Government have a special responsibility? It is they who are recommending reorganisation, and they should protect special schools and meet the needs of the mentally handicapped. What are they doing about that?
    Mr. Forth: The Government have recently done a tremendous amount generally for special needs and for the mentally handicapped: there are new responsibilities for the schools themselves; the opportunity for special schools to consider grant-maintained status, which will give them a new independence from local education authorities; a special needs code of practice; and a new tribunal. All these will ensure that special educational needs will have a place in our education system that would have been
    782
    unknown a few months ago. They were thoroughly embedded in the Education Act 1993. We can look forward with great confidence to special educational needs making a huge step forward and occupying a special place in education.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that county councils' reluctance to place children with both learning difficulties and physical disabilities in schools run by charities in the voluntary sector is threatening the viability of those schools, and means that such children are now faced with more generic provision, rather than receiving the excellent specialist provision that charities provide?
    Mr. Forth: If my hon. Friend is right—I hope that she will give me some evidence that I can examine—I can reassure her that the provisions of the Education Act 1993, together with the code of practice for special educational needs, give parents new rights of choice, which I am sure they will exercise frequently in favour of the very schools that she mentions. There is a permanent place in our education system for all special schools—those currently run by local authorities which may become grant maintained in the near future and particularly non-maintained special schools.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: May I emphasise the Opposition's welcome for the potential in the code of practice for helping to deal with the problems of children with special educational needs, and for the wide range of consultation papers that the Department for Education has issued on all the related problems? However, I remind the Minister that—as his boss will know very well—the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that the practicality in local authorities and schools is that, despite the Government's good intentions, their policies are seriously failing children. Will the hon. Gentleman follow the good samaritan's example and provide proper funding for those in need?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. I wonder whether his last sentence represents a new spending commitment on behalf of his party. If so, I wonder whether he has checked it out with the shadow Chancellor; he may want to take it up with his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman is rushing to judgment prematurely. We are at the earliest stages of the new regime for special educational needs. The opportunity of grant-maintained status for special schools only starts next month and the code of practice and the tribunal come into effect in September. We must all give schools and local education authorities the opportunity to demonstrate how they can use what will be made available to them to provide for special needs, before rushing to judgment as the hon. Gentleman has done today.

    St. Alfege with St. Peter's School
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the conditions at St. Alfege with St. Peter's school in Greenwich.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received letters on this matter from the hon. Gentleman himself, the school's chairman of governors and the appeal fund manager.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise the extreme anger felt by parents, governors and teaching staff at that excellent primary school which has to operate in conditions that are overcrowded, substandard and reminiscent of Victorian times? When will the hon. Gentleman recognise that until we provide proper facilities for our young children in primary schools, we cannot hope to achieve the excellence in education which they deserve and which we should be providing for them?
    Mr. Forth: I am very much looking forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman when he comes see me with a delegation from the school on 12 April; we can discuss these matters then. In the meantime, it is certainly open to governors of the school to approach the local education authority and discuss whether, for example, a small minor works project could be used to tackle some of the more urgent needs of the school. Funds should be available from the local education authority and I would strongly recommend that course at this stage, pending my looking again at the case for the school, as I shall when I meet the hon. Gentleman.

    16-year-olds
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the United Kingdom participation rate in education for 16-year-olds; and what information he has on comparable rates in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell):
    Some 94 per cent. of 16-year-olds in the United Kingdom took part in some form of education and training in 1990, the latest year for which international comparisons are available covering both full-time and part-time education. That compares well with the position in other OECD countries for which data are available, where participation by 16-year-olds ranges from 100 per cent. in Canada to 71 per cent. in Spain.
    Mr. Greenway: That is a very encouraging reply. May I give my hon. Friend the even better news that 74 per cent. of 16-year-olds in North Yorkshire actually stay on at school? Will he continue to build on the progress already made, to make vocational education and training really worth while and relevant for young people so that they achieve the best qualifications that they can and so achieve something of value to employers?
    Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to hear the good news from Yorkshire, where the importance of investing in the future is fully understood. That mirrors national provision: there has been a tremendous increase in the number of young people who stay on at school, obtaining satisfactory academic and vocational qualifications or taking training courses in parallel.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's response. Does he accept, however, that too many parents—especially in areas of high unemployment—tend to encourage their children to take dead-end jobs rather than equipping themselves to do better jobs in the future?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sure that that was the case in the past, but I think that the culture is changing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I—indeed, the whole House—will
    784
    join in breaking that tradition. The more young people stay on, the more chance there will be of our having a highly skilled labour force and a competitive economy in the future.
    Sir Dudley Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about staying on at school: that is excellent. Will he also tell us how we compare with other OECD countries in terms of rural schools? If the position in this country demonstrates excellence and good endeavour, will he do all that he can to preserve those rural schools, in view of the excellent comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier about the need to preserve the rural scene?
    Mr. Boswell: My constituency is quite near my hon. Friend's, and I am aware of his concerns about Warwickshire. I have noted his comments, as, I am sure, have my colleagues; but he will appreciate that, while it is likely that representations will be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we cannot comment on individual school reorganisations.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister should start by admitting that some 40 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds do not complete the courses that they begin; that participation rates for 18-year-olds are very poor by international standards; and that study after study shows how badly our young people do compared with those abroad. As Ministers would not expect so little—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet. This is Question Time, and I must hear a direct question to the Minister.
    Mr. Lloyd: As Ministers would expect a good deal more for their children, will the Minister now tell us what he intends to do to ensure that all our young people get as much as children in Japan, Germany and France?
    Mr. Boswell: We are determined to deal with the deficiencies exposed in "Unfinished Business": we are determined both to increase the staying-on rate and to ensure that those who go on to attend either sixth form or further education colleges sustain their education through to the age of 18. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman cited some figures relating to 18-year-olds, although the question relates to staying on at 16.
    It is important to keep people on course for that time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has noted the helpful proposals of the Further Education Funding Council, which are designed both to counsel young people and lead them to the appropriate course and—through the appropriate funding mechanism—to ensure that they stay on that course and complete it.

    National Vocational Qualifications
    Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what targets have been set for the uptake of general national vocational qualifications among 16 to 19-year-olds over the next three years.
    Mr. Boswell: We need high take-up of appropriate and demanding vocational qualifications in the next three years if we are to achieve the challenging national targets for education and training. There are already more than 80,000 students taking GNVQs: that is well on course to meet our aim for one in four 16-year-olds to start GNVQ courses in

    785
    1996. Our longer-term aim is for half all 16 and 17-year-olds to take GNVQs at foundation, intermediate or advanced level.
    Mr. Trend: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be parity of esteem between GNVQs and A-levels, particularly for employment purposes? What are the Government doing to achieve that, bearing in mind the fact that many Conservative Members do not want a dilution of the high standards for A-levels?
    Mr. Boswell: I entirely agree that there should be parity of esteem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has conveyed that parity between vocational A-levels and their academic equivalents; we now need to ensure that the highest possible standards and appropriate rigour are observed in the delivery of the vocational qualifications to which I have referred. I recently launched a six-point plan to improve the position, and I am confident that we shall achieve those standards.
    Mr. Rooker: How many of the 6 per cent. of 16-year-olds to whom the Minister referred in the previous question, which was not about staying-on rates, who are missing out on education will go on to vocational training? Why was not the answer to the original question 100 per cent?
    Mr. Boswell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has slipped a question. I shall try to respond to him because the two questions are closely related. In conjunction with our colleagues in the Department of Employment, an offer of high-quality vocational education or training is already available to everyone. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced proposals for a modern apprenticeship scheme. We have put great emphasis on increasing the staying-on rates either at school for education or at college for training and we have nothing to be ashamed of in the huge expansion in staying-on rates and the acquisition of appropriate qualifications.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to change the assisted places scheme for independent schools; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Patten: None, Madam Speaker. The Government remain fully committed to this popular scheme and the children it supports in the interests of academic excellence.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am reassured by that answer. Is not it the case that 30,000 of our most able young people, although not perhaps our most wealthy, benefit from the scheme? Is not it ironic that it is the Labour party which carps against schemes such as this, despite the fact that many on the Opposition Front Bench benefited frorn it, while we are the party of meritocracy and equal opportunity for our young?
    Mr. Patten: Many on the Government Benches would have loved to have the educational opportunities in private schools, direct grant schools and independent schools that many Labour Members had. What really matter; is educational excellence—giving children a chance in life. That is what we want to see with the assisted places scheme. I am in favour of the much more competitive education system that we now have. I am fully in favour of
    786
    independent schools but I want to see our grant-maintained schools and our maintained schools giving them a good run for their money, which many do, as our performance tables of academic results show.
    Mr. Steinberg: Is not the assisted places schemes just an underhand method of subsidising independent schools at the expense of state school children?
    Mr. Patten: If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do with his question, no wonder he has been got rid of as a representative of the National Union of Teachers.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many parents and their offspring will testify to the success of the assisted places scheme? Is not it true—it is certainly my experience—that schools and teachers also benefit from the scheme? Is not any proposal to do away with it the result of narrow-minded thinking by those who are against choice in education?
    Mr. Patten: Those of us who believe in a classless and competitive society can only agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: How does the Secretary of State justify spending almost £100 million of taxpayers' money on the assisted places scheme to subsidise independent schools when, at the same time, Ministers are complaining that there are 1.3 million surplus places in our schools? Is not that another example of the inefficient use of taxpayers' money, which is so desperately needed in other sectors of education?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady benefited from a direct grant school education and good luck to her. The Government are interested not in ideology, organisation or in sums of money put in but in academic excellence on behalf of our children and young people and the results that those young people produce. It is as plain as a pikestaff that up and down the land we get exceptionally good value for money from the public money invested in the assisted places scheme because the vast majority of children who benefit from those places obtain spectacular academic results.

    Leicestershire County Council
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff were employed in the education department of Leicestershire county council annually over the last five years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Robin Squire: This information is not collected centrally.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend think that because local management of schools has been so successful, particularly in Leicestershire, and because there is an ever-increasing number of grant-maintained schools, there should be serious reductions in education departments, not least in Leicestershire, which is controlled by a Lib-Lab pact? Is not that something which the Department should be encouraging?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend must be right in what he says. Indeed, had he been inclined to do so, he could have added that further education colleges and sixth-form colleges have now also started to run themselves. All this adds up to a sound reason why all LEAs across the country should be reducing their central staff.

    Higher Education (Academic Staff)
    Mr. Keen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for the introduction of national planning targets for the recruitment and retention of academic staff in higher education.
    Mr. Boswell: None, Madam Speaker. The staffing requirements of universities are a matter for individual institutions.
    Mr. Keen: Is the Minister aware that a demographic time bomb is ticking away in higher education—for instance, in the subject of chemistry, more than 25 per cent. of the staff are more than 55 years old? Should not the Government plan, as the French are doing, to make sure that in future there are sufficient staff in higher education?
    Mr. Boswell: It is nice to know that there are still some people on the Opposition Benches who believe in indicative planning, but the Government do not. We are certainly aware of the age profile of the academic work force and, indeed, some of the problems in individual departments. We shall continue to keep an eye on the situation. But, first, grown-up universities and colleges must determine their own academic staffing profiles and, secondly, we now have a larger range of students than ever before from which to choose potential recruits for the academic world.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we have virtually achieved our manifesto commitment of one in three young people in higher education—whereas in 1979 under the Labour party the figure was only one in eight—and that expenditure on higher education is due to rise in real terms over the next two years?
    Mr. Boswell: I can readily confirm that. We have hit our target in almost two years when we had allowed ourselves nine years in which to do it. Student numbers are at record levels.

    Discretionary Awards
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will increase the funds available for discretionary awards in the coming academic year.
    Mr. Boswell: It is for local education authorities to decide how much to devote to each area of the education service, including discretionary awards, in the light of local needs and circumstances, their own priorities and the resources available to them.
    Mr. Howarth: Is not it the Government's responsibility, having presided over the greatest disruption in pupil education in recent years, to make sure that resources are there so that those people who have suffered can have a second chance? While the Minister is at it, why does not he apologise for all the disruption?
    Mr. Boswell: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I doubt whether he has in mind the fact that public funding for the maintained schools sector has risen by more than 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and that my right hon. Friend and my colleagues have been driving up educational standards.

    However, since the hon. Gentleman asks what our responsibility is, I can tell him that it is to provide, as we do, more than £17 billion through the standard spending
    788
    assessment, which represents an increase of 2.4 per cent. over the previous year. That is a record of resourcing local education authorities that allows them to assume and, we hope, discharge their proper responsibilities.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress is being made towards the Government's target of increasing the number of grant-maintained schools in Leicestershire.
    Mr. Squire: Five schools in Leicestershire have so far achieved grant-maintained status. Three of these are in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to achieve such progress is to invite teachers and parents in Leicestershire to visit the three schools in my constituency—Abington, Bushloe and South Wigston? Will he agree that it is hardly surprising that, outside those schools, there is a queue of parents who come from outside the schools' catchment areas and who want to place their children at those schools, despite the fact that Leicestershire is, as my hon. Friend from Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) has just said, a Liberal-Labour LEA?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right. The story that he tells of Leicestershire is the same one that is repeated across the country for GM self-governing schools. I have some good news for all of my hon. Friends: from next Friday, a further 110 schools will formally become GM schools.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local management of schools.
    Mr. Forth: The most valuable assessment of LMS is that by the schools themselves, the overwhelming majority of whom support its principles and practice. Schools do not wish us to bring back the arrangements previously in place.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the schools in Herefordshire certainly share the opinion that he has given the House? However, I draw his attention to the concern that has been expressed to me by the Bans Court special school in Hereford, which has a very high level of students with severe and multiple learning difficulties. It is concerned that, with nationally agreed pay awards, it may not be able to accommodate those within the LEA assessed grant. Will my hon. Friend be reviewing the way in which local education authorities assess the allocations made to special schools 8o that they can continue their valuable work, and what advice might he give to LEAs?
    Mr. Forth: Local education authorities have remarkable freedom and flexibility in devising and implementing their local management of school schemes, and special schools' budget shares are very dependent on the decisions made by local education authorities within a broad framework, which should be sufficiently flexible to allow the needs of all individual schools to be met. In particular, they can take advantage of the many concessions made for small schools—those with fewer than 330 pupils. I hope that the school will be talking to the local education

    789
    authority, to ensure that the provision that it receives is adequate to its needs. There is no reason why that should not be the case.
    Mr. Bell: Further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and of the Secretary of State, would not it be appropriate for the House to offer its condolences to the parents of Nikki Conroy who so tragically lost her life yesterday in Middlesbrough in a stabbing attack? The House will share with the entire nation its sense of sadness at the death of so young and so lovely a person, cut down even before her prime in a senseless and dastardly attack. Does the Minister agree that no blame can be attached either to the management of Hall Garth school or its teachers, that the teachers, not least the head, have coped extremely well in the circumstances and that Cleveland county council has responded magnificently in giving counselling to those involved? Would not it be appropriate for the Secretary of State to ask all managements in schools to review their own security as a matter of urgency and for him to report back to the House on the outcome of such a review?
    Mr. Forth: I associate myself and all my colleagues with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that our heart-felt sympathy goes to all those involved in the tragedy and I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the role played by all those most closely involved, not least the teachers. I have been very impressed by the measured and dignified way in which the chairman of the governors and the head teacher have responded to what happened in their school. I believe that the best service that we can provide for all school children throughout the land who, with their parents, will be upset and appalled at this incident, is to examine carefully what happened and draw whatever lessons can be drawn. However, I believe that, as a result of what happened yesterday, all schools will already be looking at their own arrangements and deciding what they can best do. We will certainly be examining what happened to see what lessons can be learnt and what advice, support and help we can give.

    Physical Education
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what importance is attached to physical education in the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Physical education is a foundation subject in the national curriculum. As such, it is compulsory for all pupils aged five to 16 years in maintained schools.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that some 71 per cent. of 14-year-olds receive fewer than two hours' physical education a week in school? Does he agree that sport and exercise, as opposed to the watching of videos and television, are desirable for young people and should be encouraged?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend must be right about the importance of games. As I am sure that he knows, it is compulsory for five to 14-year-olds to have such games. He may be interested to know that Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, recently collected evidence which showed that, on average, PE took between 7 and 12 per cent. of curriculum time.

    Truancy
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many truancy watch schemes he expects to be established under his recent initiative to crack down on truancy.
    Mr. Forth: A total of 101 schemes were suggested by local education authorities for inclusion in the 1994–95 truancy and disaffected pupils grants for educational support and training programme. Half the 86 approved schemes include a "truancy watch" element along the lines of a pilot scheme currently operating in Staffordshire. My right hon. Friend has been much encouraged by the many expressions of support for those schemes from senior police officers and representatives of the business community.
    Mr. Booth: Is the Minister aware of the widespread support for the Government's truancy initiative, especially in areas such as Finchley, where there is great support for education generally? Will he also tell us what steps are being taken to encourage, enhance and train parents to support those truancy efforts?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend and I lay an enormous stress on dealing with the problem of truancy. We believe that young people should be in school, being educated, and should not be at risk outside school. We believe that that is of the greatest importance. I have been encouraged by the positive response from schools and from local education authorities, which have been involving their community, the police, education and welfare officers and, I hope, increasingly involving parents, on whom rests the statutory responsibility for ensuring that their children are in school and learning when they should be.
    Mr. Riddick: Question 16.
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be lucky.

  PRIME MINISTER

    ENGAGEMENTS
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the work force at the Swan Hunter shipyards on Tyneside, who, despite the fact that the company is in receivership, have continued to produce a high-quality product on time for the Ministry of Defence with the receiver close to securing a new owner, but with work running out? Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, consider steps that the Government can take to safeguard the future of shipbuilding on the Tyne and thereby retain 1,000 highly-skilled manufacturing jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I support what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the workers at Swan Hunter. As he will know, officials are continuing to support the receiver's efforts to sell Swan Hunter as a going concern.

    791
    I know that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) have been active on its behalf. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has told the company that foreign ownership would not preclude Swan Hunter from bidding for MOD work. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all MOD work is bid for on a competitive basis.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the bid from France is successful, the new owners intend to use Swan Hunter to obtain substantial additional export orders for Britain and that the continuation of Swan Hunter in those circumstances would be good not only for the Royal Navy—by maintaining competition—but for Britain—by obtaining additional exports—and for Tyneside—by retaining an excellent work force?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it would be the collective wish of the House that Swan Hunter should continue its work in the future. I very much hope that it will be possible for a buyer to come in, so that Swan Hunter may be able to continue.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary, who told the House yesterday that the blocking minority in the enlarged Community would be 27?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I shall make a statement on that matter in just a few moments. When there is dissent between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic—[Interruption.] Between 22 and 27, there will not be automatic agreement, and I shall set out the circumstances then in a few moments.
    Mr. John Smith: I am aware that we shall have the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman more detailed questions, but I asked him about what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in the House. Is not it the case that, if no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority is 27? That is a fact, is it not?
    The Prime Minister: If no agreement is reached in the Community, the blocking minority at the moment would move to 37. That is the point at issue. After agreement is reached, if agreement is reached and everything proceeds satisfactorily in the next 24 hours, the position would be that, if any country was part of a blocking minority that did not reach 27, but was over 22, that is 23 to 26, it would not automatically be 27. There would be a considerable delay and much further discussion.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the clear point this: that after the delay has expired, the blocking minority will be 27? Yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am afraid that he misunderstands, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did yesterday. There is no time limit.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement of the European Community is in Britain's best interests and that the four strong and stalwart possible new members will not be put off by the knowledge that to fight hard for national interests is still possible when one is at the heart of Europe?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, we have been the foremost proponents of enlargement of the Community, because we should like a larger and more loosely knit Community. I very much hope that all the four applicant nations will win their referendums and become members of the Community from 1 January next year.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I put the question to the Prime Minister a different way? I disagreed with him at the time, but does he recall saying last week that the principle to which he would wish firmly to adhere was that the Governments representing 30 per cent. of Europe's population should have an unqualified right of veto over the rest? Will he now confirm that that principle has been abandoned?
    The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting what I said last week—but he is absolutely right that I am concerned about the legitimacy of Community decisions as an ever-larger part of the Community can be overridden under qualified majority voting. That is precisely why we have reached the safeguards in the past 24 hours and precisely why we have now obtained an absolute assurance that both the thresholds and the voting weights will be reconsidered and redetermined in 1996.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to send a message of sympathy to the staff, pupils and parents at Hall Garth school in Middlesbrough, which a considerable number of my constituents attend and which was the scene of the awful tragedy yesterday? Will he also send a message of commendation to the teaching staff for their prompt and effective action in dealing with the madman who broke into the classroom?
    The Prime Minister: Not only would I be happy to do that, but I think that the message would have the unqualified support of every right hon. and hon. Member. I believe that all hon. Members would wish to send their deepest sympathy to Nikki's family and to the school. The event was horrendous—the sort of random act of madness that it is almost impossible to guard against—and for the families and pupils involved it leaves a legacy of horror that will take a long time to wash away. I congratulate the teachers and others for the way in which they behaved yesterday. Clearly, we shall have to see whether any further guidance can be given to schools in view of that tragic incident.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Prime Minister realise that by ignoring the wishes of the people of Strathclyde, who overwhelmingly rejected the idea of water quangos, he is going against his own citizens charter?
    The Prime Minister: I answered two questions on that subject last week and the hon. Gentleman will know that I do not agree with the way in which Strathclyde set up its referendum. It was not possible to retain the previous methods of controlling water authorities and we have chosen the method that we believe is most apt for the future.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that council tax increases in Liberal-controlled counties are well above the rate of inflation? Indeed, in Somerset the rate of increase is twice the rate of inflation, in Dorset it is three times the rate of inflation and in Hampshire it is five times the rate of inflation.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of that in the case of Hampshire and in the case of Richmond in London, and I suspect that if we were to examine the situation we should find a very high level of council tax under Liberal authorities everywhere. It is clear that if people want a lower level of council tax, they ought to vote Conservative.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now admitted that the average family tax rise from April will be £9 to £10—double what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will be, and more in line with Labour party predictions? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whom he now believes—the Chancellor or his Chief Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was talking about the average wage earner; my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was showing what the impact on the average family would be. They are both correct.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I, as the chairman of the all-party friends of the Northern line group, welcome today's announcement about new trains for the Northern line? Is not this good news for 400,000 Londoners who travel daily on that route? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be particularly welcome in the London borough of Barnet?
    The Prime Minister: That does depend on successful bids from the private sector. What has happened today is that the Government have given permission for London Underground to hold a competition for the provision of privately financed rolling stock for the Northern line. We shall be looking to the private sector to take on some of the risks of ownership, but I am confident that the use of that competition will pave the way for greater use of private finance in the future.
    Mr. Keen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Keen: I congratulate the Prime Minister, not just because it is his birthday but because some of my constituents are impressed by the quality of the answers that he gives. However, people often point out to me—I have to agree—that many of the right hon. Gentleman's answers are unconnected with the questions. I think that that has to do with the random access file from which he
    794
    reads. Would not the random nature of the question-and-answer session be reduced if the right hon. Gentleman were to read all the answers first and then we were to ask questions?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the management and work force of Slingsby Aviation in Kirkbymoorside on securing the contract to supply more than 100 training aircraft to the United States air force? The factory is being visited today by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Does not that order prove that small firms in Britain can compete in the toughest market anywhere in the world?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware until now of that contract, but I am very happy to congratulate Slingsby. It is certainly the case that a large number of both small and medium-sized firms are now exporting a high proportion of their turnover. That reflects both their efficiency and the fact that the British economy is now acutely competitive.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor, who has described national insurance as "not a tax", or with his former Chancellor, who thought that it was?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Lady is being very selective in her quote. The reality is as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated.
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a traditional feature of life in British towns is their main post office? Is he aware of the consternation created in places such as Saffron Walden when the post office is threatened with having its services franchised out to a side-street newsagent? Will he undertake to review Government policy towards the Post Office with those concerns in mind?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that post offices should remain very much a part of life in our towns and villages. That is why the Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices across the country. What is important is the quality of service that customers receive, and that is what the Government want to see improved in Saffron Walden, as elsewhere. I will certainly reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham,

    795
    Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), whose constituents last week, for the first time ever, welcomed the election of a Labour councillor?
    The Prime Minister: Given the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Birmingham, if the electors did elect a Labour councillor, it certainly cannot be on the back of the record of the Labour Birmingham council.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend please have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    796
    Transport to see whether it is possible, before the Easter recess, to have a statement on the road-building programme in the hope that he will announce the abandonment of the hated proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, which no one in south and mid-Essex wishes?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard the plea from my hon. Friend; I will

European Union (Qualified Majority Voting)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on proposals to adjust qualified majority voting in the context of the European Union's enlargement negotiations.
In the negotiations, the Government had two principal objectives. First, we wished to see the negotiations succeed, provided the terms were acceptable. We have been strong and consistent supporters of enlargement. We look forward to welcoming Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden at the beginning of 1995, provided their peoples and parliaments so decide in the referendums that lie ahead.
On enlargement, it is necessary to amend article 148 of the treaty. Without a change, the blocking minority would automatically rise to 37 votes. Our second objective was to safeguard the rights of minorities in the period between enlargement and the 1996 intergovernmental conference, and to seek a fundamental review of qualified majority voting at that conference.
We believed that there should not be an unqualified, mathematical extension of the blocking minority to 27. We were concerned that successive, unqualified extensions had weakened the democratic legitimacy of the Community.
A large part of our concern stemmed from the handling by the European Commission of social measures. Article 118A of the treaty, which provides for health and safety at work, had been used as a vehicle for the adoption by qualified majority voting of measures affecting social affairs and employment. In addition, a proposal had recently been made to count the employees of multinational companies in the United Kingdom towards the threshold of the works council directive—although this measure had been brought forward under the social chapter, to which the United Kingdom is not a party.
My right hon. Friend said yesterday that we were pursuing our concerns about the social affairs measures. I can now tell the House that we have received assurances from the Commission that it will not bring forward any further proposals under the health and safety articles under its term of office except for measures directly and demonstrably relevant to health and safety at work. This means that we shall not face a repetition from this Commission of our experience over the working time directive, which we are challenging in the European Court of Justice; or over the young persons directive, which is in dispute between the Council and the European Parliament.
The Commission has also agreed now that proposals under the social chapter will not embrace in any way people or organisations in the United Kingdom. For the purposes of the social chapter, the United Kingdom will be entirely excluded from legislation. This meets a particular concern that we had with the works council proposal, which the other 11 member states are pursuing.
The proposal on qualified majority voting negotiated by my right hon. Friend at the weekend meets many—although not all
—of the Government's concerns. We have secured agreement that the review of qualified majority voting at the next intergovernmental conference will now include the question of thresholds. These will be reopened and re-examined, as will the number of votes attributed to
798
each member state in the Community. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was available before."] This means, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, that there will be a root and branch review of the system. This will have to take a fundamental look at the democratic legitimacy of decision-making.
At the request of the United Kingdom and Spain, the transitional arrangements from accession until 1996 will no longer provide for unqualified extension of the blocking minority to 27. The Council is under a legal and binding obligation to seek agreement on the basis of a minority of at least 23 votes. My right hon. Friend ensured that there would be no time limit for the fulfilment of this obligation.
The Commission and the presidency are required to take "any initiative necessary" to reach a solution adopted by at least 68 votes—that is to say, with no more than 22 votes against. This obligation is justiciable in the European Court of Justice. We expect it to be upheld scrupulously. Should there be any question of a breach of the obligation, we would reserve the right to take whatever action was necessary, and a number of avenues would be open to us. The first would be a legal challenge and the second would be use of the Luxembourg compromise.
The binding nature of the obligation is clearly understood by our partners, and stems from the form of the Council's decision. For example, Germany has said today that it regards the obligation as binding on the Council, and Germany has no doubt, it says, that all other member states of the Union will also fully respect these procedures.
On this basis, the Cabinet has concluded that, since we wish to see enlargement proceed, progress on qualified majority voting was sufficient to be acceptable until 1996. We are informing the presidency that, provided the concessions made to the United Kingdom and Spain are accepted without qualification by the other member states, the United Kingdom can accept this interim proposal.
Enlargement will bring into the Union countries which share Britain's open trading instincts, and which will be net contributors to the budget. It will be another step towards the wider, less centralised, open trading Europe for which we have been working.
Mr. John Smith: However the Prime Minister seeks to camouflage his retreat from his vainglorious assertions of "no surrender" last week, is not the plain fact that the Government have accepted a blocking minority of 27, as the Foreign Secretary was forced to admit in the House yesterday?
On the detail of the Foreign Ministers' declaration, is not his supposed triumph of obtaining a minor period of delay hopelessly undermined by the text of the declaration, which says in paragraph (c) that it is all
"without prejudice to the obligatory time limit laid down by the Treaties and by secondary Law"?
Is it the case that if, at the end of the day, agreement has not been reached, the period of delay can be terminated by a simple majority, and then a blocking minority of 27 is required?
On the so-called assurances from the Commission, is there a written agreement which can be made available to the House? Can any assurances, whatever they may be, extend beyond the end of this year when the Commission's term of office expires?
Now that the Prime Minister has had to make a humiliating climbdown, will he explain to the House why the question of qualified majority voting was not raised

799
earlier in the enlargement discussions—for example, at the Lisbon summit or at the most recent Brussels summit, where all the key decisions on enlargement were taken?
Is not the explanation for the timing and for this whole sorry fiasco that a Prime Minister, fearful of the warring factions in his own party, propelled himself into an unwise conflict, which he could not and did not win, but which has resulted in unnecessary and severe damage to friendly countries and no advantage to Britain?
The Prime Minister: A number of points which were raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are factually inaccurate. On the question why qualified majority voting was not raised earlier, the fact is that it was raised earlier. It has been discussed during the past year and for many months between Ministers and officials, and it has not previously been agreed. But it has been discussed for a great deal of time at both official and Government level. Unfortunately, it was not possible to attain an earlier agreement.
In what he has just said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have overlooked the fact that we have achieved a series of concessions that would not have been available if we had adopted his position of accepting, without let or hindrance, 27 for all areas immediately, which is what was sought by other people. We have not achieved the maintenance of the blocking majority of 23—I would ideally have preferred that—but neither have the other member states achieved what they would have wished, because we have obtained concessions, particular-ly concessions that protect our most vulnerable flank on social affairs.
As for the obligatory time limit, I know that it is complex, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood it. That time limit relates to the European Parliament after a common position has been reached, and not during discussion among member states for reaching a common position; the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood the point.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's simple majority point, if there were any attempt to use a simple majority to move forward to a qualified majority vote, under this agreement we would certainly be able to go to the European Court of Justice, and we would most certainly do so. I think that it is clear from what is being said by other member states that they would not be likely to go down that route. Certainly on previous occasions, they have not and they know what the impact would most certainly be.
The agreement with the Commission lasts until the end of this year, because this Commission ends at the end of this year. But I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we will certainly seek an extension under the new Commission next year, and I see no reason to suppose that we will not achieve it.
Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend get rid of some puzzlement outside this House? In the regulations, is there some mysterious rule that says that Britain may not make her case for a particular course of action, or that, for some reason or another, it will be impossible for Britain to get enough votes on her side for a reasonable case to enable it to be adopted?
The Prime Minister: No, my hon. Friend is right that it is open to this country, as to any other country, to argue its case on areas of particular concern. We have said consistently throughout that it is necessary to safeguard certain areas of particular interest to the United Kingdom. Although, as I conceded to the House a moment ago, I would have preferred to retain 23 as a complete blocking minority until 1996, it is equally the case that there are areas of Community policy where a blocking minority of 27 suits this Government's policies more than 23. The CAP, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says, is a case in point.
Fundamentally, we are seeking a root and branch reform of both the weighting of votes and the threshold of votes and that is what we have obtained in 1996. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who during the statement was shouting that that was available before, is wrong. The agreement on thresholds was available before, but not the agreement on thresholds and weighting.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister must explain to his party why he asks them to celebrate today what last week he told them was unacceptable. For my part, I welcome the fact that he has arrived at a solution—even if it is by accident—that now allows us to reform the CAP in the interests of the British taxpayer, and to admit more quickly the four new members, who will make a net contribution to the budget, and who are likely to be Britain's friends, provided we do not go on behaving as we have in the past two weeks.
No amount of clever words or verbal gymnastics can hide the fact that the Government have made a fool of Britain in Europe; that the Cabinet has made a fool of the Foreign Secretary; and that the Prime Minister has frankly made rather a fool of himself.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood the nature of the agreement that has been reached. If he had, he would have acknowledged the fact that the Council is under a binding agreement to aim for a basis of at least 23 rather than 27 votes when any blocking minority exceeds 22 but falls short of 27. That is likely to safeguard a number of our interests.
The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the fact that he would have surrendered the unanimity rule. He is not prepared to fight in Europe for matters that may be of direct concern to this country—we are, as is every other Government in the Community. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman would not support the Government in fighting for things that are plainly in the interests of the people of this country.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is an honourable solution to a difficult problem, which hopefully will allow the four applicant countries to join as soon as possible? Is he aware that it is important for those new countries to join before 1996, when negotiations begin at the intergovernmental conference? Is it not further important, if we are to achieve a thorough discussion of qualified majority voting, for those countries to realise what it is in this country's interests to do—that is, to make the whole of the working of the Community an important vehicle for the future? There are both the intergovernmental and the qualified majority voting sides—the totality is important for this country's interests.
The Prime Minister: We shall now have a thorough examination of both thresholds and weighting. Of course, that will also now include any of the applicant members that join the Community on 1 January next year. As my hon. Friend said, we were foremost in arguing for enlargement. I believe that that is very much in the interests not only of this country, but of the Community as well. In due course, we look forward not only to the entry of the European Free Trade Association states, but—perhaps around the turn of the century—to that of some, or all, of the Visigrad states.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: If the figure of 27 was unacceptable to the Prime Minister in any form last Tuesday, why is it acceptable a week later?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard me say a moment ago that, although I would have prefered 23, 27 has always been acceptable for some aspects—reform of the common agricultural policy being a case in point. What I said last week was that we insisted on safeguarding the rights of substantial minorities, and that is what we have achieved.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the tapes have reported what are referred to as "fierce denials" by the Commission a few minutes ago about the guarantees on social policy, can the Prime Minister explain who is going to decide whether a directive is relevant to health or safety? Will it be decided by the Commission or the Council, and will it be done by a majority vote?
The Prime Minister: We know what the proposed directives are, unless fresh directives that are as yet wholly unconsidered are suddenly proposed, which is not likely. We know that only two directives are coming forward that will come under health and safety legislation, and those are two that we asked for.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the Prime Minister really not realise that leadership, in the context of his enfeebled Government., requires that he be brutal with the eccentric excrescences to his right?
The Prime Minister: I am always open to receive advice but, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not always take it.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Can I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the Government on achieving a most important modernisation of the Luxembourg compromise arrangements? Will he confirm that it is the determined intention of the Government to go ahead with the other member states and to develop the European Union in accordance with the Maastricht treaty?
The Prime Minister: Well, there is one serious qualification to an acknowledgment of that point—the fact that, whereas the rest of the European Union countries will proceed with the Maastricht treaty including the social protocol, we shall not. However, with that exception, we shall certainly proceed with developing the European Union, as set out in the treaty that this House passed.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Prime Minister is investing a lot of trust in the European Commission as far as assurances go. Does he recall that the Commission is the most arch-federalist of all the institutions in the Community and that its President is a
802
certain Mr. Jacques Delors—a notorious socialist, who wants to do precisely those things that the Prime Minister does not want him to do? If those assurances are as strong as the Prime Minister claimed, why do we also need a legally binding and enforceable agreement that the Community will not resort to qualified majority voting? If that qualified majority voting is challenged, surely the other European federalist body, the European Court of Justice, will decide who is right and who is wrong?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has set out very clearly precisely why we were unwilling to sign up to the proposals in front of us without the changes that we have now secured on social matters. It is precisely for the reasons that he has set out that we felt that we needed those commitments—and we have achieved them.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As no objective observer believes that this so-called compromise has achieved anything of real value for the United Kingdom, and as, as of now, my right hon. Friend has no authority, credibility or identifiable policy in this vital area of policy, why does he not stand aside and make way for somebody else who can provide the party and the country with direction and leadership?[Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Resign!
The Prime Minister: Anybody listening to what my hon. Friend has had to say, not just today but at any time in the past two and a half years, would in no sense suggest that my hon. Friend was an objective observer of any related matters. I remind my hon. Friend that it might be a useful novelty if, from time to time, he was prepared to support the Government whom he was elected to support.
Hon. Members: More!
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who is going to clean up the blood?
Mr. John Hume: When all the waffle on this subject has died down, would the Prime Minister please tell me what has changed? Would he agree that, under 12 member states, 23 was 30 per cent. of the total vote, and would he agree that, under 16 member states, 27 is now 30 per cent. of the total vote? What has changed?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Twenty-seven is just over 40 per cent. of the votes—[Interruption].—of population. When we joined the Community, the blocking minority was 30 per cent. of population; 27 is now over 40 per cent., and it is on that point that we think that in 1996 we need to change the system so that there is more democratic legitimacy for the way in which the Community reaches its decisions.
Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the really good news this afternoon is that the way is now clear to go ahead with the enlargement of the Community, which must be in this country's best interests in the long term?
The assurances from the Commission on the health and safety articles are important. We should not have had to fight for them, because they should not have been introduced by mismanagement and device by the Commission. My right hon. Friend will have the full

803
support of the House in fighting against any repetition of the Commission's abuse in that way—support which he could not expect from the Opposition.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about our commitment to enlargement and the importance of enlargement to the European Union, both in the short and the long term. He is equally right to say that we should not have had to fight for those concessions. It is our belief that the Commission misused the treaty-based article 118A, but the fact is that we did have to fight for them, we have fought for them, and we have achieved them.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the agreement that the Commission wanted, the Foreign Secretary supported, the Cabinet has accepted and the Prime Minister has announced makes it more and more likely that laws will be imposed on this country in Brussels, which will supersede British laws and will deny the British electors the right to determine the laws under which they are governed? Is the betrayal of this principle towards a federal Europe not a denial of the principle that no Parliament can commit its successor, and that the British people must have the right to vote for those who pass the laws under which they are governed?
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been better employed directing that question at those on his own Front Bench, who would have, first, unquestionably accepted 27 and, secondly, abolished unanimity.
Sir Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend pause to reflect for a moment on the price of failure to agree? Would not a failure to enlarge or to protect minorities be disastrous? Away from the hothouse of this place, will it not be clear to everyone that this is the best agreement on offer?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. It was necessary to get enlargement and the extra protections to help minorities. By 1996, it will be apparent that a number of states will express concern at the present system and how qualified majority voting works. There is no proper equity between, for example, the populations of many of the countries and the votes that they can exercise in the Council of Ministers. That applies to the United Kingdom and other countries as well.
But if the actions of the European Union as a whole are to retain the support of the peoples of Europe, we shall have to look carefully at how we reach our decisions. That is what we have now agreed will happen, with a root and branch reform in 1996.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Prime Minister has conspicuously failed to convince 11 countries of the merits of his argument for 23 votes. Is he seriously suggesting that, during the next intergovernmental conference, he will be able to persuade 15 countries to turn back the clock and return to 23 votes?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman misun-derstands the nature of the discussions. A number of the countries were prepared to continue on the present basis because they were aware that there was to be a significant
804
examination of this matter in 1996. They will welcome the fact that it will now be more significant than they had previously imagined.
Sir Peter Hordern: In view of the increasing competition from Japan, the far east and the United States to every business throughout the European Union due to the success of the GATT round, is it not essential that, in the intergovernmental conference in 1996, agreement is reached so that votes more nearly accord with populations, and businesses throughout the community are not burdened with extra costs?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the excessive social burdens laid on many companies throughout the European Union are making their exports less competitive than they otherwise would be, and no longer competitive with similar companies in Japan, the United States and many countries in the Pacific basin. That is one of the reasons why we were not prepared to accept the social chapter. It is also why we believe that we must look at the changes in the voting system that I have outlined to the House today.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the transitional arrangements, will the Prime Minister explain how the Government will decide to use their votes at Council meetings in that interim period? For example, at the Fisheries Council to be held on 11 and 12 April, will there be qualified majority voting or the issue of unanimity, which is my understanding of the original treaty? Does he understand the concern within the fishing industry in Scotland that his only allies during these negotiations were the Spaniards, who want access to the North sea, and that that has been accelerated?
The Prime Minister: There is no change in the items dealt with either by unanimity or qualified majority voting under what has been agreed. The method of deciding—whether qualified majority vote or unanimity—is laid down in earlier treaties, such as the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. That is not changed by anything decided in the past couple of days.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust stance in defence of minorities in Europe? However, given the statements that have emanated from Europe this morning that a reasonable delay would entail only a few months, that any concessions would apply only to the present Commission, and that we could not claw back in 1996 what we lose now, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a well-founded concern that we have conceded the figure of 27? Will he therefore give an absolute assurance to the House that, if we do obtain 23 votes, we can delay indefinitely directives with which we disagree?
The Prime Minister: I think the remarks to which my hon. Friend refers may have come from one Foreign Minister. They do not reflect the view of the Heads of Government to whom I have spoken in recent days.
I have no doubt that we will be able to delay under 23—quite how long will depend on the nature of the discussion. What is clear is that the time limit set out by that Foreign Minister is ludicrously wrong. If we feel that a matter has not been properly developed, we can, first, take it to the European Court of Justice, which may well take more than several years to determine it. Secondly, we

805
can use the Luxembourg compromise. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, if we feel it necessary, we shall take one or both of those actions, and we have made that clear to our partners.
Mr. Derek Enright: When I asked the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) how on earth the Government got themselves on this hook, he replied, "I am a very good angler indeed." Is not that at the heart of the matter? Is it not about time the Government started acting positively in Europe, with Europe, for Europe; is it not time they discussed, in full public court, the question of monetary union—instead of holding their discussions behind closed curtains, as they are now?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would make common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on his last point—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Nobody else does.
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can better what my hon. Friend has said.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: The principal objective of the Government's negotiations was the enlargement of the Community. If we had refused to reach any agreement, that enlargement would probably have unravelled, much to the satisfaction of a number of countries in the EC. I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on the compromise reached—in particular, on the agreement that the voting structure should be looked at in 1996. If we continue to expand the Community to take in the Visigrad countries, we could reach the point where the main contributors—Britain, France and Germany—were outvoted by the rest of the Community.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Unless there is reform, and if the mathematical formula followed through on this occasion were again followed on the next enlargement, France, Germany and the United Kingdom—three significant contributors to the Community—could be outvoted by qualified majority voting procedures. Clearly that would be absurd; it is one reason why I am confident that we will have a root and branch reform in 1996.
My right hon. Friend is equally right about the importance of enlargement to us and the Community. I think that it will increasingly change the nature of the Community for the better.
Mr. David Winnick: Given the contrast between the angry defiance of the Prime Minister last week and the surrender today, is it not understandable that virtually every Tory newspaper has been highly dismissive of the Prime Minister's conduct over this issue? The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has had the courage to say what many other Tory Members would undoubtedly say if they had his courage: it is time for the Prime Minister to go.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is always ready with a quote, but I am not likely to be over-concerned about that.
As for the earlier, more substantive, concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, we set out last week the fact that we needed some changes to protect minorities—changes to protect the position being abused under article 118A. We
806
have obtained what we sought in that regard. We have also required and obtained a much wider root and branch reform of voting procedures in 1996. That is not surrender; it is obtaining what we set out to obtain in the negotiations some time ago.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is it not extraordinary cheek on the part of the leader of the Labour party to pour contempt on an honourable settlement, carefully negotiate-ed? He would not even have tried to achieve such a negotiated outcome. Is not his cheek probably born of the fact that he has never been in a position to negotiate anything since the Labour party accepted our membership of the European Union?
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend is totally accurate about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's past. He may have had some part in seeking to negotiate devolution at some stage in the 1970s. If I recall correctly—and if not, of course I shall withdraw—he had a large responsibility in that, and it was not a notable success.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does not the whole affair reflect the fragility of the claimed protection of unanimity? Have not the arguments now descended from negotiation into the throwing around of mutual ultimatums, showing that the Community, far from being an organisation of co-operation, as time passes becomes one of coercion?
The Prime Minister: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Nothing here affects unanimity or the national veto. We are still determined that that shall be retained, as are other countries. The only threat to unanimity comes from the fact that the Labour party is seeking qualified majority voting as the norm—which means, if it means anything, that a Labour Government, were there to be such a beast, would scrap unanimity and the national protection which that offers us.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it not always in Europe jam tomorrow? We were told at the end of the Maastricht proceedings that there would be no further move towards federalism. We have suffered this defeat; we have seen our opt-out of the social chapter eroded; and we are now told that all will come right in 1996. Will not the British people at some stage say to their Government, "You must say no, and mean it"?
The Prime Minister: The enlargement is something of which my hon. Friend would approve. It is of significant interest and, in the terminology of my hon. Friend, jam today. The enlargement will be of significant importance to the future working of the Community, as will subsequent enlargements from the Visigrad countries and perhaps in due course from others.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Prime Minister recall that his predecessor was so adept at undermining the European efforts of her Foreign Secretary that eventually Geoffrey Howe was forced to exclaim during his resignation speech that it was like going onto the cricket pitch to find that his bat had been broken by the team captain. On this occasion, would it not be more appropriate for the bat to be broken over the team captain's head?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend and I both propose to use the bat in Britain's interest, we shall have better use for it.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear, particularly to those outside the House, that this decision makes no alteration to our absolute veto on the most important issues, and that that will not be open for renegotiation in 1996? Does he also accept that, despite what many other people may say, he has the vast support of the majority of right hon. and hon. Members sitting behind him?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that it makes no change whatever to the unanimity rule. As that is not understood by many people, and certainly not by many commentators who appear to have written about the matter recently, it is important that that message should be clearly understood in the House and beyond it.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree that talk of a veto is nonsense, and that his predecessor sold the pass on the British veto in 1985 with the Single European Act? Does he accept that it is all a big charade, and, because of internal divisions, he has turned Britain into a laughing stock throughout Europe?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman understands less than most of his hon. Friends. The veto still exists. Indeed, it was largely because it did exist that I was able to say no—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said a moment ago—to the social chapter during the Maastricht negotiations. I was able to say no. The national veto stood behind me; had I not got that concession from our partners, I could have ceased to agree to the entire Maastricht treaty. The veto does exist; it is potent, it can be used, and I have used it.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I cautiously recognise the Commission's position on the remit of health and safety legislation and the social chapter, and welcome the fact that the thresholds can be renegotiated in 1996. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is now more important than ever for a review of the scope of European legislation—and the amount of legislation that is dealt with through qualified majority voting—to be carried out between now and 1996, in line with the doctrine of subsidiarity that the Labour party so hypocritically opposed during the Maastricht treaty negotiations?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right in those ambitious thoughts. Indeed, that is beginning to happen. The amount of legislation from Europe has been halved over the past year to 18 months, and I thoroughly welcome that: such a reduction is long overdue, and it has now been obtained.
As my hon. Friend will also know, under the subsidiarity provisions of the Maastricht treaty, the equivalent of 25 per cent. of Community legislation either has been repealed or is being revised.
Mr. John Hutton: How does today's obvious climbdown—coupled with the miserable failure of Britain's negotiating position over the reform of qualified majority voting—serve to advance the Prime Minister's oft-stated policy of putting Britain at the heart of Europe?
The Prime Minister: We seek, in this and in other matters, to influence what happens in the European Community in the direction that we think is right. We have done that very successfully with the enlargement procedure; we have done it very successfully with the reduction of legislation; we have done it very successfully with the subsidiarity provisions; and we have done it very successfully in other areas as well. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, that requires us from time to time to dissent from what happens to be the prevailing majority view in the European Union.
There is nothing anti-European about doing that. It is also the case that other nations—the French, the Germans, the Spanish, whoever it may be—dissent from time to time from aspects of European Union legislation. It is right that they should do so, because only through arguments and discussions of that sort can a proper consensus be reached.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Just to dispel any residual doubts, will my right hon. Friend spell out unequivocally those points of principle on which, in the national interest, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to stand, courageously and consistently, in our relations with the European Community?
The Prime Minister: We have made perfectly clear, over a long period, the areas that are of particular principle to us. The fact that we were not prepared to accept the social charter, for no other reason than that it would make it more difficult for companies in this country to sell their goods and maintain jobs, is a matter of principle for us; similarly, the maintenance of the national veto is a matter of principle for us. We also seek to make changes to the system of qualified majority voting. Some we have obtained on this occasion; for others we have laid down a marker in 1996. Those and other areas are matters of great importance to us.
Dr. Tony Wright: Does the Prime Minister believe that we have more friends and allies in Europe as a result of this diplomatic disaster? Does he think that we shall have more friends and allies in 1996 as a result of what has happened? Has the Prime Minister learnt at least one thing from this debacle—that any attempt to found British European policy on the internal interests of the Conservative party will end badly, and will deserve to?
The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that we have certainly learnt. We have learnt that we have obtained concessions in this negotiation that we would not have obtained if we had followed the Labour party's advice and just lamely said yes to 27.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend take this Opportunity to remind the country that the fight that he has put up for its interests is in complete contrast to that of the Opposition party? That party would have not only watered down the whole concept of QMV, but abandoned our national veto. Is that not the dividing line between the parties on Europe, and will it not be the issue that the country will need to see as part of the European elections?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that—except that, with his characteristic generosity, he neglected to mention that the Liberal party has precisely the same policies as the Labour party.
Several hon.Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move to the next business.

Stray Dogs
4.14 pm
Ms Jean Corston: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow local authorities to permanently identify a stray dog before returning it to its owner; and for connected purposes.
The Bill addresses one of the most common problems in Britain's cities—the problem of stray dogs—and seeks to give local authorities assistance in dealing with it.
The House is well aware that Britain is a nation of dog lovers. Over one in four households have a dog. As The Times revealed last week, there are 7.3 million dogs in Britain, which represents an increase of almost 2 million in 12 years. For most people the dog is a treasured member of the family. They care for it, give it exercise and do not allow it to stray or be a nuisance to others. Most dog owners recognise that the freedom to own a dog involves responsibility to that dog and to their neighbours.
Unfortunately, there are those who do not accept their responsibilities, and who allow their dog to stray and become a nuisance to others. We all know that a stray dog may cause road accidents, may foul indiscriminately and, with other dogs, may become a menace to other people, causing fear and alarm.
The experience of my local authority, Bristol city council, is that the majority of stray dogs are what could be described as "latch-key" strays—dogs that are let out of the house to wander and return home later. In response, Bristol city council has an excellent dog warden scheme, dealing efficiently with strays. The wardens are dedicated to the welfare of the dogs and work closely with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to find homes for dogs whose owners do not wish to have them back.
Unfortunately, some of the dogs cannot be found new homes, and inevitably have to be destroyed. Many of the owners who adopt this casual attitude to their dog will no doubt acquire a new dog, which may well suffer the same fate.
In 1991–92, Bristol handled more than 1,800 stray dogs. It costs Bristol over £9 per day to kennel each of the dogs, which, by law, have to be kept for at least seven days. An unclaimed dog costs the council tax payers of Bristol up to £70 in kennelling costs, and a further £10 if the dog has to be destroyed. In 1991–92, more than 450 dogs were not claimed by their owners, costing Bristol council tax payers an estimated £31,500. Some authorities are destroying more than 1,000 dogs each year.
As anyone can see, dealing with strays is a costly business, and most authorities are not given the power to tackle the problem more effectively. Bristol city council encourages owners to have their dogs permanently identified. It is a sort of vaccination against loss, and is as painless as any other injection a dog will receive. It places a small microchip under the skin at the back of the dog's neck. The chip can be read by a hand-held reader carried by a dog warden, an RSPCA inspector and some police officers. The individual number given to each dog can be used to trace, by a simple telephone call, the name and address of the owner.
Bristol city council microchippped more than 800 dogs in the past year alone. It has increased the number of dogs that can be returned to their owners within hours, and sometimes within minutes, of being found. A dog returned

811
to its owner on the day it is found saves dog wardens precious time, and the council and the council tax payer considerable sums of money. Furthermore, a council that finds a dog whose owner does not want it back will get the owner to sign over ownership of the dog to the council, allowing it to be rehoused without having to be kept in kennels for seven days.
The Bill merely allows authorities such as Bristol, which handles large numbers of stray dogs each year, permanently to identify a stray dog before it is returned to its owner. Although the law requires dogs to wear a collar and tag when in a public place, in reality most strays do not have a collar and tag. Unlike a collar and tag, a microchip cannot get lost.
The Bill is not a dog registration Bill. It does not require compulsory registration for all dog owners. But it does give the authority the option of targeting the offending owners and ensuring that their dog, which has been allowed to stray, carries permanent identification.
Furthermore, many of Britain's councils will not have a significant stray dog problem, and will not require to take such steps; but I believe that local authorities throughout Britain will increasingly use this simple procedure to reduce the stray dog population and save precious public money. Already, between 1992 and 1993—just one year—Bristol has seen a decline in its strays of more than 400, which represents a fall of 20 per cent. This has been achieved by persuading owners to have their dogs permanently identified. The number of stray dogs being kennelled will fall even further if the Government allow the Bill to become law.
Finally, the Bill does not affect the responsible dog owner. It will not add to the burden of local authorities or the taxpayer in general; nor will the Bill place an extra duty on any local authority. It will merely add a valuable option for local councils to tackle a problem that is visible daily on our streets and in our neighbourhoods. The Bill is better for the welfare of the dog, better for people, better for children in parks and playgrounds, better for our urban environment, and much better for the taxpayer. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Jean Corston, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Roger Berry and Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

STRAY DOGS
Ms Jean Corston accordingly presented a Bill to allow local authorities to permanently identify a stray dog before returning it to its owner; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 May, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

London Transport (Funding)
4.22 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 12.30 pm today, the Secretary of State for Transport announced a major U-turn in the Government's policy with regard to funding for London Transport. Knowing how you deprecate such statements being made outside this House, and in the knowledge that the Minister for Public Transport is sitting on the Front Bench, would it perhaps be in order for me to ask the Minister a question about why this statement came when it did and precisely what is being promised in this announcement?
Madam Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Lady to do that—it has to be a point of order to me and not to a Minister. However, obviously those on the Treasury Bench have heard what the hon. Lady has had to say. I have had no notification that a statement is to be made about that matter.

Business of the House
4.22 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Rating and Valuation not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and

(2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir Fergus Montgomery relating to Northern Ireland Affairs not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; notwithstanding the practice of the House the said Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion:

and the above proceedings may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.
The purpose of the motion is, I think, clear and can be stated briefly. The first half of the motion provides for the motion on rating and valuation in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to be debated for up to one and a half hours, in the same way as if it were being discussed after 10 o'clock, and for the Question then to be put.
The second half of the motion similarly provides for up to one and a half hours' debate on the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), Chairman of the Committee of Selection, to determine the membership of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—together, of course, with any amendments that may be selected. The Question would then be put on any amendments that are moved and then on the motion, or the amended motion, as a whole.
In other words, Madam Speaker, these are simple, sensible and straightforward proposals to enable the House to discuss and decide these matters in a way which I judge will be for the general convenience of hon. Members, and I commend the motion to the House.
4.23 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not agree in any way with the Leader of the House in his summation of the motion. As we shall be dealing later with matters concerning democracy in Northern Ireland, I am sure that the House will join me in sending our good wishes to Councillor John Fee of Crossmaglen, who suffered an appalling beating at the hands of republicans. He is the spokesman for democracy in Crossmaglen and the people of Crossmaglen have shown their support for him by putting him at the head of the poll on every occasion. He is their representative, not the people who so seriously battered him. We wish him well for a speedy recovery.
The Government's decision to allow only an hour and a half on each of these two important matters is a purely political manoeuvre which in no way reflects the seriousness of the issues to be debated. It is part of a general policy that has been followed by the Government to force through legislation without any debate or critical assessment of the Government's policies. The Government are therefore maintaining the same cavalier attitude towards the parliamentary process as they showed during the passage of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1994, which they guillotined to prevent proper debate. The decision to limit debate on the Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order is yet another example of that policy.
The order is an emergency provision which will come into operation on 1 April without any proper discussion. There has been no time to consult the interested parties, despite the long-term significance of the order. The increased rateable costs which the order will introduce will inevitably be passed on to the consumer, or the passenger on the train, thus adding to the increased costs of transport which will inevitably follow the Government's ill-fated and badly designed proposals for the future of British Rail.
The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is not simply a procedural parliamentary decision—it has major political ramifications. Therefore, discussion of the composition of such a Committee needs more time than has been allotted. Further detailed discussion on the proposed composition of the Committee is vital and we object strongly to the severely limited time allotted to the matter.
Mr. Newton: As I said, had the Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order been debated at the more usual time for such orders—quite late at night—it would have been debated for only an hour and a half. Also, it would have been debated at night rather than at this more sensible hour. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to acknowledge that if the Committee of Selection motion had been dealt with at the usual time—after 10 pm—it would have been debated for only one hour. I am, therefore, allocating more time.
Mr. McNamara: We must ask why is the Government's business so thin today that they are allocating more time? This almost Pauline conversion and generosity in allowing an entire half hour to the Opposition is without precedent. Nevertheless, whether we have an hour or an hour and a half, neither is sufficient to discuss the important ramifications of the proposed appointments to this important new Select Committee.
In the debate on the establishment of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, the Leader of the House asserted
814
that, in the past, when considering their attitude towards the creation of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, the Government had taken account
"of all the relevant political considerations in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 340.]
When we examine the appointments to that Committee, we need further debate to discover the relevant political considerations behind the Government's decision to support the creation of the Northern Ireland Select Committee and to propose a composition that is patently unrepresentative.
To understand the political considerations, it is necessary to examine thoroughly the context in which the Select Committee was proposed. It would not be in order for me to do so in full, nor do I have the time, but it would be correct to examine the salient points that have governed the decision to appoint the Select Committee and which also govern its composition.
The creation of a Northern Ireland Select Committee has a significant symbolic importance that has been acknowledged by all parties represented in the House. The Ulster Unionist party is particularly aware of the symbolic value of such a Committee. In its press briefings, the Ulster Unionist party argued that, although the Committee will bring administrative benefits,
"the symbolic effects will be more immediate. This will be the first positively unionist move by the British Government since our parliamentary representation was increased in 1979."
That is the Committee's significance and it is why its composition is so important. It has very little to do with the need for proper scrutiny and more to do with the restoration of Stormont.
The Ulster Unionists identify the Northern Ireland Select Committee with the failed Stormont regime of the past. Their briefing states:
"The Northern Ireland Select Committee will probably want to sit regularly in Belfast. When we see a group of familiar parliamentarians again in Stormont with their doings reported in the local media, then Ulster folk will see something useful and purposeful in local politics … And this useful and purposeful achievement has been the result of Unionist pressure."
That is why we should have been given more time to consider the composition of the Committee.
A question remains over exactly what pressure was put on the Government to concede to a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, despite the objections of representatives of the minority community in Northern Ireland, and to concede to a Select Committee whose composition is wholly unacceptable to the Labour party and to the SDLP. That is why we need more time to consider the terms of appointment of the membership of that Committee.
In the past, the Government have accepted that a Northern Ireland Select Committee should be established only on the basis of broad cross-community support because of its symbolic significance. The Government recommended against the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee in 1990, leaving the House to conclude that, due to the sensitivity of the talks process, there should be no alteration to the status quo. Having tabled the motion to establish the Committee, the Government are now prepared to go into the Lobby—
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: In a moment. The Government are prepared to go into the Lobby to support a gerrymandered new Committee.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument to the extent that it appears to him that some deal has resulted in the formation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. What I cannot understand is how that would reflect his view of what the composition of a House of Commons Select Committee should be.
Mr. McNamara: That is my exact point. We objected to the Committee as such, we were defeated on that and the House came to a decision. We are now looking to the way in which the composition of the Committee will be decided. That will be decided by a subsequent motion, for which we have only an hour and a half's debate. What I am arguing is that we must consider the political reasons that have led to those particular people being appointed to the Committee. Hence, it is our argument that we should have longer than an hour and a half and that we should oppose the Government's imposition of that time limit, despite their unbounded and unprecedented generosity of giving us an extra half hour.
The Government have not been prepared to explain their own radical change in policy. They are now prepared to ignore the forcefully expressed wishes of one section of the community. That unscrupulous betrayal of an often-pronounced principle has helped to undermine trust felt towards the Government in Ireland and underpin the continuing distrust which is gradually being felt by both communities. That sense of betrayal is only heightened by the knowledge that the Government chose to override their principled stance for the sake of the squalid deal that they have made. The deal has nothing to do with securing peace in Northern Ireland and everything to do with the Government's narrow and unstable majority in the House. That is also why they have decided to gerrymander the composition of the Committee and why we should have more time to discuss it.
The Government have allowed their actions to be dictated not by a long-term strategy to secure political settlement in Northern Ireland, but by the need to maintain their so-called understanding with the Ulster Unionist party. The Government are allowing short-term political expediency to take precedence over the peace process; we should examine the nature of the proposals that they are making for the membership of the Select Committee and have more time so to do.
The Government are casting doubt over their assertion that Britain has no long-term strategic or economic interest in Ireland. They are calling into question the whole basis of their policy because they now have a selfish political interest in Northern Ireland—being able to maintain their majority.
During Northern Ireland questions on 17 March the Secretary of State claimed that there was "no question of decoupling" strand 1 from strands 2 and 3 of the talks process that had taken place. Yet that is precisely what the Government have done by unilaterally establishing a Northern Ireland Select Committee with such an unbalanced representation. We shall discuss that matter later, and that is another reason why we need extra time.
Under the framework for the inter-party talks agreed in 1991, strand 1 covers measures affecting the institutional
816
arrangements governing Northern Ireland. The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee clearly came under strand 1, so its composition, too, would come under strand 1. By withdrawing the arrangements for a Northern Ireland Select Committee from the ambit of inter-party talks, the Government themselves are unravelling the strands agreed by the British and Irish Governments and by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we need extra time to discuss the principles behind the appointments.
The Government have also undermined the principle on which the talks were based—"nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." During Northern Ireland questions the Secretary of State said:
"Whether the parties in the resumed talks wish to maintain that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is a matter for them. That is not a matter on which I can lay down a rule."—[Official Report, 17 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 998.]
That is a strange position for the British Government to adopt, given that they were a party to the original framework agreed in 1991, and given that we assume that they will still be a party to any future inter-party talks.
If that matter is to be left purely to the parties, it means that the Government are acquiescing in an unravelling of the situation. Apparently, the British Government are relinquishing all responsibility for the future structure of the talks. That would affect the composition of the Committee, because it would be within its ambit to examine those proposals. Therefore, we need more time to discuss its membership. The Government's attitude is irresponsible, because it has the potential to hinder progress towards an agreed political settlement.
The Government appear to wish to surround themselves in a fog of uncertainty. As I said during the debate on the motion to establish a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the Government have two agendas—one to secure their majority in the House of Commons by keeping their right wing and the Ulster Unionists on board, and the other to keep alive the peace process based on the Downing street declaration.
Obviously, that matter will come within the ambit of the discussions in the Select Committee. The membership of the Committee must be of importance when such a fundamental matter is to be discussed, so we should have more time to discuss that membership later today.
The establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is part of the agenda for maintaining Ulster Unionist backing. However, the Government's second agenda, for the peace process, is causing some conflict with the Unionist party. There appears to be some disagreement between the Secretary of State and the followers of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, over the current status of bilateral talks taking place between that party and the Minister of State.
Doubtless that would be reflected in the attitude that might be taken by the members of a new Select Committee, were it to be appointed and were we to have more time to discuss its composition. We hear the Secretary of State saying that the tripartite talks, with the three strands, are still taking place, but the Ulster Unionist party says that it is not part of that set of talks. It considers the present talks to be bilateral only, between the Secretary of State and the different parties, including itself. Others say that because

817
the Minister of State is advising the Government of the Republic of what is taking place in the bilateral talks, the three strands still exist.
The questions arise: are the Ulster Unionists in the three strands or are they not, and is what the Secretary of State says accurate? That fog cannot help in the search for a solution and we may find it replicated or even made thicker by the representation of hon. Members who will apparently be on the Select Committee. Therefore, we should have more time to discuss that representation.
The Secretary of State stands accused, in yesterday's Belfast Telegraph, of misrepresenting the position of the Ulster Unionist party. The Secretary of State is reported to have caused offence because of his claim that, since the talks with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the Minister of State—are continuing on the same basis as before, the Ulster Unionist party is still discussing the three strands. That would be a positive development. The Labour party maintains its support for the inter-party talks. If we had more representatives on the Select Committee—a matter which we shall be discussing later—and if we had more time, we should argue that the talks should continue. However, the development would also be a surprising one given that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has condemned the
"circus format of the previous talks process".
The right hon. Gentleman's reference to "the previous talks process" suggests that he regards the talks as being over.
There is, therefore, an urgent need for Government clarification. The clarification should come in today's debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as, presumably, the position of the Ulster Unionist party was one of the political considerations that Government took into account when they decided to table a motion to establish a Northern Ireland Select Committee and to support the inclusion of the hon. Members whose names appear on today's Order Paper. By opposing this motion, we are asking for more discussion of the membership.
All those factors behind the decision to back the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee and the Committee's proposed composition should properly be debated and examined in today's debate. This is why the Opposition object to the Government's provision of only an hour and a half.
There is absolutely no agreement on the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee and, as is shown by the Order Paper, there is certainly no agreement on the Committee's composition. Yet the Government are attempting to deny the House sufficient time even to debate the question of composition.
The proposed composition of the Northern Ireland Select Committee is still further proof of the Government's duplicity. While claiming to want equality, they have allotted representatives of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland just one seat on the Committee. This is an example of gerrymandering at its worst. They have allotted the Labour party only two seats—a gross distortion of parliamentary procedure, as there are 270 Labour Members of Parliament. The Labour party is demanding more time for today's debate because of the wide-ranging implications of the proposed composition of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
In considering a matter as important as the composition of a Select Committee and the amount of time that should be provided, the Government have a responsibility to the
818
peoples of these islands to secure a just and lasting political settlement for Ireland—a settlement that has the agreement and support of the people of Ireland. The Government should not jeopardise such an important objective by establishing a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee with a wholly biased composition, purely and simply at the whim of one of the parties to the talks, in a desperate effort to shore up an increasingly shaky Government with an increasingly shaky position on the Floor of the House.
For those reasons, we oppose the motion.
4.42 pm
Sir Peter Emery: It was not my intention to speak, but I should like to clear up two points.
It appears to have been suggested that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is being appointed contrary to the advice of the Procedure Committee. If that is the implication I must make it absolutely clear that the Procedure Committee, in its report of 1990, said quite clearly that it would not be possible to go on for ever refusing to appoint a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. That, the Procedure Committee said, would have to come, but it would be up to the Government, having particular regard to the evidence from the Secretary of State of the day, to decide the proper time. When we reconsidered the matter we altered not one jot or tittle of the report. In other words, exactly the same recommendation stood in 1993.
With regard to numbers, the Procedure Committee made it clear that all the political parties in Northern Ireland should be represented. I understand that to be what is happening. Somewhat strangely, the Government are not demanding a majority on the Committee. The latter aspect is slightly unusual in respect of Select Committees of this nature.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman said that all the political parties in Northern Ireland will be represented. Will he, for the benefit of the House, enumerate the political parties from Northern Ireland that will be represented?
Sir Peter Emery: Let me correct myself: the report said that all the political parties represented in the House should be represented on the Select Committee. That is what is happening.
In normal circumstances, there would have been no means of objecting procedurally to the length of debate. If the Government had tabled the matter for discussion after 10 o'clock the debate could have lasted only an hour, and the Opposition could not have objected. In fact, the 20-minute speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is a gift of the Government, and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will still have an extra 50 pet' cent. in the actual debate. Thus, the suggestion that this is a case of Government gerrymandering is an exaggeration and indicates a slight misunderstanding. I cannot see that there are any grounds for such an implication.
Mr. Don Dixon: The right hon. Gentleman has made two points that I should like to take up.
First, he said that it is an exception to the rule for the Government to relinquish their majority on a Select Committee and to provide representation for each Northern Ireland political party. I suggested to the Committee of Selection that the Government could keep their majority by

819
taking seven seats and giving two to the Labour party and one to each of the Northern Ireland political parties. However, as the Government had done a deal with the Ulster Unionists at the time of the debate on the Maastricht treaty, they were afraid to give them fewer than two seats.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government are being very generous by allowing this debate. The Government's conscience must have pricked them, as they tabled the motion before the Select Committee's decision. It seems to me that they felt self-conscious and guilty because of their attempts to gerrymander the Committee. Incidentally, the recommendation of the Committee of Selection was adopted on the basis of a majority Conservative vote.
Sir Peter Emery: As the Deputy Chief Whip knows only too well, I do not know what goes on in the Committee of Selection; nor can I be expected to. Indeed, I understand that such matters are normally confidential.
Mr. Dixon: It was forced through.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not in order, in the debate on this motion, to discuss what happened in the Committee of Selection.
Sir Peter Emery: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was led astray by the Labour Party's Deputy Chief Whip—something I shall resist doing in future.
The Labour party is laying a false trail and the sooner we get on with the business that should be before the House the better.
4.48 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is quite obvious to all those hon. Members present today and to all those who attended the debate on 9 March that the Government have not provided adequate time for discussion of the various ramifications of the motion concerning the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The pretence that this is exclusively a procedural matter is being perpetuated. It is, of course, a procedural matter, but that is almost incidental to the Government's attitude to and policy on the Select Committee. The Government have made a major political decision. But we have also seen an about-turn and a betrayal of the statements and undertakings of successive representatives of the Government over a number of years. In that context, the Government's integrity has been brought entirely into question, certainly in the eyes of the people in Northern Ireland whom we represent. The Government continue to affirm that both communities must give support before the matter is brought forward, so the Government lack integrity in that respect.
The Government also broke the integrity of the inter-party talks, which were based on a delicate and long-negotiated agreement dated 26 March 1991. That agreement stated that all matters could be put on the table and discussed, and matters relating to relationships in Northern Ireland, relationships between north and south and relationships between Northern Ireland and Westminster would be discussed in detail. The Government made a decision unilaterally without consulting my party—I do not know about the other parties—on an item that was on the agenda for the inter-party talks. Their integrity in that respect has gone
820
by the board. This is not a procedural matter; a major political decision has been made. The Government have brought before the House a shameful and treacherous decision.
The Government have betrayed their commitment under article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which says:
"in relation to matters coming within its field of activity, the Conference"—
the Anglo-Irish conference—
"shall be a framework within which the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government shall work together

(i) for the accommodation of the rights and identities of the two traditions which exist in Northern Ireland; and

(ii) for peace, stability and prosperity throughout the island of Ireland by promoting reconciliation, respect for human rights, co-operation against terrorism and the development of economic, social and cultural co-operation."

The two-tradition approach has been abandoned totally in the approach taken today.
On several occasions over the past couple of years, the Secretary of State and the Lord President of the Council have referred to the need for cross-community and cross-electoral support for the parties represented in the House; indeed, as late as 1 December 1993, the Procedure Committee, in its report for the 1993–94 Session, stated:
"It should be remembered that the only reason given by the Procedure Committee in 1978 for its decision not to recommend the creation of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs was the continuing uncertainty over the future constitutional arrangements for the Province".
That still pertains today. The argument is still valid, yet it has been totally rejected in the business before the House both on 9 March and this evening.
A letter dated 2 December 1993—if I may read from the Committee's journal—says:
"Thank you for your letter about the Procedure Committee and the possible Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Your letter was drawn to the attention of the Committee at its meeting yesterday.
As you will see from the Report the Committee subsequently agreed, we were not concerned with the issue whether a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs should be established now. We dealt solely with the updating of our 1990 report in respect of the possible composition of such a Committee.
Ultimately it will be for the House to decide whether to amend the Standing Orders, appoint a Select Committee and to nominate its Members."
A few days before the announcement in the House on 16 December, assurances were given regarding the necessity for inter-community support and cross-party support in the House.
On not one occasion during the whole process—the establishment of the Committee, the nominations, the decisions about the detail—has my party been consulted. Not once have we been consulted about the times at which meetings would take place. I do not know whether this is a procedure that could be the subject of a point of order but that is the fact of the case. There was supposed to be cross-party support in the House, but we were not even asked about the matter, never mind being invited to give an opinion on it. [Interruption.] I am prepared to take interventions if that is what hon. Members behind me want. However, if they do not want to intervene formally, I shall be obliged if they will keep quiet.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said no later than 11 November 1992 that such a proposal
"would have the support of the broad community in Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, 11 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 892.]
It does not. On 10 February 1993, the same statement was made by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who

821
referred to the need to examine the extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. No such support exists. On 22 July 1993, the Secretary of State referred again to the
"extent of support from elected representatives from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland".
That consent does not exist.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting forward the pros and cons for the Select Committee, which is not the subject of the motion before the House. The Select Committee has been established and the question before the House is whether sufficient time has been allowed for debate. That is the issue.
Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your direction in the matter. I was following the lead given by previous speakers. My points illustrate—I have only touched on them—that more time is required to delve into the issues that I have raised. That is why I am stating those issues: we have not had the opportunity to make our points. You may not recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not think that you were in the Chair at the time—that, on 9 March, when the motion relating to the appointment of the Select Committee was introduced, hon. Members who have taken a constant interest in Northern Ireland affairs did not get an opportunity to speak. As the sole representative on that night of the nationalist people of Northern Ireland, I had only a few minutes in which to make my points on the matter.
Mr. Mallon: I appreciate the points that have been made about the time factor. I wonder how much time was spent on researching the designation of political parties in the north of Ireland. I have been active in Northern Ireland politics for the past 25 years and I recognise why someone from the DUP, the UUP or the SDLP would be appointed, but I fail to understand why others have been appointed. I simply want clarification of the basis of the political party—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a debate later this evening in which he may well catch my eye.
Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for his intervention, the subject of which will be dealt with again in the debate later this evening. My hon. Friend makes the valuable point that consultation of the elected parties in the House did not take place. That is categorically correct; consultation did not take place. Whether consultation should have taken place is a moot point and a matter of opinion.
The point that I have been making is that a series of important issues is at stake. Today and on 9 March, the Government tried to present their case as though this were merely a procedural matter—I do not mean that in any insulting way—and a technical matter for the House to address. It is not a technical matter—and the Government's activities and statements clearly show that they do not consider it to be a technical matter. Even the timing of the announcement—24 hours after the Downing street declaration on 16 December, the Leader of the House said that the establishment of a Select Committee had been agreed—was obviously a political statement whose intention it was to buy political loyalties. It had nothing at all to do with the needs and requirements of Northern Ireland. Going back to the needs and requirements of the
822
parties in Northern Ireland, one should look at what the leader of the official Unionist party said about—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Ulster Unionist party"]—I take that correction. The names of political parties in Northern Ireland are apt to change depending on the venue and on the order in which the members wish to speak. I will leave it at that for the moment.
The modest demands of the UUP were for less of a procedural arrangement than that which we have now. That party said that it wanted the existing Select Committees to deal with departmental matters for Northern Ireland, as they do here; there were only one or two issues—security and, believe it or not, the Anglo-Irish Agreement—which it would be useful for the Select Committee to debate.
I believe that the point has been made. On your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not refer to percentages or numbers in connection with the appointments until the later debate, but they again show that there has been a lack of integrity on the part of the Government. They have not dealt even-handedly with the communities in Northern Ireland, as they have consistently alleged in statements made during the past two or three years they wanted to do. The integrity of the Government among the community that I represent is at an all-time low.
5.1 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: You properly instructed the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the matter that we must consider is whether 90 minutes is a sufficient length of time to discuss the motion concerning the membership of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs later this evening.
I suppose that, if any political party in the House had a right to complain that 90 minutes was not sufficient, it would be my party. On 9 March, the two previous complainers in the debate so far—the Labour party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—took 19 minutes and 11 minutes respectively to speak during the debate. [Interruption.] Yes, 11 minutes. Hon. Members should look at Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) was given only two minutes at the tail-end of the debate.The Democratic Unionist party is entitled to have the opportunity to speak, and I hope that we will be able to catch your eye later this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and perhaps do a little better than the two minutes which we had on the previous occasion.
The issue is whether there will be sufficient time later this evening. I was delighted to hear the logic of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who now clearly believes that it is essential to have a better airing of Northern Ireland affairs in the House and that one and a half hour debates are not adequate. I suggest that that is an implied criticism of the Order in Council procedure that operates for Northern Ireland affairs. I trust that we can look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support on the matter of having Northern Ireland business dealt with fully by way of Bills in the House.
Mr. McNamara: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is disgraceful that great, fat pieces of legislation that are really Bills should be dealt with by the Order in Council procedure. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends

823
and the Ulster Unionist party that the remedy lies in their own hands—in an agreed devolved government for Northern Ireland with a strong Irish dimension contained therein. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough on that.
Mr. Peter Robinson: As you have ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot reply and state that there was of course agreement between the parties in favour of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland but that the Social Democratic and Labour party backed out of it.
It is important to Northern Ireland that there should be a Select Committee to deal with Northern Ireland business. I do not believe that it is to the merit of the House that that should be delayed. Both the previous speakers argued that there are political implications—indeed, that the prime issue is political rather than procedural. I contend that it is only political in their minds because they do not want anything to occur in relation to Northern Ireland that stops it moving increasingly towards Dublin rule. They would seek to oppose anything that is not consistent with a continued momentum towards Dublin.
Everyone knows that every Department has a Select Committee which looks at its work and can quite properly call the Minister responsible to account. A Select Committee can also bring the civil service to account, particularly in Northern Ireland where there is less accountability than elsewhere. Nowhere is it more important than in respect of the Northern Ireland Office that we should have such a procedure of the House. The key issue is therefore procedural rather than political. The argument that more time should be devoted to the consideration of political issues attendant on the motion is not well founded.
I am delighted that even the hon. Gentleman who most strongly opposed the setting up of the Select Committee—the hon. Member for South Down—has now decided to join in; he clearly recognises that the Committee is not so political as to constitute a bar on his membership of it, and he wants to be a part of the process whereby Northern Ireland business is scrutinised.The hon. Gentleman need not say that members of his party are not boycotters, because they have been boycotters in the past. They boycotted the Stormont Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1982. I am glad that they are not boycotting on this occasion and that they recognise the validity of having a Committee that deals with the Northern Ireland Office and can look into matters dealt with by Northern Ireland Ministers.
If there was an argument that more time was needed because the matter had somehow jumped out of the woodwork—that it was a surprise issue whose ramifications hon. Members had not had adequate time to consider—the House would have had to consider seriously whether more time was necessary. However, it is not a new issue. It has been considered and debated on many platforms, including in this House, over a long period. It was, of course, most recently discussed in some considerable detail by the Procedure Committee and by the Committee of Selection. The matter has had a considerable airing, which suggests that no more time is needed on this occasion to determine its membership.
824
The Labour party would be on very weak ground if it argued that the Labour membership should be substantially increased, considering that the Labour party has not shown sufficient interest in Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom to set up in Northern Ireland. It seems content to rely on the representation of the SDLP, which it sees as its sister in the battle in Northern Ireland. The Labour party should be content that the SDLP will be represented on the Committee and will be capable of representing that interest. If that is the contention offered by the Labour party for having more time to discuss the matter, it seems to me to be false.
The other argument advanced by those on the Labour Front Bench is that some sordid backroom deal between the Government and the Ulster Unionist party has resulted in the establishment of a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North quoted a press statement from the Glengall street camp that referred to the first Unionist step for many years. That set me thinking about what might be considered the last Unionist step. I suppose that it must have been the increase in the number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland here. I wonder which party proposed that in this House. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's party supported that Unionist step. What were the circumstances in which it did so? I recall that it was looking for larger numbers to go through the Lobby. Now it has the audacity to point its finger at someone who has been trained in its school, who copies its practices, who does exactly the same as it did in the past and will willingly do in the future.
Mr. McNamara: First, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will recall, I voted against that policy for precisely the same reason that I oppose what is happening today. Secondly, when it came to the vote of confidence, the result of that deal was that the majority of the Ulster Unionists went into the Lobby with the Conservative party and turfed out the Labour Government. That might yet happen to the Conservative Government.
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman can live in hope. We shall see whether that occurs.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I happened to be a party to that situation. The UUUC, as it was called, never undertook to vote for the Labour party to keep it in power in a vote of confidence.
Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend has been heard and I am happy to endorse his views.
Rev. Martin Smyth: If the hon. Gentleman does not remember, perhaps his colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, North will confirm that the Labour party was betrayed on that occasion by its sister party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and by the republican whom it brought over from Fermanagh to vote for it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I was here, too, but that that matter is not relevant to this debate.
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North attempted to attach relevance to what he considered to be the deal between the Ulster Unionist party and the Government by saying that that party was in some

825
way being rewarded by being given additional members and that additional time was therefore required to sort out why it should have two members instead of one.
Mr. Mallon: Surely, the remark made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) points to the wisdom of the decision. The personnel within the Social Democratic and Labour party changed as a result of the increase in the numbers. He and members of the Committee of Selection spent an enormous amount of time properly researching the proposed Select Committee. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House, from his own investigations, which parties represent the north of Ireland in this House?
Mr. Robinson: I shall not deal with Donegal and the rest of the north of Ireland, but if we are referring to Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the parties in this House are the Ulster Unionist party, which sits behind the hon. Gentleman; his own party, the SDLP; the Ulster Democratic Unionist party; and the one in which he is most interested, the Ulster Popular Unionist party, whose chairman, president and Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), is chairing a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. It is altogether proper for the official Unionist party to have two seats. The UUP has nine Members in this House, and the SDLP has four, it would seem proper—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That debate is to come and the hon. Gentleman said that he was hoping to catch my eye. He should not anticipate that debate now.
Mr. Robinson: I was not attempting to build some insurance into the system by getting the matter off my chest now. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply saying that we no longer need additional time to discuss these matters because the Select Committee has properly and proportionately allocated the seats to Northern Ireland parties and therefore that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) can be content that the task has been done well and additional time is not required to consider it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are trying to straitjacket Parliament by limiting debate to one and a half hours for each item, which is artificial and unnecessary? The exchanges on this issue demonstrate that it would have been preferable if a business motion had not been tabled so that we could have first debated rating and valuation and then launched into the debate on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. That debate could have been extensive and lasted far more than one and a half hours.
Mr. Robinson: I would be the last person to try to limit the length of debate in the House. I judge only that the Government must have considered that some Opposition Members would table a series of amendments to try to change each member of the Committee, which might have kept the House voting for a considerable time.
The hon. Member for North Down advanced the argument that, in some way, additional time was required because there had been a betrayal—
Rev. Ian Paisley: It was the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCrady).
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for South Down said that the Government had betrayed the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. That was an argument that I found difficult to swallow. The hon. Gentleman over-eggs his cake if he expects the House to believe that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland has in some way been put down by the Government. The Government have done everything possible to elevate the nationalist community, as has been seen from a number of their so-called initiatives. The hon. Gentleman's argument that the setting up of the Committee is contrary to the talks agreement of March 1991 does not hold water. That agreement came to an end on the day that the talks ended.
Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the talks came to end in November 1992. He mistates the case. The official Unionist party [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Very well; the Ulster Unionist party. The UUP and the DUP withdrew from the talks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] They withdrew because that week saw a meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference between the Irish and British Governments. The remaining parties to the talks were the British Government, the Irish Government, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party. Coincidentally, those are the four parties that are still at the table.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That just demonstrates that if hon. Members are not able to prepare for the debate, all sorts of comments come up. The motion is clear. Could we please get back to it? The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has been straying a little in the past few minutes.
Mr. Robinson: I have been given the first good reason why I should change my mind. Clearly, more time is needed if we are to educate the hon. Member for South Down. He is labouring under the assumption that the talks did not come to an end and that the Unionists left. But all the parties put out an agreed statement that showed that the talks had come to end. They came to an end because the nationalist parties demanded that there should be an intergovernmental conference meeting. Obviously, hon. Members do not require more time to discuss this issue as it was clearly dealt with in the statement.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Was not the basis of the talks that there would be no inter-party conferences while the talks were taking place and that both the official Unionists and our party said at the table, "If you bring the talks to a close by having an inter-party conference meeting, they will be finished." The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, "Yes, they are finished" and the Irish said that they were finished. I do not know what the hon. Member for South Down has been finishing, but everyone else knows that the talks are finished.
Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend's comments are accurate. It is inconsistent for the hon. Member for South Down to argue that the Government have dishonoured the March 1991 agreement when the March 1991 agreement said specifically that the talks would last between meetings of the intergovernmental conference. Therefore, as soon as a meeting of the intergovernmental conference came, ipso facto the talks must have ended. There has been no betrayal of the nationalist community. Perhaps another time I shall have the opportunity to describe the nature of the Government's betrayal of the Unionist community.

827
It was argued that, because in that March 1991 agreement there was a remark that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, and because during the talks there was no agreement on the setting up of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, there should not be a Select Committee. I have already said that that 1991 agreement came to an end the moment the talks stopped and therefore the Government were no longer bound by it.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is now in the Chamber, it might be worth while drawing attention to the fact that we nearly had to drag the hon. Gentleman and the SDLP to the 1992 talks during the last week, and that they were outraged that we, the Ulster Unionist party, should introduce a summation paper during the last week. They came most reluctantly, and departed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the motion before us.
Mr. John Hume: No one is interested in solving problems around here. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson: You can understand what we have to put up with in Northern Ireland, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we shall have your sympathy from now on.
If the agreement of 1991 came to an end the moment the talks were ended by the SDLP insisting on the intergovernmental conference, the Government were not bound to obtain the agreement of everyone to any change and the House could never allow itself to be gagged in terms of changes that it might make.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robinson: Yes, but I had intended to sit down.
Mr. O'Brien: I have been following the arguments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) closely. In view of the interventions and exchanges that have been made, and the fact that there is more to be said on issues involving Northern Ireland—especially this issue—does the hon. Gentleman agree that there ought to be more time to discuss those issues? This is no different from the other issues that we discuss in Select Committees. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the view that we need more time to discuss Northern Ireland issues?
Mr. Robinson: Given a little ingenuity, hon. Members still have another four hours and a little more in which they might make whatever comments they want.
Finally, the Government are not under an obligation to obtain everyone's agreement, especially on a matter that is germane to the procedures of the House. How could the Government allow the procedures of the House of Commons to be determined by the agreements of those outside the House of Commons—especially if those outside the House of Commons include a foreign Government?
5.23 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to speak because I was one of the people who objected to the business motion. I am sorry that I did not hear the opening speeches, but I was chairing the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is why I want to speak later about the rating and valuation order.
The business motion, to curtail debate in one case and to extend debate by a very small amount in excess of the usual amount of time in the second case, puts the House of Commons in an unnecessary straitjacket. An open-ended business motion to take the debate up to 10 o'clock would have been acceptable. In curtailing the debate to three hours, I suspect that the Leader of the House is proposing the type of limitation that we can expect if the Jopling report is ever implemented—I hope that it never will be—to curtail parliamentary discussion and to put debate in a straitjacket. That is one reason why I wanted to object to the business motion—it was unnecessary. I object to the Jopling report being brought in by stealth—because that is what the limitations represent.
The rating and valuation order, debate on which is limited to an hour and a half, is quite important. One of the advantages of Parliament is that there is always a number of people—perhaps a handful—who take a specialised interest in something as obscure as the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994. I do not think that there should be a limitation of an hour and a half before 10 o' clock. There is usually a limitation on an affirmative instrument after 10 o'clock and I think that we could usefully reconsider that, because affirmative orders are as important as primary legislation. Indeed, some of them—although not this one—repeal primary legislation which has been considered by the House in great detail. Therefore, the arbitrary hour and a half is frequently inadequate to deal with the complexities of subordinate legislation. It is unreasonable to impose a limitation of an hour and a half before 10 o'clock simply because that pattern has so often been followed after 10 o'clock.
There are only two items of business on the Order Paper today, because the third item is a European Community document, which will be dealt with forthwith. If there is a vote, that will take 15 minutes; if it is a head-nodding job, it will go through in perhaps 20 seconds. The whole of the evening is before us, yet the Leader of the House proposes to finish the sitting, if we curtail the debate, at half-past 8. I do not think that, if we have the opportunity, we should limit debate in that way because of the importance of subordinate legislation.
I am happy, in a way, that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has focused attention on the enormous powers of Ministers. I gave evidence, which was not very welcome, to the Jopling Committee to the effect that I thought that Parliament should sit longer hours, not shorter. Parliament does not give adequate scrutiny to the enormous number of statutory instruments and regulations that pour out from the present Government. As the Leader of the House knows, the number is now running at 3,300 to 3,500 per annum. When we have the opportunity to debate a very important order, we should not curtail debate to an hour and a half.
If I may remind the House without going into the debate that would ensue if people so chose, the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994 places on the railways the imposition of providing a rateable value of the

829
English railway hereditament of £191 million, and a smaller sum, £7.3 million, for Welsh railways. We could debate how much better that £191 million would be used on improving the services to British Rail instead of abstracting that money to an organisation that will be broken up and privatised, and is already in enough difficulties simply maintaining services without taking out £200 million—which is only a transfer payment in any event. I do not want to debate those matters, but they are justified arguments about an order that would impose a significant charge on British Rail, discussion of which is, however, limited to an hour and a half.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is typical of how the Government deal with legislation on non-domestic rates? He will remember that, when the House debated the non-domestic rates legislation on 12 and 13 January this year, the Government decided to guillotine the proceedings. Does he agree that that is not an acceptable way to discuss such important provisions?
Mr. Cryer: Yes; and it applies to all subordinate legislation.
We accept that Ministers should be given powers to fill in the nuts and bolts of Government administration, but the Government are abusing the process. They are producing some 3,500 instruments a year, which is more than any other Government in history, whereas they are supposed to be taking legislation off people's backs. Labour Governments managed with some 2,000 statutory instruments a year; Tory Governments cannot do so because they are centralising. In the process, Parliament must have a degree of accountability—it has little enough.
To curtail debate on this limited, narrow occasion when we have the time available is entirely unjustified. Parliament normally has a good idea of self discipline. Normally hon. Members who want to promote the railways issue have a peg on which to hang their cause. They would use the railways valuation order to ensure a reasonable debate. If no Member wants that, the motion goes through in 10 or 15 minutes, with five or 10 minutes apiece for speeches by Front-Bench spokesmen.
Most controversy is on the second motion. None the less, the hour and a half limitation is not necessary. One of the great virtues of Parliament is that, unlike Ministers who have access to the Dispatch Box when they choose because they determine the agenda, Back-Bench Members must be ingenious. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is grinning, has access to the Dispatch Box whenever his business managers organise it for him. Back-Bench Members must use such motions to get time to discuss important issues. That is why I object to the fact that the Government are centralising and concentrating Government powers, and straitjacketing Parliament to make it all the easier for them.
If I am taking a bit of extra time, it is because oodles of time is available, yet the Leader of the House wants us to finish early. The first motion is on rating and valuation and the second relates to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The Leader of the House should have said that the business could continue until 10 o'clock. Indeed, to judge from the exchanges that have taken place so far, it might have been useful to have a 10 o'clock business motion saying that the business, though opposed, could continue until any hour. Many more hours after 10 o'clock
830
could be filled because the issue is controversial. If the House deals with an issue more controversial than the affairs of Northern Ireland, I have yet to know it.
The speeches from Members on both sides of the House have shown that there is great bitterness, anger and concern about the Select Committee. In addition to the motion, five amendments have been tabled to be taken in an hour and a half. They are not just Back-Bench amendments but are supported by Front-Bench Members, which in some people's eyes—not mine—makes them more important. Back-Bench Members cannot table a prayer and have it debated unless it is supported by members of the shadow Front Bench. When dealing with subordinate legislation, Back-Bench Members must have the support of Front-Bench Members to get time on the Floor of the House. So there is a rule that items supported by Front-Bench shadow Members are more important.
The meritocracy of this place—the sort of thing that gives preferential treatment to Privy Councillors, which ordinary Back-Bench Members find outrageous—means that motion No. 3 on Northern Ireland affairs should have been given more time than the hour and a half allocated to it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, the exchanges tonight illustrate the controversy surrounding the motion.
I look forward to hearing the argument of the Leader of the House. He should abandon the idea of introducing Jopling by sleight of hand in business motions such as this. We should kick it out and let the House decide the priorities. He should stop interfering with the business of the House in this way.
5.35 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spelt out pIainly and adequately why we should press for more time to discuss the motions. In my experience of discussing motions on Northern Ireland, this is the first time that I have heard Members representing Northern Ireland say that they do not need more time. I have always agreed with them that we need more time to discuss Northern Ireland issues because of the controversies that arise.
In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I said that today's exchanges reinforce the demand for more time to discuss Northern Ireland issues, whether they are political or matters of principle. We are in danger of giving too much away to the Executive if we do not show them that we need more time to discuss issues, particularly on Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the fact that, because the Labour party does not organise in Northern Ireland, its membership of the Committee should be considered. If it is right to criticise the number of Labour Members on the Committee, should not the same principle apply to the Tory party
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate—
Mr. Vaz: He was.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise if the hon. Gentleman was here. However, I made it clear that hon. Members must not anticipate the debate that is to come, which concerns membership of the Committee. This business motion is specifically about motions Nos. 2 and 3, not about how much time should be given to debating

831
Northern Ireland as such. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would be specific in addressing the issue.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the orders and my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East. May I finish what I was saying? The hon. Gentleman's reference was relevant to the discussion, but I accept your ruling on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Tory party is organised in Northern Ireland and some of us got here having defeated Tory candidates.
Mr. O'Brien: I accept that point, but will not pursue it, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ruled on it.
Given the exchanges across the Chamber and the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the principles set down in the motion, I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that more time should be allocated so that we might hear hon. Members' views on significant issues relating to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has said that this is the first time he has known Northern Ireland Members not to use all the time available to make their points. Lest that be misconstrued as a lack of interest or concern on our part, I should point out that we are acting in recognition of the Chair's ruling that the debate should be only about the time factor. Perhaps we should all make a small sacrifice and deny ourselves the opportunity to listen to our own voices in this of all weeks. That might allow us to get on to debate the Northern Ireland issue.
Mr. O'Brien: I acknowledge that point, although it prompts certain other controversial questions—which I could put to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that there is more that he could say on this issue.
The restriction on the time for debate on the orders is a retrograde step—especially when people press for even less time to discuss them. I appeal to the Leader of the House carefully to consider our request for more time in future to discuss these issues.
5.40 pm
Mr. Newton: This has been a debate of what I may tactfully term endless fascination to those of us who have witnessed it. I can only say how much I envy my hon. Friends who are to have the chance to serve on the Select Committee, following what I have seen this evening—
Mr. McNamara: When are they to have that chance?
Mr. Newton: I hope that they will have it following the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. Given that the Select Committee is to include the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), I suspect—based on what I have seen this evening—that its members will spend less time scrutinising the Government and the Northern Ireland Office than scrutinising each other. It will be interesting to see what happens.
832
Another fascination of this debate—there were many—was to witness the transformation of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), not present in the Chamber now, from glowering at us from one side of the Gangway to glowering at us—after an intervention—from the other side of it.
Yet another fascination offered by the debate was the the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It reappeared like a familiar friend from our previous debate on the establishment of the Committee. I cannot say that it reappeared by popular demand, but it doubtless made a contribution to the recycling industry—I listened to it with great interest.
Both the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the iniquity of the guillotine on the non-domestic rating legislation. I remind them that, so draconian was that guillotine, that the Opposition could not even fill the time for which it allowed.
This further "draconian" measure on rating and valuation—allowing an hour and a half for discussion of the proposals—has led the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Leicester, East to demand a £200 million reduction in the money available to local authorities this year. If British Rail does not pay £200 million in rates, local authorities will not receive that revenue—a most interesting demand betokening a welcome conversion, somewhat unexpected, to restraint on public expenditure.
Mr. Vaz: The point that my hon. Friend and I were making was that there was no need to bring in this measure three days before it was due to come into effect. There has been plenty of time to debate it since November 1993, when the Railways Act became law. Our objection is to the fact that the order has been brought in at such a late stage.
Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will deal with it in my conclusion.
Although there has been a good deal of point in my comments so far, I should like to end on a more serious note. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I am allowed to advert to this fact, but the rating and valuation order went through another place on 21 March. So awful is it—so important is it—that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not about to debate the order.
Mr. Newton: I was merely about to observe, having been told that there is not enough time to debate the order, that when this allegedly dreadful measure went through another place on 21 March, Her Majesty's Opposition did not see fit to offer a single word on it, let alone to discuss it for an hour and a half.
I should tell the hon. Member for South Down that it is my understanding that there were conversations through the usual channels with his party. For all I know, the problem may lie with the usual channels in his party—
Mr. McGrady: I reiterate what I said: there was no communication of any sort with my party about the setting up of the Select Committee or the appointment of its members.
Mr. Newton: That is different from my understanding, but I do not question the hon. Gentleman's integrity; I

833
regard him as an hon. Gentleman and I respect his veracity. Perhaps it is all a misunderstanding, but I have put my view on the record, as he has his.
The last fascination of this debate is that it has been rather like those Adjournment debates when the Leader of the House offers the House a holiday, only to be confronted by a solid phalanx of Members simultaneously demanding more and more work and praying that the Leader of the House will not accept their blandishments. There has certainly been an element of that in this debate.
I have provided an hour and a half each of prime time for the rating and valuation order and for discussion of the Select Committee membership. That has resulted in my being here to listen to some rather strange speeches for the better part of an hour and a half or more. The alternative would have been to table the rating and valuation order for 10 o'clock tonight or tomorrow night, followed by an hour—not an hour and a half—on the Northern Ireland Select Committee motion. If that is what hon. Members want, they had better tell me. I think that what I have offered the House is sensible, reasonable and right, and I hope that the House will accept it.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 233.

Division No. 183]

[5.47 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clappison, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Alexander, Richard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Coe, Sebastian

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Ancram, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cormack, Patrick

Ashby, David

Couchman, James

Aspinwall, Jack

Cran, James

Atkins, Robert

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

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baldry, Tony

Day, Stephen

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Devlin, Tim

Bates, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Batiste, Spencer

Dicks, Terry

Beggs, Roy

Dorrell, Stephen

Bendall, Vivian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dover, Den

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Duncan, Alan

Body, Sir Richard

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Booth, Hartley

Dunn, Bob

Boswell, Tim

Dykes, Hugh

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Elletson, Harold

Bowden, Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bowis, John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bright, Graham

Evennett, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Faber, David

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Burns, Simon

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Butcher, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Butterfill, John

Forman, Nigel

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forsylhe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Carrington, Matthew

Forth, Eric

Carttiss, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Cash, William

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

834

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

French, Douglas

MacKay, Andrew

Fry, Sir Peter

Maclean, David

Gale, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Madel, Sir David

Gardiner, Sir George

Maginnis, Ken

Garnier, Edward

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gill, Christopher

Malone, Gerald

Gillan, Cheryl

Mans, Keith

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Marland, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marlow, Tony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorst, John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Merchant, Piers

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mills, Iain

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hague, William

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Moate, Sir Roger

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Sir Hector

Hanley, Jeremy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hannam, Sir John

Moss, Malcolm

Hargreaves, Andrew

Nelson, Anthony

Harris, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Haselhurst, Alan

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholls, Patrick

Hawksley, Warren

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hayes, Jerry

Norris, Steve

Heald, Oliver

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hendry, Charles

Oppenheim, Phillip

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Hicks, Robert

Page, Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Paice, James

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Patnick, Irvine

Horam, John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pickles, Eric

Ho well, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jack, Michael

Richards, Rod

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Riddick, Graham

Jenkin, Bernard

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jones, Gwllym (Cardiff N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Key, Robert

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shersby, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sims, Roger

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Legg, Barry

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Leigh, Edward

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Soames, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Speed, Sir Keith

Lidington, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lightbown, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Luff, Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

835

Steen, Anthony

Walden, George

Stephen, Michael

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Stem, Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stewart, Allan

Waller, Gary

Streeter, Gary

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sweeney, Walter

Waterson, Nigel

Sykes, John

Watts, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Widdecombe, Ann

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thomason, Roy

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Willetts, David

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Thurnham, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wolfson, Mark

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

Wood, Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Trend, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Trimble, David

Trotter, Neville

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mr. Michael Brown.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Darling, Alistair

Adams, Mrs Irene

Davidson, Ian

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Allen, Graham

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Denham, John

Armstrong, Hilary

Dewar, Donald

Ashton, Joe

Dixon, Don

Austin-Walker, John

Dobson, Frank

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Barnes, Harry

Eagle, Ms Angela

Barren, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

Bayley, Hugh

Enright, Derek

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Etherington, Bill

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bell, Stuart

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bennett, Andrew F.

Fatchett, Derek

Benton, Joe

Faulds, Andrew

Bermingham, Gerald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Fisher, Mark

Betts, Clive

Flynn, Paul

Blair, Tony

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Blunkett, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foulkes, George

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

Fraser, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fyfe, Maria

Burden, Richard

Galloway, George

Byers, Stephen

Gapes, Mike

Caborn, Richard

Garrett, John

Callaghan, Jim

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Canavan, Dennis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cann, Jamie

Gordon, Mildred

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Grocott, Bruce

Clelland, David

Gunnell, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hall, Mike

Connarty, Michael

Hanson, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hardy, Peter

Corbett, Robin

Harman, Ms Harriet

Corston, Ms Jean

Harvey, Nick

Cousins, Jim

Henderson, Doug

Cox, Tom

Heppell, John

Cryer, Bob

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hinchliffe, David

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hoey, Kate

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Dalyell, Tarn

Home Robertson, John

836

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

O'Hara, Edward

Hoyle, Doug

Olner, William

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Patchett, Terry

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Pendry, Tom

Hume, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hutton, John

Pike, Peter L.

Illsley, Eric

Pope, Greg

Ingram, Adam

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jamieson, David

Prescott, John

Janner, Greville

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Randall, Stuart

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Raynsford, Nick

Keen, Alan

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Rendel, David

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Khabra, Piara S.

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Kirkwood, Archy

Rogers, Allan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rooney, Terry

Lewis, Terry

Ruddock, Joan

Litherland, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sheerman, Barry

Loyden, Eddie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Lynne, Ms Liz

Short, Clare

McAllion, John

Simpson, Alan

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

McCartney, Ian

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Macdonald, Calum

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

McFall, John

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

McGrady, Eddie

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McKelvey, William

Snape, Peter

Mackinlay, Andrew

Soley, Clive

McLeish, Henry

Spearing, Nigel

McMaster, Gordon

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McNamara, Kevin

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Madden, Max

Stevenson, George

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Stott, Roger

Mahon, Alice

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mallon, Seamus

Straw, Jack

Mandelson, Peter

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Turner, Dennis

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Vaz, Keith

Martlew, Eric

Wareing, Robert N

Meacher, Michael

Welsh, Andrew

Meale, Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Michael, Alan

Williams, Rt Hon Alun (Sw'n W)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Milburn, Alan

Winnick, David

Miller, Andrew

Wise, Audrey

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wray, Jimmy

Morley, Elliot

Wright, Dr Tony

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Tellers for the Noes:

Mudie, George

Mr. Jim Dowd and

Mullin, Chris

Mr. John Cummings.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Rating and Valuation not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and

(2) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir Fergus Montgomery relating to Northern Ireland Affairs not later than one and

837
a half hours after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; notwithstanding the practice of the House the said Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion

and the above proceedings may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.

Orders of the Day

  Railways (Rateable Values)
  6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
  That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.
  The order was made under the powers in schedule 6 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and sets the 1994–95 rateable values for the British Railways Board and Railtrack in England and Wales respectively.
  Before I deal with the details of the order, it may be helpful if I remind the House about the prescription of rules for determining rateable values in England and Wales, and their application to the railways. In certain cases, assessment of non-domestic property by local valuation officers is impractical; the 1988 Act therefore contains powers for the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales to prescribe rules for assessing such property.
  I should point out that there is nothing new in that: it follows a long-set precedent. The practice of prescribing the rateable values of certain public utilities was started many years ago, to overcome various technical problems associated with assessment by conventional means. Indeed, the railways' rateable values were first set by statute in 1946, before nationalisation. The General Rate Act 1967 and the Local Government Act 1974 included powers to prescribe rateable values in such cases, and in effect the current provisions simply continue that treatment.
  The national rail network comprises property of a highly specialised kind, which consequently presents complex problems of valuation. It is also so extensive that the resources needed to value it by conventional means simply have not been available. The powers to prescribe the rateable value for the British Railways Board for the 1990 revaluation were therefore used in 1989.
  Those powers were also exercised at that time for the telecommunications industry, the water industry, canals, the electricity generation, transmission and distribution industries, gas supply, statutory docks and harbours, the London underground, the docklands light railway, Tyne and Wear metro and the Glasgow underground. British Coal, whose values had been set by statute, moved into conventional assessment for the 1990 revaluation.
  I am aware that some industries that do not suffer from that manner of assessment consider it a type of beneficial special treatment. It is not. There is no financial benefit whatever to be gained from a rateable value that is prescribed rather than assessed by the Valuation Office agency or the Scottish Assessors Association; the end result should be, and is, the same.
  The most important difference lies in the fact that, unlike businesses in conventional assessment, these ratepayers have no right of appeal against their assessments. We therefore intend to end the prescribing of rateable values by statute as soon as possible for all industries. To that end, the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish Assessors Association have conducted a review of the alternatives to prescribed assessment for the industries involved.

  839
  I am pleased to say that, as a result of the review, a number of industries will move to conventional assessment for the revaluation of 1995: the telecommunications industry, canals and certain light rail systems—Tyne and Wear metro, the docklands light railway and the Glasgow underground. The threshold at which docks and harbours will become subject to prescribed assessment will be raised from a turnover of £50,000 to a turnover of £1 million. We hope that, for the revaluation in the year 2000, the remaining docks and harbours, water and gas supply, electricity transmission and distribution will be conventionally assessed.
  The main reason why it was not thought possible for them to move to conventional assessment in 1995 was that the resources to carry out such assessments were not available in the remaining time—not only at the Valuation Office agency and the Scottish Assessors Association, but in the companies themselves. A great deal of information about all the properties occupied by the companies concerned must be drawn up by those companies; that requires considerable time and effort, especially when national networks are involved.
  To ensure that the necessary information will be available in good time for 2000, we are starting now. In discussions with the industries over the 1995 revaluation, attention is being given to what facts will be necessary, and to what time scale should be used to allow a move to conventional assessment in the year 2000. At this stage, however, the valuation difficulties involved in assessing the rail network and electricity generation seem unlikely to be resolved in time for the revaluation in the year 2000: those industries appear set to remain in prescribed assessment after that time. We intend, for the 1995 revaluation, to change the rateable values of the industries remaining in prescribed assessment by a factor based on the movement in comparable conventionally assessed properties; but that is for 1995.
  The draft order that we are discussing deals with the financial year 1994–95. It makes provision for the change in rateable occupation of railway hereditaments in England and Wales as a consequence of the privatisation of rail services. The provisions of the Railways Act 1993 allow for transfers of property between the British Railways Board and other companies; the largest of those transfer schemes is the one concerning Railtrack. On 1 April this year, Railtrack plc will become a new Government-owned company, and the occupier of the majority of the property previously owned by British Rail.
  We do not want the change in the organisation of the railway system to alter the local tax burden on the property. The order—I stress that it has an extremely narrow compass—simply divides up what would have been the British Railways Board's rateable values for 1994–95 between the board and Railtrack; no more and no less. The ratio of the split is 95 per cent. for Railtrack—including the operational track and stations—and 5 per cent. for the board. The values are given separately for England and for Wales. Attendant negative resolution regulations, laid before Parliament on 21 March, define the property to which those values apply.
  Separately, we are already consulting Railtrack and the board about the rateable values of their property, as part of the preparation for the 1995 revaluation of all
  840
  non-domestic property. A separate order will reset the rateable values for the rail network in Scotland in the same way; but, as there are powers for that to be done with retrospective effect—that is not the arrangement for England and Wales—the order will be presented in due course.
  We have consulted both the British Railways Board and Railtrack about the content of the order, and about the regulations. They are in agreement with the order, and I commend it to the House.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: When I heard that the Minister was to move the motion, I thought that he would try to beat his record of 66 minutes—established last Friday, when he spoke in the debate on inner cities. I am delighted that he bustled along, almost at the speed of a 125, to tell us all that he has to tell us about the order in the space of seven minutes.
  That, of course, is what the Government would like us to do: they would like to enable the House to speed along in considering this important provision, so that no proper time is allowed for discussion of its merits and examination of its content in the context of the way in which the Government have approached non-domestic rating.
  Yet again, the Government are trying to force through an order that will complicate our existing business rating system still further. As I said earlier, during the debate on the allocation of time, this follows in the footsteps of a debate that took place on 12 and 13 January, when the House discussed the Non-Domestic Rating Bill. I am sure that the Minister will remember that debate: he was present, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  On that occasion, for the fifth time in four years, the House was asked to discuss non-domestic rating legislation. This is another example of an order that must be discussed and passed, because the new company that will benefit from it will start trading on 1 April—in 72 hours' time. As with the non-domestic rating legislation, the time that we can spend discussing the order has been guillotined. The Opposition believe that it is extremely important that the House should be given sufficient time to discuss and contemplate the implications of such an important issue, especially as it will affect the amount of money that is to be distributed to local authorities.
  In the previous debate, the Leader of the House threatened my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and myself by saying that local authorities would lose £200 million if the Opposition refused to allow the order to pass. The Minister is the longest serving Minister in the Department of the Environment—I do not know what he has done right or wrong to be kept there while so many others have been moved on—and he and the Government will know that the Government have passed 155 Acts of Parliament over the past 15 years, and that the latest settlement for local authorities will greatly restrict the amount of money that they will receive.
  So the idle threats about £200 million being lopped off the amount to be given to local authorities are not something which we take seriously. The Opposition want to know why the Government are so frightened that they will not allow sufficient time for a proper discussion of the order.

  841
  The order seeks to apportion the rating liability between British Rail and the wholly owned, stand-alone, Government company, Railtrack plc. I suppose that it is for that reason that the Minister for Public Transport has joined the debate. In effect, the Minister wants to apportion a bad system between two bodies. That does not automatically make right what the Government are proposing to do.
  The system is intensely unjust, and it is time for new measures to be proposed so that it is equitable for small and large national companies. If that is not done, the burden on local authorities will become unbearable and, yet again, it will be the struggling businesses and home owners who are called upon to make up the lost revenue through higher taxes.
  We have heard from the Minister a rather half-hearted argument in favour of formula rating. Perhaps his mind was not quite with us as he bustled along in his speech. Perhaps he is thinking about the tour of the far east that he is about to undertake. I did not think that he put his usual passion into arguing in favour of keeping formula rating—a system which has been discredited by everybody, and is now used by the Government only in order to complete the collection of the rates in an unfair and slapdash way.
  As the Minister said, the Local Government Finance Act 1988 opened the way for phasing out all formula rating assessments. We know from previous debates that the Government have accepted that formula rating has outlived its usefulness as a means of valuation.
  Mr. Baldry: I just want to reiterate that point. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said clearly that we feel that the system has outlived its usefulness, and that that is why we are changing it. I hasten to add that the system was introduced a long time ago, and was reintroduced by Labour Governments in 1967 and at other times.
  Mr. Vaz: I did listen to what the Minister was saying, even though he spoke at such great speed.
  The Opposition believe that the system that has been operating with regard to the public enterprises is inherently unfair. We should like to know when the Government propose to abolish the entire system. The Minister talked about 1995. As we know from previous debates on non-domestic rating legislation, the Government have promised that certain things will happen by certain dates but, like the Non-Domestic Rating Bill this year, they have not happened.
  It is our view that formula rating never purported to be a proper and true reflection of rates liability, although it did serve a purpose when one Government body paid another Government Department. I am not impressed by the Minister's argument that lack of resources makes a proper assessment impossible. We do not believe that there should be a further delay until 1995 in the abolition of this unfair system. I hope that the Minister can give us a date a little nearer than the year 2000 for the removal of other items on the local rating list.
  Railtrack plc will be liable for only 95 per cent. of its current rating liability. Therefore, it will receive extremely preferential treatment, as it will be exempted from at least a full 5 per cent. of its liability. The Minister should explain how decisions were made about what level of rating liability was acceptable to the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, as the revenue that they are
  842
  failing to collect is owed to the taxpayer. I know that the Minister said that he would prefer to have an opportunity to consult the various bodies involved. The two principal bodies are Railtrack plc and British Rail, so it should not be too difficult for him to explain why the percentages were agreed at that level.
  It is important to know why the Government have decided to bring the order before the House only 72 hours before the new company starts trading. After all, as the Minister for Public Transport will know—he piloted this legislation through the House last year—the last pieces of the jigsaw fell into place in November 1993. Therefore, there has been plenty of time to bring this order before the House, and plenty of time to enable us to discuss the matter properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has said, many points need to be raised.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend think that the lateness of the order may be due to the fact that Railtrack plc in its embryonic non-trading stage will have had to take into account the payments in the order before deciding what sort of charges it will levy to franchisees? Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement about the charges by Railtrack plc, which are much more enhanced than originally prescribed by the Department of Transport, might reflect the provisions of the order, and that the order was tabled late so that those calculations could be made?
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Unfortunately, because of the short time between the publication of Government business and the debate, it has been impossible for me to contact those who run Railtrack plc.
  However, I have had discussions on the telephone with representatives of British Rail. They cannot comment on why the Government have decided to bring this order forward at this late stage—72 hours before the company starts trading. As I pointed out to them—I have yet to hear a different argument from the Government—there has been plenty of time to discuss this matter. There is no reason on earth why there could not have been a debate later this evening, when there would have been plenty of time to discuss these proceedings.
  We have heard that the Government have extended the scope of formula rating, which will just serve to complicate rating law instead of simplifying it. The most pressing concern, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, is that there is a possibility that the burden of rates that is to be placed on Railtrack will mean a subsequent increase in the amount that will have to be paid by consumers.

  I see that the Minister is chatting to the Minister for Public Transport. Perhaps the latter is helping him on this point. I hope that the Minister will give assurances to the already hard-pressed train users—such as those who may travel to Leicester or Kettering through the constituency of the Minister for Public Transport—that they will not have to bear the burden of the increase in charges as a result of this order.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will raise this matter should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that there is a Member of the House who knows more about

  843
  the railway industry, and I look forward immensely to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say about these pertinent matters.
  It is important for Ministers to understand that orders of this kind carry certain implications. It is quite easy for Members and Ministers to come into the House and make fine speeches supporting or opposing orders, but it is essential that we understand the implications of what we are doing.
  They are precisely the lessons that we have had to learn from the way in which the Government have dealt with non-domestic rates. We learnt those lessons earlier this year, when the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1994 was forced through the House at such speed. The effect of that measure was a fundamental change in the way in which non-domestic rates were collected and the amount of money that went into the non-domestic national pool.
  That is why we decided that it was important to discuss the proposal very carefully and highlight the changes that were going to occur. It is extremely important—especially as the Government are starting a new enterprise and they do not know what the future of Railtrack plc will be; it is a wholly new company—that we examine the measures very carefully.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the order is entirely inadequate? The legislation was originally designed for a national network, but British Rail is to be broken down into a series of separate operating entities. Therefore, there will, of necessity, have to be a breakdown in the charge for rateable valuation in the order. The public at large will have no knowledge—the order provides no such knowledge—of how the assessment was made. This means that Railtrack can argue for higher charges for each section based on this order, without providing detail which the consumer could challenge.
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend raises a very good point—he is tempting me away from what I intended to say. I hope that he will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and therefore participate in the debate.
  It is important for the Minister to understand—he alluded to it in his introduction—that formula rating was originally introduced to deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, with national enterprises. It was introduced to deal with very large publicly owned companies which could not be assessed at a local level.
  The Minister is saying—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will pursue this point also—that we are no longer in that situation. Because of the work of the Minister for Public Transport, we face the prospect of the huge rail network being divided into little pieces, as a result of which it will be much easier to have an assessment of each area. I do not welcome that, because I think that what the Government have done will come back to haunt them. We do not support the breaking up of our railway system, but I do not wish to rehearse the arguments advanced during the passage of the Railways Act 1993.
  The break-up of the railway system shows that it is possible to make a proper and effective assessment; an
  844
  assessment that is much more just than the current system and an assessment that will result in a much more accurate account of the various parts of British Rail.
  With regard to non-domestic rates, at the moment local businesses are paying their money to central Government. It is being paid because of the national system that was devised by the Government—a national system that is still not in place. As we heard in the debate on 13 January this year, the Government are not sure of the precise nature and scheme of the non-domestic rating legislation that will have to be debated in the House again next year. Local non-domestic rates paid by local businesses to the Government constitute a local tax for local services, but there is no local accountability, because the tax is national and not local.
  We have seen yet again the Government's multistandards—I was going to say "double standards", but the Government have so many standards when dealing with local authorities and local enterprises—as they have tried to hide the real situation from the House. We call for more time to debate this measure, and to get a clearer picture of the Government's intentions, so that the proposals can be considered much more fully.
  The current situation is a negation of democracy. The Government have all the resources—an army of civil servants are assisting the Under-Secretary of State, advising him, tending to his every whim and providing him with all necessary advice. They have had more than four months in which to bring this measure before the House so that we could discuss it calmly and properly, not under threat of guillotine and without the knowledge that in three days' time a new company would take effect.
  The House deserves an explanation of why it has taken so long for the order to be brought before us. We also need an explanation of why it is going to take so long to bring the discredited system of formula rating to a close.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said, there is little point in rehearsing the arguments against privatisation that we debated at length during the passage of the Railways Act, which brought about this unhappy situation. The Government proved not to be amenable to listening to reason during the passage of that legislation and there is no reason to suppose that they have become more sensible since then.
  Having listened to the Under-Secretary, one can understand my hon. Friend's reference to the battery of loyal and dutiful civil servants. The Under-Secretary is the perfect Minister. My hon. Friend wondered why the Under-Secretary has been in his post for so long. I can answer the question: he is the perfect Minister; he gabbles through prepared briefs without deviating, by one word, from what is written for him. I am sure that the Department of the Environment hopes that he will carry on in his present position for many years.
  The Under-Secretary did not give any explanation for the enormous sums that we are being asked to approve in this order. They are not inconsiderable sums by any stretch of the imagination, totalling as they do £209.4 million. The fact that that is money which, in the opinion of most, would be better spent within the railway industry than on the matters that we are debating tonight is amply illustrated by news from the railway industry over the past week or so.

  845
  For example, there was the loss of 700 jobs at Derby and the last-ever press release from the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee. The committee chairman, Major-General Lennox Napier, said:
  "Unless there is a high level of sustained investment in rolling stock and infrastructure, privatisation will not be a success from the passenger's point of view."
  I think that we all agree with General Napier. Why are we spending £209.4 million under the terms of this order and why did the Minister—or his civil servants—not provide a comparison so that we could judge the expenditure of £209.4 million? As my hon. Friend and the Minister reminded us, the railway industry has paid rates for a considerable number of years—not, understandably, on stations and signal boxes but on land that it owns, on office blocks, with which I shall deal in a moment, and on other parts of what I shall call the support tail of the railway industry.
  There is an easy comparison that the Minister could have drawn had he chosen to do so or if his civil servants had written the brief accordingly. He could have compared the amount being paid in rates this year by all sectors of British Rail with that being demanded from British Rail and Railtrack in the next financial year under the order. The Minister nods his head, but he did not give us the comparison—I do not know whether the figures were prepared for him or whether he chose not to deliver them but I shall read them out.
  In the current financial year, which ends on Thursday, all sectors of British Rail are paying a total of £98.1 million in rates but, under the terms of the order, British Rail and Railtrack together will be paying £209.4 million. The Minister for Public Transport shakes his head, but they are the facts and there is no denying or gainsaying them. If he wants to intervene instead of sitting there like a nodding dog, I shall be delighted to allow him to do so.
  Mr. Baldry rose—
  Mr. Snape: The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment must have another brief.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a number of misapprehensions. The figures in the order are exactly the amount that British Rail would have paid if it had remained a nationalised industry. The order simply divides the amount between Railtrack and BR and does so on the basis of the proportion of property. In addition to the property highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, prescribed rating includes such matters as the track bed and other property owned by Railtrack, so the portfolio is rather wider than the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. Snape: I realise that that is the case and I was unaware that I had even implied otherwise. I hope that the Minister is not questioning the two figures. I have ascertained from British Rail and all its constituent sectors exactly what is being paid this year and what will be demanded under the order, and the figures are as I read out. There will be a total increase of 213.5 per cent.
  Mr. Baldry: In his desire to comment on privatisation, the hon. Gentleman is confusing rateable values and rates. We are dealing with rateable values, not rates. If the hon. Gentleman asks the wrong question, he of course gets the wrong answer.
  Mr. Snape: I am not unaware of the difference between rateable values and rates. I said what I did because I was
  846
  surprised that the Minister did not raise the issue in the first place. We are discussing the rateable values of properties owned by BR and Railtrack in the forthcoming financial year. The reason for the enormous disparity in rateable values—I accept the Minister's correction because I mentioned rates rather than rateable values—is the mushrooming bureaucracy which we warned would be a direct and inevitable consequence of privatisation. The Minister looks a bit doubtful while the Minister for Public Transport, who has at least stopped shaking his head, looks shocked.
  I have here a copy of British Rail's house magazine Railnews, which has the somewhat optimistic headline "A New Era Dawns". It states:
  "A new railway was born on April 1st."
  Never let it be said that British Rail is always behind the times—its magazine is talking in the past tense two days before we reach the dawning of the new era. In a box to one side but also on the front page a small heading states:
  "The new railway: your full colour guide to all the changes in the centre pages".
  I have extracted the centre pages and I have here details of the new railway. Alas, it is the old railway for which the rateable values are being increased under the order.
  The magazine's chart includes a long list of offices that have been opened in the past few months and which form the bulk of the rateable values under the order. For example, in Birmingham the administration tail of various sectors of BR in that part of the world operates from a building called Stanier house in the centre of the city. Under the new railway, as from 1 April, not only is Stanier house to be occupied by no fewer than two train operators or shadow franchises and one Railtrack headquarters and zone but other organisations will also be based in Birmingham directly as a result of privatisation. Two will be at Meridian house in Smallbrook Queensway and one at Quayside tower, although I am not sure where that is in Birmingham. They are the direct result of privatisation and form part of the total rateable values in 1994–95 under the order.
  I draw the attention of the House to the right-hand side of the chart. Running the length of the page is the list of offices for the new privatised railway structure in London.
  Mr. Baldry rose—
  Mr. Snape: When I have finished this point, the Minister can of course intervene.
  That list contains no fewer than 14 buildings which were not listed as being under the control of British Rail or any of its sectors before the nonsense of privatisation on 1 April. Unless the Minister can tell me otherwise, I presume that they, too, will form part of the burden under the order.
  Mr. Baldry: I hate to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech, because he is obviously enjoying himself. The truth is that the list of offices to which he referred is nothing to do with the order because, being offices, they are conventionally assessed and do not come under the prescribed rating. The prescribed rating is to cover those aspects of British Rail's estate, such as the track bed, signalling and other equipment which, since before nationalisation in 1945, it has always been accepted were too difficult to assess under conventional assessment. The list of offices that the hon. Gentleman read out in great fun are conventionally assessed and are not part of the order. I hate to destroy his point.
  Mr. Snape: May I ask the Minister another question? Exactly which parts of railway-owned property are covered under the terms of the order? Will he accept that, traditionally, stations and signal boxes are not covered? I and the House should have great difficulty in believing that we could reach a total rateable value of £209.4 million based only on the 11,500 miles of track and the signals—not the signalling, because I have already said that signal boxes are outwith the terms of the order—that British Rail currently has. If the Minister can prove to the House that none of the buildings that have fallen into British Rail's ownership or leasing arrangements in the past year is covered by the order, I shall of course have to accept it, but it is incumbent on him to prove that point. People outside the House who follow our debates with some interest will have great difficulty in believing that such is the case.
  Mr. Cryer: Would it not have helped the users of the statutory instrument if what the Minister is saying had been set out in the explanatory note? It would have shown that he had some confidence in his assertion and it would have helped the users. The explanatory note is brief to the point of obscurity. As the order will apply to a new organisation in a supposed new era which, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is an era of potential disaster, the participants should at least be informed that the order is in fact a Titanic.
  Mr. Snape: I thought—seemingly erroneously, from what the Minister has said—that
  "'English railway hereditament' means a hereditament described in regulation 2 of the Non-domestic Rating (Railways) and Central Rating Lists (Amendment) Regulations 1994",
  to quote from the new part VI that is to be added to the Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989. It was always my understanding that that regulation applied to office blocks under the control of, or owned by, or leased by, British Rail, rather than purely the railway installations, which the Under-Secretary has outlined. If I am wrong, I am obviously prepared to concede that.
  Mr. Baldry: As I have already made clear, the offices that the hon. Gentleman has listed are conventionally assessed, they have always been conventionally assessed and shall continue to be so. The order is repeating what has happened year on year for a good number of years over the prescribed rating of certain estate belonging to British Rail. The property covered is explained, if I may respond also to the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in the attendant regulations SI 834 of 1994.
  To answer another point made by the hon. Member for West Bromich, East (Mr. S nape), freight depots are included in the prescribed rating system. It is set out in some detail in the statutory instrument. That is nothing new. It will not come as a surprise to anyone at BR or associated with BR because it is a pattern which has occurred year on year for a long time. All that is happening in the current year is the division of that sum between Railtrack and BR. That is all that the order does, no more and no less. As I said, it turns on a very narrow compass.
  Mr. Snape: I accept what the Under-Secretary says and the "narrow compass" as he has defined it. I find it amazing, to say the least, that a figure has been provided for which I can find no comparable figure in the existing financial year. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, he will explain to my satisfaction, and that of the House, that apparent disparity.
  848
  I shall conclude as I began. The order may well be fairly narrow, but in the long term, the railway customers will pay for the costs of the futile privatisation. We shall see many more debates on orders such as the one before us and, of concern to the Minister for Public Transport, on legislation emanating from his Department over the next 12 months.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister introduced the order by saying that it was a traditional method of assessing rates. I am familiar with the system of assessing rates because, unlike him, I have been a director of a private railway company and I was the chairman of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society. It was one of the pioneering railway preservation societies, it was formed in 1962 and it negotiated a separate rating and valuation system for five miles of track—as distinct from British Rail. It was one of the first railway societies to do that following nationalisation in 1948 and the compulsory purchase legislation in 1922.
  Before that, there were 140 separate railway companies in the country. The order does not recognise the fact that the aim of the Government is to take us back to before that 1922 compulsory amalgamation of the railways, which created the four big railways—London and North Eastern Railways, Great Western railways, Southern Railways and London, Midland and Scottish railways, which were subsequently nationalised. I am fully aware that valuation of the track bed, the track and the signalling equipment has been done in the past and that the valuation normally included operating facilities as well. No doubt the order does that, too.
  It would have helped the user of the statutory instrument—which costs 65p for a single sheet—if the explanatory note had not merely referred to other parts of legislation, but had put in the whole background. Various Government Departments imagine that every citizen—the order applies to every citizen—is governed by legislation. When people travel on the train, they will be governed by the order, indirectly and perhaps remotely, so why should not an interested citizen have access to legislation? Why do not the Government include an explanatory note which covers all the parts of the delegated legislation to which the order refers, instead of referring to the original Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989, as though anybody knows what that order does, except if they working in the Department, specialise in that section and have it coming out of their ears? The Minister did not know what the Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989 did until somebody told him. He is no different from any other citizen, so why not provide explanatory notes that explain the backgrounds?
  The distribution of Hansard, if people are interested, is not very wide; it costs too much. The information from Parliament, of which, unfortunately, the Government are in control, is now so costly that ordinary people simply cannot get hold of it. It is 65p for a sheet of paper and if an order runs to two or three sheets, they can cost £2, £3, £4 or £5. For example, the Register of Members' Interests for the House of Commons costs £20, so ordinary citizens cannot possibly find out what their Member of Parliament is up to and whether they are moonlighting and lining their pockets, let alone deal with rating and valuation. I make a plea for a better explanatory note.

  849
  The statutory instrument is not defective. It is quite true that it falls within the narrow terms of the legislation. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I can tell the House that if the instrument had been defective, the Committee would have reported it as such. Whether that report would have been in time for the debate is a matter of conjecture because the business managers of the House do not always trouble themselves to take into account the Committee's reports.
  As I said earlier, the order is based on having a national railway network, but that is not the point of the legislation that governs it. The point is that we should not have a national network owned by a central body and providing rate revenue on a rateable valuation nationally. The network will be broken into various organisations which will take over sections of track that are to be owned by Railtrack plc, as set out in the order. What concerns me is the basis on which the charge to the franchisee will be made in incorporating the rate payments which will have to be made—approximately £200 million. If each section of track were assessed separately, it would obviously reflect the value of that track.
  Let us take, for example, the east coast main line which has been recently electrified. The Yorkshire Post, as one would expect, takes a considerable interest in that main line between Leeds and London and further north through York to Aberdeen and Edinburgh. The electrification of the line presumably means that it will carry a larger proportion of the rateable value laid down in the order and therefore a larger proportion of the amount of money that Railtrack will have to hand over as rate revenue to the Treasury because of the national assessment. Is that part of the charge that Railtrack is proposing? It would make the operation by a franchising operator virtually unprofitable.
  Take, for example, another section of line that is not yet electrified, but is in the process of being electrified—the line between Leeds and Bradford, through Airedale to Skipton and Ilkley. That will surely attract a higher charge by Railtrack plc because it will be regarded as a more attractive piece of real estate. It will, therefore, be subject to a higher yield of revenue than a single branch line with relatively low standards of maintenance with, perhaps, dodgy fencing and bridges with inadequate coping stones. The section of line from Leeds to Bradford—
  Dr. John Marek rose—
  Mr. Cryer: May I finish the point? The Leeds to Bradford and Airedale branch line has just been provided with new fencing and new bridge parapets for protection, because the 25 kV overhead electrification has been installed and, no doubt, some of the track work has been improved. I should have thought that that would reflect a higher charge.
  The Minister may regard that as extremely inconvenient, but it will happen because, instead of dealing with a national network, we shall be dealing with many smaller networks operating within the framework of the 11,000 route miles as a whole. That will give rise to complications in the operation of the order. One of my concerns is the fact that, because it is based on legislation for a national system, the order does not provide the breakdown.
  Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right that we shall be dealing not with a national integrated network but with many different routes throughout the country with little connection between them. However, I believe that my hon.
  850
  Friend is wrong that Railtrack will apply a system of charges such as he describes. I suspect that Railtrack will succumb to Government pressure and apply charges in the best possible way to franchise out the various lines. If the lines can be franchised more easily, the charges will reflect that fact, and be higher or lower according to that main criterion, rather than according to any of the sensible criteria to which my hon. Friend seeks to draw the attention of the House.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but the truth is that we simply do not know. The opaqueness of the explanatory note for the order is not exceptional. Government Departments have a certain style—and the orders are always signed by Ministers; it is they, not civil servants, who take the responsibility. Departments seem to consider that one of their aims in life is to issue opaque explanatory notes for equally opaque statutory instruments, so that the general public cannot understand either the instrument or the explanatory note. This order is no exception to that rule.
  Whatever the basis of the charges, the rating and valuation is likely to be a component. The Government will not like it, but there may be some cross-subsidisation between one section of the railway and another. One section will be more attractive in terms of route mileage, so the charges may not be worked out using a strict and accurate accounting system. We simply do not know.
  If that large charge of £200 million is drawn out of the railway network when it is being broken up, at a time of much greater administrative costs, services will inevitably suffer. If I am right that the rateable valuation allotted to modernised sections of railways is higher and will therefore result in higher charges, potential franchisees will not be able to afford Railtrack's charges. If they pay those high charges they certainly will not be able to obtain the new rolling stock necessary, for example, on the Airedale and Leeds-Bradford lines.
  The Minister for Public Transport, having lost the Menwith Hill station the other week, can now consider the Leeds-Bradford route mileage to find out whether, before we get into the mess of privatisation, we can secure an order for new rolling stock on that section of newly electrified railway. The charges may be levied on the sort of basis that I have suggested—but the Minister will not know about that, because he is not really concerned about the charges. He is concerned only with getting the order through. Then, by hook or by crook, the revenue will come in as laid down on the valuation assessed under the order. The Minister will not be able to tell us what will happen, because he does not know. Frankly, I suspect that, provided that the revenue comes in, he does not much care.
  Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the likely outcome of the electrification of the Aire valley line? In the short term, the passenger transport authority will have to pick up the additional bill, but if the rateable value is increased once the overhead electrification masts are replaced and switched on, that will make it less likely that new rolling stock can or will be introduced.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. We have been battling to try to persuade the Government to incorporate expenditure on new rolling stock for the new electrified railway. In view of the massively increased administrative charges under privatisation and the difficulties that will occur in any event, the Government might have taken the

  851
  expenditure into account in assessing the rateable values, and reduced the totals significantly so that the charges would represent an encouragement to provide services rather than a disincentive. I fear that there will be disincentives. My fears are not based on a belief that privatisation will be a success; privatisation is a potential disaster, as I said when the legislation was before the House—but I do not want to go over those arguments again.
  I am concerned about the passengers, because it is they who will pay the revenue stipulated in the order. The passengers and freight users will be the means of providing that income. When starting on this disastrous course, the Government might have at least considered the passengers and freight users, so that we could expand the use of the railway network rather than diminish it. Under the order, I fear that it will be diminished.
  Although there are emergency provisions in the legislation, if a service is diminished because a franchisee goes into liquidation and cannot sustain it, the rate revenue will be required whatever the circumstances. That is a grave fault.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My hon. Friend mentioned Menwith Hill station. I understand that that is a GCHQ listening station, so can my hon. Friend explain why British Rail is being charged on its rateable value?
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. Unfortunately, the Minister for Public Transport mistakenly thought that Menwith Hill station, which is a spy listening station, was a British Rail station. I mention that by way of explanation in response to my hon. Friend's intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the Minister asked British Rail where the station was it could not tell him, for the simple reason that Menwith Hill is a 250-acre site on the moors above Harrogate, with 21 radomes. It would have made a most unusual railway station. I shall not go any further down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker, having clarified the question. Unfortunately, the mistake was due to the lack of knowledge—some may say ignorance—of the Department of Transport and of the Minister for Public Transport.
  The debate has been useful and the fact that it has not gone to its full length should not detract from that. Its brevity is partly due to the narrowness of the debate and the minimal amount of information conveyed in the order, which simply refers to the current state of legislation. If British Rail is broken up—I hope that, because no franchisees come forward, that will not happen—the
  852
  Government will have to examine their method of applying the rateable value, because it will no longer be possible to apply it nationally.
  Because the arrangements will apply in a completely new context, I urge the Minister to provide a better explanation. There should be an explanatory note on every statutory instrument, to enable the user to understand the background as a whole. Understanding should not depend on possessing all the other relevant statutory instruments. Although no consolidation is required in this instance, statutory instruments often span a wide range of activity. It is unfair that people should have to buy three, four, five or six statutory instruments to obtain a full explanation and full knowledge of the position.
  That is unfair because, as with every other activity, the Government impose a charge of such magnitude to cover services provided. People are denied the right to information, but every week cartons and cartons of discarded current public documents are taken away from this place for shredding. If the statutory instruments were given away for nothing the Government might have a case—but as they charge so much for them, the explanatory notes should give as full an account as possible.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Baldry: The Opposition have tried very hard, and on occasion quite humorously, to make this order appear much more complicated than it really is. I believe that everyone now accepts that we are simply dividing 100 per cent. of what would have been paid by British Rail, if it had remained a nationalised industry, between two bodies—the British Railways Board and Railtrack. The split represents the rateable value of the prescribed property occupied by both bodies. The reason for the impossibility of bringing the order before the House earlier is that care needed to be taken in arriving at proportions for division of the relevant property. But the same property as last year stays in the formula rating; nothing changes there. The rate bill stays exactly the same as would have been the case if British Rail had remained a nationalised industry; nothing changes there. The effect on the money going to local authorities is exactly the same; nothing changes there. And the amount of money that the railways have to pay out is exactly the same as would otherwise have been the case; nothing changes there, and any suggestion that more money is being extracted from the railways is complete bunkum.
  The order simply adds one ratepayer. It does no more and no less, and on that basis I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.

Northern Ireland Affairs
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Madam Speaker has decided that all the amendments on the Order Paper are selected for debate but that any that are to be moved will be moved formally at the conclusion of the debate.
7.2 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I beg to move,
That Mr. James Cran, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Peter Robinson, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John D. Taylor, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Wolfson be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Members who serve on the Committee of Selection. We may disagree from time to time, and we often have to debate issues, but we never descend into matters of personality, and we always maintain a sense of humour. I believe, indeed. that most members of the Committee would agree that it is a pleasant one on which to serve.
The setting up of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was always going to be a difficult matter. I do not think that any hon. Member in any part of the House would disagree with that assertion. I realise that it was impossible to accede to the requests of all the political parties involved. The minority parties are normally entitled to one place on departmental Select Committees, but there are exceptions. On the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs a Scottish nationalist Member takes one of the Labour party's places, and on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs Plaid Cymru does likewise. The situation in Northern Ireland is different, and it is very complex. Northern Ireland has 17 constituencies. The seats are held by Members from four different political parties, none of the three major political parties on the mainland being represented. Herein lies the crux of the problem.
The unique character of Northern Ireland's parliamentary representation meant that the usual formula would have to be adapted. The Committee of Selection took into account the views of the Committee on Procedure, which had looked at the issue twice in recent years. In its 1990 report on the working of the Select Committee system, the Procedure Committee envisaged that a future Northern Ireland Select Committee would consist of 16 members, and the suggested break-down was eight Conservatives, three Labour members, two Ulster Unionist representatives, one Democratic Unionist, one Popular Unionist, and one representative of the Social Democratic and Labour party. This was revised by the Procedure Committee in December last year, when a membership of 13 or 15, which the Committee thought would be procedurally acceptable, was suggested. It was also observed—and this is a very important point—that it seemed sensible that all Northern Ireland political parties represented in the House should be represented on the Committee.
It has always been the case that the Government of the day can expect to have a majority on Committees of the House. That is not in dispute. On 9 March 1994, the House, by 324 votes to 221, approved the setting up of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and decided that it should consist of 13 members. The Committee of Selection
854
was then faced with the task of setting up a Committee that would give all Northern Ireland parties representation, would accommodate the Opposition and would guarantee a Government majority—not an easy task. The difficulties involved in meeting all these criteria must be readily apparent to all hon. Members.
Mr. Don Dixon: If the Government wanted to have a majority on the Northern Ireland Select Committee, as they have on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and every departmental Select Committee, they could have implemented the Procedure Committee's recommendation that there should be seven Government members, two Labour members and one from each of the political parties in Northern Ireland. That would have been the simplest way of dealing with the matter. Why did the Procedure Committee decide that the Select Committee should have 13 members rather than 16, with the Labour party's representation reduced by one but the Ulster Unionists' representation remaining at two?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall, in fairness, deal with those points in due course. The hon. Gentleman's basic point is that the Labour party should have three seats rather than two.
The composition that we decided recognises closely the Procedure Committee's original proposal, which was that the membership should consist of six Conservatives, two Labour representatives, two Ulster Unionists, one Democratic Unionist, one Popular Unionist and one SDLP representative. In 1990, the Procedure Committee recommended a Committee of 16. On that basis, the Conservatives have lost two places, having come down from eight to six, and the Labour party has lost one seat, having come down from three to two.
To ensure full participation by all the Northern Ireland parties, the Government were prepared to allow their majority to be maintained by the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder). Although there is no formal link between the Popular Unionist party and the Conservative party—the hon. Member for North Down certainly does not take the Conservative whip—the hon. Gentleman is a consistent supporter of the Government in the Division Lobbies. I suggest, in fairness, that if the boot had been on the other foot—if there had been a Labour Government and a Labour Chairman of the Committee of Selection—the Labour party would probably have taken six seats and that one seat would have gone to the SDLP, which, while it does not take the Labour whip, has a link with the Labour party and agrees with it in respect of many things. I believe that the Labour party would indeed have relied on the SDLP for its majority. It goes without saying that there can be no guarantee that the hon. Member for North Down, or, for that matter, any other hon. Member, will always support the Conservative side of the Committee.
In reply to the other point that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) put to me, I have to say that we considered it right that the Ulster Unionists should have two places on the Committee. After all, it has more than twice as many seats as any other Northern Ireland party, and it has just over half of the Northern Ireland seats in the House. This is a Northern Ireland Committee, and it would be nonsensical to fill it with members from the mainland. The whole purpose of setting it up is to bring Northern Ireland Members together to discuss issues that are of

855
concern to their constituents. Surely it is logical and reasonable for the Ulster Unionists to expect greater representation than the other Northern Ireland parties.
Mr. Dixon: How, then, does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that the Government have a majority on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs even though there are very few Scottish Conservative Members and a majority on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs even though there are very few Welsh Conservative Members?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Member has been in the House a long time and knows as well as I do that the Government have a majority. I do not know whether he was a Member of Parliament between 1974 and 1979, when the Labour Government lost their majority in the House. The then Opposition—the Conservative party—always accepted that the Government must have a majority on Committees. That has always been accepted.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: In view of the point that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has just put to my hon. Friend, I must say that the Northern Ireland situation is entirely different from those in Scotland and in Wales. We know that it is a very delicate and difficult political decision. There are exceptional problems in that area and one feels desperately sorry for the people who live there. Therefore, the Committee of Selection had to look at Northern Ireland in a different light compared with Wales and Scotland. That should deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon).
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not argue that our nominations are a statistically accurate reflection of the composition of the House. It is clear that the Labour party would ordinarily expect to have more than two places. However, I had hoped that Labour, like the Government, would be prepared to accept less in order to ensure that every Northern Ireland party was represented on the Committee because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) pointed out, special factors apply to Northern Ireland.
Earlier today, we had a debate on the business of the House, when the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was rather unfair in his criticism of the Committee of Selection. The House made its decision on 9 March. I had hoped to set up the Committee on 16 March. The other Northern Ireland parties had all let me have their nominations; I did not have to ask for them. That is the usual procedure. However, there were no nominations from the SDLP.
The Clerk of the Committee, who was very efficient and hard working, spent the whole of the morning trying to find an SDLP Member. As we had no nominations from the SDLP, I deferred the setting up of the Committee for a full week. We set up the Committee in the following week when we had the nominations from the SDLP. There was no intention on our part of being unfair to the SDLP; we wanted to ensure that it had representation on the Committee.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I take cognisance of the veracity of the hon. Gentleman's statement. Nevertheless, it does not alter the fact that my party was not contacted about the proposed meeting or the
856
subsequent meeting. I made contact because I had heard rumours in the House that there was a meeting taking place. There were no lines of communication. There was no direct contact with me or with any other members of my party to enable us to be aware that nominations were required for a meeting on a particular date. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that as a genuine expression of the truthful position.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: There is an hon. Member who represents the minority parties in the House—he does that extremely well. When the Committee was set up, he relied on the parties concerned to get their nominations to him. That happened. The nominations came to the hon. Member or to me. All the other Northern Ireland parties got their names in on time. Because we wanted to be scrupulously fair, the meeting deferred for one week the setting up of the Committee so that the SDLP could be represented. I hope that the hon. Member for South Down understands that.
Mr. Dixon: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for continuing to intervene. Is it not a fact that at the first meeting of the Committee of Selection to set up the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs the only thing that we decided was the composition of the Committee—the number of members on the Committee from each political party? After we decided that, the meeting was adjourned for a week to allow names to come in. The SDLP could not put in any names because it did not know who would be on the Committee. Indeed, the Labour party did not put in any names because we were still arguing about whether we should have three or two positions on the Committee. At the first meeting we talked about only the composition; we talked about the names at the second meeting. There was no need to look for SDLP Members—they would not be represented because we had not decided on the representation.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: At the beginning of my remarks, I said what a pleasant Committee the Committee of Selection was. Perhaps I should rethink what I said in the light of all the hon. Gentleman's interventions. I must refresh his memory. The reason why the setting up of the Committee was deferred for one week was to get the names in. That is true.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I shall refresh my memory. I believe that the week that the hon. Gentleman is referring to was the week of the last Northern Ireland Question Time, during which my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I were present. If my memory needs further refreshing and it was the previous week, that was the week that we debated the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act when my hon. Friends the Members for South Down and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I were present. At least we should put that on the record, and the record will show that that is right.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. When I was explaining the procedures of the Committee, all I was trying to say was that it is up to the parties concerned to get their nominations in on time. As the House had decided that we should set up the Committee, it is funny that the other Northern Ireland parties understood that and got their names in.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not sure whether this hard-working hon. Member from another party looks after Northern Ireland and the minority parties because I have been consulted three times in the whole Parliament by that hon. Member. That should be put on the record as well.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: A lot of things are being put on the record tonight. All I can say is that, in all the speeches that I have made in the House, I have never had so many interruptions.
There are five amendments on the Order Paper. If all five of them are carried, the Labour party would have seven members on a Committee of 13.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Hear, hear.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear". It may be very pleasant for the Labour party. Certainly it would not be pleasant for the Tory members who will be kicked off the Committee if the amendments are carried, and it would not be fair on the Northern Ireland members. We should be happy to see more Northern Ireland members on the Committee because the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is there to look after their interests. I simply say to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), whom I always find agreeable, that when he is asking for more members, he should remember that this Committee is for the needy, not the greedy.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has expressed an important principle—that there is a strong case for having more Northern Ireland members on the Committee. Would he extend that principle to Scotland and Wales? Can we have more Scots on the Scottish Affairs Committee?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: If the hon. Gentleman checks, he will find that there are 11 members on both the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee. On the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, we have made a great concession—there are 13 members because Northern Ireland is represented by four separate political parties. The number of members of the Committee was increased to 13 to meet that.
Sir Michael Neubert: Would it be true to say that the intervention of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) overlooked the crucial fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) mentioned earlier that the two major mainland parties will not be represented in Northern Ireland and that is what makes it a different Committee from the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee?
Sir Fergus Montgomery: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a valuable member of the Committee of Selection. He is right that that is one of the difficulties that we had to bear in mind all the way through.
We thought of all sorts of different arrangements for the composition of the Committee. In fairness, most people would agree that, no matter what we decided, there would still be aggrieved hon. Members in the House. Several Tory Members desperately wanted to serve on the Committee, but we could not place them on it because we had only six places to fill. We voted on the six hon.
858
Members whom we thought were the best choices. That was a great disappointment to some of my hon. Friends, and some of them have had harsh words to say to me since then.
Given the peculiar circumstances, the composition that we eventually presented to the House is as fair as it was possible to be to all the parties involved. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with and accept our nominations.
7.18 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move the amendment—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Speaker has instructed that the amendments will be taken formally at the end of the debate but it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to discuss them now.
Mr. McNamara: At the end of the debate, I shall beg to move the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends.
Let I say at the outset to the Government Members whom we are suggesting should be taken from the Committee that we do not attack them in any personal way. Everybody admires their sterling qualities—the problem is that they are overshadowed by the sterling qualities of my hon. Friends, whose names we have proposed.
The House will have noted that we have not put up a candidate against the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). That is because he is a class apart—from which stream, of course, is a question for the House to judge. However, it is not true, as has been maliciously suggested, that he is regarded by the Opposition as being a member of the Ulster Unionist party. That cannot be true, as he sits on the Government Benches. However, he is the chairman of the Northern Ireland Back-Bench committee and it seems correct not to oppose his membership of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
The House will have noted that the composition of a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee is not merely a procedural parliamentary issue. It has significant political consequences. Until recently, the Government were prepared to acknowledge the wider implications of a Northern Ireland Select Committee, and accepted the need for cross-party support for it. The Northern Ireland Select Committee is not viewed in Ireland simply as an administrative issue—it has a profound symbolic significance.
A Northern Ireland Select Committee is an integral part of the Ulster Unionist party's political agenda and is seen as an integrationist measure. The fact that the Government now support the new composition is seen as evidence of their own political inclination, and belies the Government's self-proclaimed aspiration to be merely a facilitator to the agreement.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why having one Select Committee looking after most of the issues affecting Northern Ireland is integrationist when having six is not?
Mr. McNamara: Had the hon. Gentleman graced our earlier debates, he would have known of the symbolic importance which is attached to the Select Committee, in particular by the Ulster Unionist party. It is part and parcel of its agenda, which includes altering the legislative procedures in the House and having a devolved assembly

859
if it can have one without a broad Irish dimension. It is part and parcel of a political party's agenda, and of what was regarded as being strand 1 of the talks—
Mr. Ken Maginnis rose—
Mr. McNamara: May I answer the question, and then I will be only too delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman? It is part and parcel of strand I of the talks which are now beginning to be unravelled.
Mr. Maginnis: Was it the hon. Gentleman's political philosophy that it was his task and that of his party to frustrate the wishes of the largest political party in Northern Ireland and merely to act as a spokesperson for one of the smaller political parties? There appears to be little logic in his argument that, because the Ulster Unionist party believes that there should be accountable democracy, he should set out almost single-handed to defeat it.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman flatters me if he thinks I have such power.
It is the policy of the British Labour party to work for a united Ireland by consent. It follows that any measure that is seen as being integrationist in any way or as tightening the bands between this island and Northern Ireland is something to which we are opposed. It is because of that—
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)rose—
Mr. McNamara: Could I finish my point? We oppose it because we regard it as an integrationist measure.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked a good question, to which he has not so far had anything that amounts to an answer. How can it be more integrationist to have a single Select Committee focused on the Northern Ireland Office than to leave the affairs of that office to be treated as part and parcel of the activities of the Agriculture Committee, the Environment Committee, the National Heritage Committee, the Transport Committee and dozens of others? That appears to stand reasoned argument on its head.
Mr. McNamara: If the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the symbolic significance in Northern Ireland of the establishment of the Select Committee, he should not be establishing it. That is why it is being fought for. It is not being fought for to provide better administration for the Northern Ireland Office. The Leader of the House himself has said that half a dozen Committees are quite capable of doing it any way. All that the Government are doing with this Committee is increasing bureaucracy, and I thought that the Government were against increasing bureaucracy.
Mr. Bowden rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gets truly launched, may I point out that we are concerned with the composition of the Committee and not its functions or whether or not it should be set up?
Mr. McNamara: I agree with you entirely, Madam Deputy Speaker. The points are being put to me by hon. Members, and I am trying to facilitate the debate.
Mr. Bowden: It is important that the hon. Members whom we are to put on the Committee tonight—because as you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what we are discussing—are more than a symbol. Surely they must form an important working group of hon. Members looking in detail at some of the serious problems which Northern Ireland is facing. Is it not a mistake just to call the Committee symbolic, as it is much deeper and more important than that?
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it is. The Ulster Unionist party, in a reference that it made to the press in a briefing paper, spoke of the symbolic importance of the Committee, and of restoring responsibility back to Stormont. Those are not my words but those of the UUP. That is the significance of the Committee and that is why its composition happens to be of particular importance.
The Government have claimed that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Ireland, but they have now allowed a selfish, petty and short-term party interest to dictate their policy towards the establishment, and therefore towards the composition, of a Northern Ireland Select Committee. The political dimension in the composition of the Committee is clear for all to see.
The negative impact of the creation of the Committee is compounded by its proposed composition. The Government are still simply replicating majority rule. Indeed, the Ulster Unionist party said in a briefing paper that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is already harking back to the Stormont regime. The population of Northern Ireland is now split roughly 43 per cent. to 57 per cent., and yet there has been no attempt to ensure that the minority community has a fair representation on the proposed Committee.
The Social Democratic and Labour party received twice as many votes as the Democratic Unionist party and 10 times as many as the Ulster Popular Unionist party, and yet it is to receive exactly the same representation on the Committee. A party that stands in just one constituency and receives just 2.5 per cent. of the votes cast in Northern Ireland—the UPUP—is to get one place on the Select Committee, and possibly even the chairmanship. That gives a completely new definition of the word popular. The SDLP has been allocated one place on the Select Committee, despite receiving 23.5 per cent. of the votes cast in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, there is only one and a half hours for the debate. The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak, and the Northern Ireland parties probably wish to contribute. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Fergus Montgomery rose—
Mr. McNamara: I am prepared to give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman complains bitterly that the hon. Member for North Down(Sir J. Kilfedder) has been given a place. May I remind him that the Government could have taken seven places, and

861
only took six? The hon. Member for North Down was given a place from the Government side, which did not affect the placing of Opposition Members.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman's point would lead me to an argument that I shall advance later.
The Leader of the House said that the Government
"should expect to be able to command a majority"—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 345.]
on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, yet they have accepted that there should be only six Conservative places on the Committee. That is because they consider the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) to be an honorary Tory. That may be an unfair thing to say about the hon. Gentleman, but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said, the Government have conceded that the circumstances of Northern Ireland are peculiar, which is what we argued to the Secretary of State.
We suggested that both the Government and the Opposition should be prepared to surrender seats to the Northern Ireland parties. We proposed that the Government should have five seats and the Labour party four, with the remainder divided between the Northern Ireland parties. Instead, the Government allotted only two seats to the Labour party, despite the fact that it has 270 Members in the House. That is an outrageous distortion of the principle of proportionality on which the Select Committee system is supposed to be based. That gross misrepresentation cannot possibly be justified, even though the Select Committee on Selection agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) should press for three Labour members, despite our first proposal to the Secretary of State.
In Northern Ireland, such gerrymandering serves as a reminder of past abuses of power. The decision to allocate the seats in such a biased way damages the Government's reputation in Ireland and thereby damages the peace process. It is vital that, in any future inter-party talks, there is no question of the Government entering discussions with a hidden agenda, which the composition of the Committee implies that they have.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has repeatedly claimed that the Government have no blueprint or master plan, yet the decision to establish the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee with such an unrepresen-tative composition casts serious doubts over that assertion. Many have been left with the suspicion that the Government's squalid deal with the Ulster Unionist party has meant a series of concessions to its integrationist agenda, including changes in legislative procedures and the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
The biased composition of that Committee aggravates the matter still further because it means that the Conservative and Unionist party and Ulster Unionist party will have an overwhelming majority of 10 to three. Yet the Government had pledged that there would be no return to majoritarian institutions in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Secretary of State said in speech on 20 January:
"there can be no going back to a system which has the allegiance of, and is operated by, only one part of the community."
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman has just made me a Tory.
Mr. McNamara: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness about such a description, but it would be fair to say that, on most matters regarding
862
Northern Ireland, he would tend to support the Unionist and Conservative and Unionist position rather, than that of the Opposition. However, I am prepared, in the interests of fairness, to make it a majority of nine to four.
Such a cynical short-term policy as the Government have adopted represents a betrayal of the people of these islands. In Britain and Ireland, the overwhelming majority long for a political settlement that will bring peace to these islands. That is not helped by the composition of the new Select Committee.
Such a political settlement must inevitably include some form of devolved power-sharing assembly to govern Northern Ireland and the decision to grant the UUP the Select Committee reduces still further any possibility of agreement on a devolved assembly with a broad Irish dimension.
The Ulster Unionists have always managed to secure a large measure of their integrationist agenda. As a result, there has been no incentive for them to compromise and accept a form of devolved Government, with adequate recognition of national rights and aspirations. A devolved assembly in Northern Assembly should establish committees to monitor the government of Northern Ireland. That should not be done by a Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee at Westminster dominated by the Conservative and Unionist alliance. Those are reasons why we are concerned about the composition of the Committee.
I know that the fact that we have tabled five amendments has caused concern to Conservative Members, no more so than to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. He is terribly afraid that, if all the amendments were carried, the Conservative party would be left with only the hon. Member for Basingstoke on the Committee. Let me assure him that once we have carried the first two amendments, we shall cease to push for any more.
7.34 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: On behalf of the whole House, I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), for his contribution to the debate.
It is important to remind ourselves why we are here and of the purpose that led us here. We are here to appoint Members to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee. Our duty is to respond to resolutions and votes of the House. First, I should like to place on record, as is the fashion, that the Government by convention and precedent always have a majority of seats on Select Committees. Secondly, the House voted that the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee should have 13 members. Thirdly, the Select Committee on Procedure, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) also recommended that all Northern Ireland parties should be represented on the Select Committee.
The Selection Committee had to try, therefore, to reconcile two competing tensions. We had to accom-modate a Government majority in the Committee of 13 members and to accommodate all the parties represented in Ulster. That would pose a difficulty for the Government if they stuck with the concept of a majority. For that reason and that reason alone, the Selection Committee decided to give up one of the Government's places on the Select Committee to the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J.

863
Kilfedder), thereby allowing the Selection Committee to accommodate the recommendation that all parties should be represented on the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee.
I became slightly confused by the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the concept of representation by proportion of population and membership of this House. After all, many parties stand for election to the United Kingdom Parliament and do not win seats. The logic of his argument is that those people who vote for parties that are not represented in the House should, by some process of osmosis, be represented on Select Committees. We can appoint only Members of this House to Select Committees. We have no power to do anything else. The way in which our recommendation has accommodated all the parties in Northern Ireland is the right way forward.
It is not for us to argue the pros and cons of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland. The House has voted for it. In the same way, I presume that the House voted for Select Committees for Wales and for Scotland. Equally, I could argue that my county of Kent, which is represented by 16 Members, should have a Select Committee. I do not intend to do so; it would not be wise or sensible. As Kentish Members we can make a major contribution to the work of the Conservative party. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has to stop somewhere, and it must stop here tonight.
The important point is that the Selection Committee is abiding by a requirement of the House. Hon. Members should, therefore, think carefully before voting for the amendments that have been tabled by the official Opposition. They would destroy the work of the Selection Committee, which is so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
7.38 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to clarify one or two misunderstandings. In the light of the comment by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on the 53 per cent. to 47 per cent. division of Northern Ireland's population, I was perhaps fortunate to be told this morning that two people from Northern Ireland told the papal nuncio in Dublin that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I were their pastors. I make it abundantly plain that in this House we represent a broad cross-section of the people in Northern Ireland, not the sectarian head count that has been set forth here tonight. We represent the constituents who sent us here.
I also happen to be one of the few Northern Ireland Members who have served consistently on a Select Committee of the House. Although we did our best to include Northern Ireland, we could do it only on occasions. Other things had to be done. To criticise the setting up of a Select Committee for Northern Ireland on the ground that there are six already and it is an integrationist approach, fails to recognise that the Members whom we appoint tonight to that Select Committee will have the task of scrutinising intimately the Northern Ireland Office, which will remain, irrespective of what happens in a devolutionary settlement in Northern Ireland.
864
In that context, I have been perplexed about why this elongated debate is taking place. I remember only two other occasions when the membership of a Select Committee necessitated a Division. Speaking for the Ulster Unionist party, when we found out that there were so many seats on other Select Committees for Members from Northern Ireland we could have put up four names, but we put up two names to allow the other parties in Northern Ireland to be represented. In the broader pattern of Select Committees, Northern Ireland parties have been under-represented as a result of the failure of parties to put forward representatives. Therefore, I welcome the fact that a Committee that is to monitor—scrutinize—the Northern Ireland Office will have a broad cross-section of members from Northern Ireland.
Perhaps it will be worth while, since other hon. Members have been refreshing memories, if I put on record the fact that although the Select Committee system is reputed to have taken its inspiration from the American Congress, Lord Glenamara recalls in his book, "Whip to Wilson" that Lord Wilson advocated such an idea in the 1960s. It is fascinating that Labour Front-Bench Members are using delaying tactics to prevent it from being set up now.
It is also worth remembering that it was under the Labour Administrations of Lords Wilson, Callaghan and Foot that the system was developed, before being brought to fruition in 1979 under Lord St. John of Fawsley, then Leader of the House in the new Conservative Government.
When we bear in mind the fact that, in 1970, the Labour party demonstrated a clear understanding of the need for an accountable democracy, there seems to have been some change in pattern. Admittedly, that Administration were kept in power by the Ulster Unionist party and colleagues, who supported them—you will recognise this sentence by now, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
"so long as they governed in the best interests of the United Kingdom in general, and of Nonhem Ireland in particular".
That Labour party presided over Northern Ireland's great democratic change in 1970—the redrawing of constituency boundaries, which gave fairer representation to the people of Northern Ireland. It was implied tonight that the people of Northern Ireland, especially the Unionists, had been guilty of gerrymandering, but it is interesting to note that it was pressure from a Northern Ireland Assembly and the Members of the House which led to the Speaker's Conference that ultimately granted us better proportional representation in the House and which allowed more representatives of the nationalist community to come to the House. We have to keep those things clearly in mind, even though I admit that some people might disagree with it.
What is wrong with the motion tonight, which purportedly would give a better distribution of the seats? Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I have nothing against the nominees from the Conservative party, or the nominees from the parties in Northern Ireland and I believe that the Labour party has a right to nominate its own representatives.
We shall all discover that, despite newspaper headlines that seek to portray a scenario such as "Tory-dominated Committee savages Government", the task of a Select Committee, irrespective of what party its members come from, is to scrutinise the affairs of the Department and the Government and, in the light of the evidence, to bring a report to the House. I do not doubt that in the chemistry of

865
a Select Committee there will be movement; there will be changes of opinion. I should like to think that hon., as well as right hon., Ladies and Gentlemen would go with the evidence rather than simply being in a partisan mood.
I find it difficult to understand how Members of the House who support accountable democracy can listen to the arguments made tonight by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. According to a recent speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in the House, he does not object in principle to the Select Committee system but does object to such a system being extended to Northern Ireland. What nonsense! We see here at work a republican agenda, which seeks to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Amazingly enough, it was Mr. Haughey and later Mr. Reynolds who, publicly and privately—although perhaps privately they said some things differently to different people—said that it was the responsibility of the House to decide how it scrutinises the Departments of its own Government; it was not a matter for the Dublin Government or anyone outside the House.
Tonight I am happy to support the motion.
Mr. Maginnis: I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend at this stage, but it is a misnomer to describe the agenda of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) as a republican agenda. Tonight it was obviously a bitter, sectarian agenda, as we heard from the figures that he misquoted. It is the type of performance that we hear from bitter third generation expatriates and we would not even hear it from representatives of the nationalist community.
Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) makes his own point, but I say to him that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North wishes to remain British but seeks to deny the people of Northern Ireland their right to have the affairs of their Province scrutinised by their Parliament.
Does it not seem strange when we contrast the efforts of the shadow Northern Ireland spokesman to thwart the democratic process with the amazing conversion of, and support for, the British judicial system shown by the Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams? Mr. Adams has seen the light and has chosen to throw himself, with a bag of British taxpayers' legal aid gold in his pocket, on the mercy of British courts in an effort to regain the right to peddle word of his organisation's terrorism throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse):Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the motion. Will he get back to it?
Rev. Martin Smyth: I have no difficulty getting back to it, but the comparison still stands and the people of Northern Ireland know the very point. It is amusing that for—
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he finishes his interesting speech, will he take the opportunity at least to distance himself and the Ulster Unionist party from the remarks that were made about the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and, indeed, about many right hon. and hon. Members of the House who are first, second and third generation Irish and have no
866
trace of sectarianism about them, as my hon. Friend has not? I think that it is incumbent on that party to distance itself from that remark, in the interests of fairness.
Rev. Martin Smyth: In the interests of fairness, I will say to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that he has made his point, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McGrady) made his point. As far as I am concerned, as I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues here, I support the motion and I trust that the House stands firmly behind the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. I also pay tribute to the representative of the minority parties, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who consults those who should be consulted.
7.49 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I was amazed—perhaps I should not have been—at the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He put forward a series of arguments about why the House should not have a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and why we should not be voting Members on to that Committee.
It was strange because the hon. Gentleman talked about strand 1 of the talks held in Northern Ireland. He was not present at those talks and does not know what he is talking about. The basis of the strand 1 talks was to find a way to govern Northern Ireland and, once that was settled, to decide what relationship the Government or Administration would have with Dublin. To suggest that the Government are now breaking their pledge on strand 1 and that they should not be democratically accountable to the House through their own Select Committee is ridiculous. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman feels about strand 1, but it has nothing to do with whether the House has a Select Committee. At the strand 1 talks, everyone except the SDLP agreed that the Select Committee was a matter for this House and that the House should do for Northern Ireland what it does for every other part of the United Kingdom. That shows that the hon. Gentleman's argument was in tatters before he started his speech tonight.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, because the Government have said that they have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland remaining within the United Kingdom, they should not set up the Select Committee. The Select Committee will look at the present government of Northern Ireland. Will not the people of Northern Ireland be allowed to scrutinise their own Government as those in every other part of the United Kingdom do?
The hon. Gentleman argued that, because the Government have said that they have no selfish, strategic or economic interests in keeping Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom if the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not want to remain within it, Northern Ireland should cease to have the same sort of government as the rest of the United Kingdom. He also argued that we were breaking with the status quo, but we are only establishing it. Every other part of the United Kingdom has that privilege.
Why should not we be allowed to have the Government scrutinised and to look at how they govern Northern Ireland? Why should not we be allowed to ask how the

867
money is spent? Why should not we be allowed to question civil servants, who have a hundred times more power in Northern Ireland today than they ever had—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman get back to the establishment of the Committee rather than arguing for it?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the members of the Committee were the right people to find out what this matter is about and to scrutinise it. I am responding to the various suggestions made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. Those must be answered, for the people of Northern Ireland will say to us—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is about the constitution of the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will stick to that, he will be in order; otherwise, he will not.
Rev. Ian Paisley:Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also mentioned some percentages. I noticed that he convenient-ly left out the fact that, in the European elections, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party took 30 per cent. of the vote. He forgot all about that. He also discovered a statistic that the Roman Catholic population now represents almost 50 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. It is amazing that he puts up those arguments in recommending—I am coming to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that more Labour party members should be on the Committee. If this Committee is so wretched and bad and should not exist, the hon. Gentleman should ask to give up his party's two seats on it and let other Northern Ireland Members get on the Committee to do the work in which they are interested.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is ridiculous. May I say on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that this debate is a microcosm of what has happened in Northern Ireland throughout the years. No progress can be made because certain people will not let us, except if it is progress towards Dublin and a united Ireland. Tonight's debate simply holds up the people of Northern Ireland from having the same rights as people in the rest of the Kingdom.
We have argued about the basis of the Committee. My party has no seat on any Select Committee in the House because we were never offered a seat. I was thrown off the Select Committee on Agriculture and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was put on it. He had to be taken off the Agriculture Committee because he did not attend, whereas I was a good attender. I do not know who is responsible for the Committee of Selection, but my party has never been approached to have a member on any Select Committee. I raised that matter with the Prime Minister and he said, "Oh, we'll see about it." So I could have a grouse tonight and say that, although my party has three Members in the House, we sit on no Select Committee.
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who did a difficult job. What would be better than to have every party represented? After all, at the talks we have a party that has no members in the House—the Alliance party. Yet because one Member has his own party—the UPUP—and has been returned to the House, the Labour
868
party thinks that he should have no say and should not be allowed on the Select Committee. It is reasonable that all parties from Northern Ireland should be on the Committee.
Other members of the Committee do not know the whole position, the questions to ask or what needs to be probed. They do not know the difficulties that we have in Northern Ireland and they will depend largely on the representatives from Northern Ireland to put the questions that need to be put.
I am sure that the Government are not over-enthusiastic about that. Their civil servants have already told me that they are not and—I do not refer to those presently in the Box. They must realise that the tragedy of Northern Ireland, where we have been unable to scrutinise the Government, must come to an end. The Committee can do that job and I hope that it will do it well. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to have the numbers proposed on the Order Paper.
7.57 pm
Ms Kate Hoey: May I say a few words in support of the Select Committee and the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends?
A Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs is long overdue and I am pleased that it is being set up. There is an amazing democratic deficit in Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland are neglected in all sorts of ways. Before getting back to a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, the least that we can do is to get this Select Committee going and begin the scrutiny that is needed.
I support the membership of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has done an enormous amount of work on Northern Ireland matters and who put forward his name for the original selection list. I hope that he will get on the Committee.
Some of my hon. Friends and I are sad that my party still does not allow people in Northern Ireland to join it. We are rightly asking for more Labour Members to serve on the Select Committee, yet if I went back to live in Northern Ireland I could not remain a member of the Labour party. That is disgraceful. My party needs to deal with that problem—indeed, it is dealing with it.
Recently members of the Union of Communications Workers and the Amalgamated Engineering Union were asked whether they should have the right in Northern Ireland to join the Labour party. Protestants and Catholics alike overwhelmingly stated that they wanted the right to join the Labour party and wished that they had the right to vote for it. That is not to say—unfortunately—that they would all vote Labour, but our party should at the very least be in Northern Ireland arguing for our policies and organising. Only in that way can we in the Opposition claim really to represent the people of Northern Ireland.
Attitudes to the people of Northern Ireland are often patronising. Every time we hear of another dreadful incident, we say that they just want to fight and kill each other. Yet the Labour party does not give those people the chance to cross the sectarian divide and to join a party that would fight for their jobs, their health service and so on.
I know that this debate is about only one aspect of the situation—the setting up of the Select Committee—but I hope that it will mark a new recognition of the fact that, as

869
long as the people of Northern Ireland want to stay part of the United Kingdom, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And that means that the Labour party should be involved. If it were, we could change the whole nature of politics in Northern Ireland.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East is elected to the Select Committee tonight. I hope that that Committee will carry out the scrutiny of Northern Ireland affairs that they so desperately need and give the people of Northern Ireland back their faith that the people in this part of the United Kingdom care about them and understand what is happening there.
8.1 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: As a member of the Committee of Selection, I cannot resist pointing out that until this evening I used to wonder why that Committee holds all those difficult meetings. Now that I have witnessed this debate in the House I can see the justification for all the work that we do in the Committee. Certainly, there have been robust exchanges of irreconcilable views this evening.
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery). His is a difficult job. Although I do not entirely accept the recommendation that our Committee put to the House, I believe that the hon. Gentleman did everything conceivably possible to try to reach a consensus. The fact that that proved impossible was not for want of trying on his part. The House owes him a debt for the work that he did, even though a consensus eluded him.
It is always difficult to reconcile competing interests of this sort, as the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) pointed out. Some of the cross-currents cannot meet smoothly, especially since the Procedure Committee set out the rules to be followed, in the form of the motion that the House passed a few weeks ago.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) saying that his interests were not vigorously represented in the Committee of Selection. I take it that he would like to serve on more Committees scrutinising rating and valuation statutory instruments. Good Unionist that he is, I am sure that he would love to gain my recommendation that he serve on such Committees. If his name does appear on future Committee lists, he will learn that casting aspersions on members of the Committee of Selection can have its downside.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North did make a serious point, however. He was worried about the lack of places for minority parties on Select Committees. The rules of proportionality for Select Committees make it difficult to guarantee places for parliamentary groupings of only three hon. Members. As the unofficial shop steward for the minority parties, I do my best to ensure an element of rotation—but I completely understood the hon. Gentleman's Complaint.
This Select Committee is extremely necessary. That is why I found the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) perplexing. I could not follow the logic of what he was trying to say. He was looking for bogeymen around every corner. Whatever birth pangs may have attended the setting up of this Committee, I hope that they will in no way make it more difficult to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the issues with which it will be concerned.
870
The working methods used by Select Committees—the hallmark of their success—are needed now more than ever in the Province. The hon. Member for Antrim, North rightly said that there are urgent and compelling issues to do with the governance of the Province that need scrutinising—how money is allocated, and so on. There is much work to be done; I hope that the Committee will get on with it.
The membership is not satisfactory from the point of view of the Liberal Democrats. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection said, I think, that a statistical balance had to be observed. Arithmetically speaking, he was right; but he must accept that my party played a robust part in setting up the Committee. We have always said that it should be set up, yet we have been denied membership of it. The hon. Gentleman and I have gone into the reasons for that at exhaustive length, but it is a shame that my party has not been able to nominate anyone to serve.
Certain alternatives should have been canvassed. For instance, do the Government really need a majority? It would have been better if the Select Committee covering Northern Ireland had left the Government without a majority. That would have enabled it more comprehensively to represent the shades of opinion from the Province.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said that the Alliance party has no representative in the House but has a role to play. It is essential that the strand of opinion which it represents be given a voice in the conduct of the affairs of the Province—if that is true of Northern Ireland in general, it is even more true for the membership of this Committee.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that he is dissatisfied with the selection that has been made, but he has not yet said how his party intends to vote on the amendments. I commend to him amendment (c)—I have done many things in politics, but I have never before been an amendment. I hope that he will feel able to support it.
Mr. Kirkwood: I can give the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction that he seeks. There is no one I would more like to see on the Committee. Speaking as a fellow Presbyterian, I know the hon. Gentleman's prejudices well, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to argue for them at length in the Select Committee.
Mr. Mallon: I do not wish to interfere in this Presbyterian convention, but is there any significance in the fact that amendment (c) is to leave out Mr. Dick Spring?
Mr. Kirkwood: I would be out of order if I answered that.
There is always a danger of pigeonholing people. I hope that that danger can be averted on the Select Committee. While it is reasonable that people will want to advance the political point of view of their parties, I hope that they will not be stuck in the trenches of party-political warfare. The Select Committee would suffer as a result. I should have liked more imagination and flexibility from the Government. For example, they could have set up a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It would have provided access to talent from the other place—people with distinguished careers and experience in the Province—and made the structure and composition of the Committee that much easier. A number of other

871
possibilities could have been considered to make the composition better suited to the range of political opinion and community interests in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) requested, although I repeat my tribute to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and all our labours to get the circle squared, I cannot support the current membership of the Committee. I shall vote accordingly and ask my hon. Friends to support all the amendments, particularly amendment (c) which seeks to include the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. Why he wants to spend time trying to wrestle with the intractable problems that the Select Committee will face defeats me. We could achieve a better reconciliation of the different views by putting forward a different membership of the Committee, and I shall recommend that my hon. Friends vote accordingly.
8.10 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: I shall be brief. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Mongomery). His dignity and understanding of other people's points of view enables the Committee of Selection to work effectively. It is a great service to the House that we manage to iron out most problems and ensure they do not reach the House. It is regrettable that tonight we have not achieved as much as we have in the past.
The Northern Ireland Select Committee will make an important contribution to the affairs of Northern Ireland, so its composition is absolutely vital. I return to an intervention that I made regarding the description of the Committee. Of course it can be called a symbolic Committee, but its composition will ensure that it is much more than that; it is representative of the people of Northern Ireland and it will have the widespread powers that are available to Select Committees in the House. When the Committee is in full operation, the important role that it can play will be seen in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) that it is a pity that the Committee was not established some time ago. Nobody suggests that it will produce magic answers to many of the appallingly difficult problems in Northern Ireland, but it will have a major contribution to make in relation to the views that it will hear from the range of witnesses that it will be able to call, on whatever topic it decides to investigate in detail.
The composition was a difficult decision for the Committee of Selection and now we have to decide it in the House tonight. The recommendations are just about right and, frankly, I believe that the time has now come to get the Committee established and operating as quickly as possible, to allow it to make its contribution to the grave problems facing all the people of Northern Ireland. Let us stop the talking and get the Committee set up.
8.13 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, however briefly.
Hon. Members present tonight may not have attended the debate this afternoon, or the debate on 9 March in which I tried to argue that, although some hon. Members
872
might think that we are engaged in procedural matters of the House, we are without doubt involved in a political decision.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State on the Front Bench. Earlier today, I quoted some of his comments that suggested that the Committee could not and should not be formed unless it had two qualifications: first, that it had cross-community support in Northern Ireland, and secondly, that it had cross-party support in the House. Neither of those two qualifications is present, yet the decision has been made to go ahead.
The reason can be seen in the timing of the announcement by the Leader of the House—24 hours after the Downing street declaration. The announcement was on 16 December, the day after 15 December. After all the words of the previous two years, the statements by Ministers were wiped out by that action, which clearly demonstrated that we are engaged in a political rather than a procedural process this evening.
I know that I will not be allowed to continue this train of debate, because we are talking about the Select Committee—its composition, numbers and representation—yet it is important because it affects our view of the integrity of the Government's even-handed approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland.
As to the composition of the Committee as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the best yardstick one can use is the popular vote, which was obtained in June 1987 at the last general election. On that basis, it would appear that my party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, is the only party among all those in the House from Northern Ireland which is under-represented. The other three are over-represented, by however marginal a fraction. One at least is over-represented by a factor of 10.
I listened with great interest to the ingenious arguments of earlier speakers.
Mr. Peter Robinson: I would be interested to hear how the hon. Gentleman works out the statistics. We are discussing a Select Committee of a United Kingdom Parliament. Every party in Northern Ireland represented on the Select Committee is over-represented when taken against the whole United Kingdom figure.
Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether or not to thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Much has been made of the quality of representation from the Northern Ireland political parties. I reiterate the point that my party, the SDLP, is the only party which is under-represented on the Committee, and that each of the other parties is over-represented.
Some earlier speeches suggested that the Popular Unionist nomination, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), was not a Northern Irish nomination but was the Government representative—a Tory, but not a card-carrying member of the Tory party. I remind those who made that suggestion of the debates in the House on the Maastricht treaty and on the closure of the mines, when Ministers referred to the Conservative and Unionist party, looking at the Members of the House who sit behind me in the official Unionist parties, or whatever name they wish to use.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Neither provisional nor official.
Mr. McGrady: But they used to be official.

873
Why did the Government not carry forward the logic of their statements—that the appointees of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland were extensions of the Conservative party—when their brethrenship had been claimed at the Dispatch Box on two vital occasions in the past 12 months? I find that argument disingenuous.
The fact that it is an unfair allocation of seats is not the opinion of my party alone. I have a one-sentence quotation from a editorial from the Belfast Telegraph, which cannot be described as a nationalist newspaper:
"The membership, six Conservatives, two Labour, two Ulster Unionists, one DUP, one Popular Unionist and one SDLP, does not mirror the political balance in the province".
As I have said, that newspaper has no nationalist leanings whatever.
Except in regard to the political aspect referred to earlier, proportionality has not applied. It will be a great pity if the Government do not take this opportunity to display even-handedness. No later than December 1993, the central community relations unit of the Northern Ireland Office issued a circular—5/93—which stated categorically that the Government must not only respect equality of representation when dealing with various communities, but be proactive in achieving that. In my view, they have signally failed to be proactive this evening in supporting the Select Committee's recommendations; we shall therefore vote against the motion.
Reference has been made to correspondence, and the way in which arrangements for nominations were made vis-a-vis my party. Having heard accidentally that the Committee of Selection was meeting, I sent a fax to its Chairman, dated 16 March. I received his reply on 17 March, when we were all present for Northern Ireland Question Time. I took on board what the Chairman had said, and we then submitted our nominations on 19 March. The process could not have taken place more swiftly or accurately.
Until then, no communication of any nature regarding the meetings, appointments or procedures of the Select Committee was made known, through the so-called usual channels, to my party or any member of it.
8.21 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Let me make two linked points.
We ought to be concerned about a question that has not been answered tonight: when has each of the six Select Committees currently considering Northern Ireland administration looked into certain issues? Between 1989 and 1990, when I served in the Northern Ireland Office, the Select Committee on Environment visited Northern Ireland, questioned me here and produced a report. I have served for a year on the Select Committee on Transport; that Committee has not considered Northern Ireland issues, and, as far as I am aware, other Committees have not done so either.
I believe that the new proposal will bring more Northern Ireland Members on to the Committee, which is why I support the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. I hope that, after tonight's votes, Northern Ireland will receive more attention, with more Northern Ireland Members and others considering the issues; that Departments will become more accountable; and that the people of Northern Ireland will benefit.
8.22 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: If anyone had any illusions about the problems involved in legislating for Northern Ireland, today's debates should have dispelled them. We have spent about four hours debating the matter, and the Select Committee has not even met yet.
I speak with the advantage of having been nominated for membership of the Committee, and I am actually looking forward to it: I think that it will be very interesting. I hope that people will not think that I am a masochist. Let me say to the Government—and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), who made a pretty good fist of a difficult job—that the numbers problem is a problem for Northern Ireland Select Committees in any event. The Unionists may not be so keen on the experiment in the coming months.
As always in Northern Ireland, the problem is that legislation takes place in a way that shows the area to be different from the rest of the United Kingdom. In an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the special delicacy involved in Northern Ireland legislation: it is that special delicacy which makes Northern Ireland different.
Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) that all three political parties that organise, vote, campaign, put up candidates and so on in Great Britain do not do so in Northern Ireland, for very good reasons. People in Northern Ireland are quite capable of organising a Labour, Tory or Liberal party, but do not choose to do so, because the question of the border is too important.
When the Tory party tried to organise there, it was crushed when the Liberal party toyed with the idea, it was wisely advised not to become involved by the Alliance party, which presented itself as something like the Liberal party in Northern Ireland, and still does so.
There used to be a Northern Ireland Labour party—a small party, which once told me that there was a strong case for putting a gas pipeline between Northern Ireland and Scotland, that there was a far better case for that than for putting it through the south of Ireland. The party argued on the basis of there being more jobs. I am a great believer in creating more jobs, but the real reason was that the party was tending towards the Unionist position.
Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
Mr. Soley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I have not much time to make this point.
If the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale were setting up a Select Committee dealing with Scottish or Welsh affairs—which he is obliged to do in his capacity—he would seek to put only Scottish or Welsh Members on that Committee. The one thing that changes the position is the existence of a Government without a majority.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a good point when he said that the Government should not automatically have a majority on Select Committees, but the reality is that they do. In fact, both the main political parties would support that, because in government they would want that arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman said, very fairly and bluntly, that this was a political question: it was about political power. As political power in this country comes not from the barrel of a gun but from the ballot box, there is a case for

875
that argument, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in Scotland only Scottish Members would be involved. The only reason for the existence of English Members on the Scottish Select Committee is the fact that the Government have no majority there, and they stack the Committee with English Members to make up the numbers.
Logically, a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs should consist only of Northern Ireland Members, except when the Government must stack it with English Members to obtain a majority. Straight away, we see the anomaly. As I have told the Unionists, the same applies to the Government of Ireland Act 1947, which states that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as it wishes. The same legislation cannot be framed for England, Scotland or Wales. It is there only because no British political party for donkey's years has treated Northern Ireland as a normal part of the United Kingdom—and we shall not be doing so again
Having said that, let me add that we are going to have a Northern Ireland Committee, and we must make it work. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was right in one respect: Northern Ireland does not receive the coverage it deserves. However, we are not going about it in the right way by establishing a Select Committee. It is very important that the Committee does not become a mini-Stormont; if it does, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and others who have spoken, will have their worst nightmares proved correct.
It was the Stormont parliament—which was virtually a one-party state—that produced so many of the problems with which we are now trying to cope in Northern Ireland. Other hon. Members have also referred to it as a one-party state-but, to be fair, the new Unionist parties have now splintered into several different groups.
Let me say to any Conservative Members who will be with me on the Committee that I hope they will join me in encouraging it to meet occasionally—I emphasise the word "occasionally" deliberately, because of what I just said—in Northern Ireland. That would be useful. It would also be useful if they joined me in suggesting that the Committee visited Dublin from time to time; it will need to do so. [Interruption.] Again, we see divisions of opinion, but this is very important. We should meet in Dublin and in Northern Ireland because—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not talking about where the Committee should meet; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of what the motion says.
Mr. Soley: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that Unionist Members will want the Committee to meet in Northern Ireland; they will not want it to meet in Dublin.
As Select Committee members, we must ensure that the Committee examines the problems of Northern Ireland in a bipartisan way. That is why the membership is important: it is useful for the Committee to have non-Unionist members from both sides of the House, because it is impossible to consider such matters as transport, agriculture, industrial investment, tourism and many other matters in Northern Ireland without also examining the link with southern Ireland—for instance, electricity prices and the price of the national grid for the whole of Ireland.
876
Those issues would not be addressed in that, way by Unionist Members. In a perverse way, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale was right to ensure that hon. Members from both sides of the House were represented on the Committee. He will not be surprised to hear me say that where he has gone badly wrong is that he has too few Labour Members. In an intervention, he made it perfectly clear why he wanted only two Labour Members on the Committee. He thought that, if there were to be a Labour Government, the Tories would have only two members. He may be right.
However, I hope that we would not have set up the Select Committee in this way, because Northern Ireland needs something better than a Select Committee. It needs proper legislation which addresses the needs of the Unionists and the republicans in Northern Ireland, and the relationship between the north of Ireland and the south. Until we do that, Northern Ireland will always be under-represented.
8.30 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: This is one of the better attended meetings on Northern Ireland. I hope that, by getting more involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland, the members of the Select Committee will join those of us who are concerned about Northern Ireland affairs when, late at night, we discuss appropriation measures, which are the equivalent of the Budget in Northern Ireland.
There is a great deal in which people can become involved. If the POLIS record—the parliamentary on-line information service—is examined, it will be discovered that the Conservative Members who have been placed on the Committee, with the exception of the chairman of their Back-Bench committee, have not, until now, been much involved in Northern Ireland matters in the House. That does not mean that they should not be on the Committee, as it will provide an opportunity for them to become interested in these matters.
It can do nothing but benefit Northern Ireland if we are all be interested in its affairs and concerned about its well-being.
It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Order this day.
Amendment proposed to the Question: (a), leave out 'Mr. James Cran' and insert 'Mr. Thomas McAvoy'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 312.

Division No. 184]

[8.31 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bell, Stuart

Adams, Mrs Irene

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Allen, Graham

Benton, Joe

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bermingham, Gerald

Armstrong, Hilary

Berry, Dr. Roger

Ashton, Joe

Betts, Clive

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Blunkett, David

Barnes, Harry

Boateng, Paul

Barron, Kevin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Battle, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Bayley, Hugh

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

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Burden, Richard

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Byers, Stephen

877

Caborn, Richard

Hoon, Geoffrey

Callaghan, Jim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hoyle, Doug

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cann, Jamie

Hume, John

Cariile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hutton, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Illsley, Eric

Clapham, Michael

Ingram, Adam

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Jamieson, David

Clelland, David

Janner, Greville

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Connarty, Michael

Jowell, Tessa

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Keen, Alan

Corbett, Robin

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Khabra, Piara S.

Corston, Ms Jean

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cousins, Jim

Kirkwood, Archy

Cox, Tom

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cryer, Bob

Lewis, Terry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Litherland, Robert

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Livingstone, Ken

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dalyell, Tam

Llwyd, Elfyn

Darling, Alistair

Loyden, Eddie

Davidson, Ian

McAllion, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McAvoy, Thomas

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McCartney, Ian

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

Macdonald, Calum

Denham, John

McFall, John

Dewar, Donald

McGrady, Eddie

Dixon, Don

McKelvey, William

Dobson, Frank

Mackinlay, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H.

McLeish, Henry

Dowd, Jim

McMaster, Gordon

Eagle, Ms Angela

McNamara, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

McWilliam, John

Enright, Derek

Madden, Max

Etherington, Bill

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mahon, Alice

Faulds, Andrew

Mallon, Seamus

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marek, Dr John

Fisher, Mark

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Foulkes, George

Martlew, Eric

Fraser, John

Maxion, John

Fyfe, Maria

Meacher, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Michael, Alun

Garrett, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

George, Bruce

Milburn, Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Miller, Andrew

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Morley, Elliot

Godsiff, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Gordon, Mildred

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mudie, George

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mullin, Chris

Grocott, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gunnell, John

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hall, Mike

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hanson, David

O'Hara, Edward

Hardy, Peter

Olner, William

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Neill, Martin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Heppell, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Pike, Peter L.

Hinchliffe, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hoey, Kate

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Horne Robertson, John

Prescott, John

Hood, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

878

Purchase, Ken

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Steinberg, Gerry

Radice, Giles

Stevenson, George

Randall, Stuart

Stott, Roger

Raynsford, Nick

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Redmond, Martin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Reid, Dr John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Rendel, David

Turner, Dennis

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Vaz, Keith

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Walley, Joan

Rogers, Allan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rooney, Terry

Wareing, Robert N

Rowlands, Ted

Watson, Mike

Ruddock, Joan

Wicks, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Winnick, David

Short, Clare

Wise, Audrey

Simpson, Alan

Worthington, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

Wray, Jimmy

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wright, Dr Tony

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

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Soley, Clive

Mr. Alan Meale and

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. John Cummings.

Spellar, John

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Aitken, Jonathan

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Alexander, Richard

Coe, Sebastian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Colvin, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Ancram, Michael

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Ashby, David

Cormack, Patrick

Aspinwall, Jack

Couchman, James

Atkins, Robert

Cran, James

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

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

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baldry, Tony

Day, Stephen

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bates, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

Dickens, Geoffrey

Beggs, Roy

Dorrell, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bendall, Vivian

Dover, Den

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Body, Sir Richard

Dunn, Bob

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Durant, Sir Anthony

Booth, Hartley

Dykes, Hugh

Boswell, Tim

Eggar, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Elletson, Harold

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bowden, Andrew

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bowis, John

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brazier, Julian

Evennett, David

Bright, Graham

Faber, David

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fabricant, Michael

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Budgen, Nicholas

Fishburn, Dudley

Burns, Simon

Forman, Nigel

Butterfill, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forth, Eric

Carrington, Matthew

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Carttiss, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Cash, William

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Churchill, Mr

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Clappison, James

French, Douglas

879

Fry, Sir Peter

Maclean, David

Gale, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Madel, Sir David

Gardiner, Sir George

Maginnis, Ken

Garnier, Edward

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gill, Christopher

Malone, Gerald

Gillan, Cheryl

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Martow, Tony

Gorst, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Merchant, Piers

Hague, William

Mills, Iain

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Moate, Sir Roger

Hanley, Jeremy

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hannam, Sir John

Monro, Sir Hector

Hargreaves, Andrew

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Harris, David

Moss, Malcolm

Haselhurst, Alan

Nelson, Anthony

Hawkins, Nick

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hawksley, Warren

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholls, Patrick

Heald, Oliver

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hendry, Charles

Norris, Steve

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Ottaway, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Page, Richard

Horam, John

Paice, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Paisley, Rev Ian

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

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

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pickles, Eric

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Richards, Rod

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Roger

Leigh, Edward

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lidington, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

MacKay, Andrew

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

880

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Viggers, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Waktegrave, Rt Hon William

Stephen, Michael

Walden, George

Stern, Michael

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Stewart, Allan

Waller, Gary

Streeter, Gary

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sweeney, Walter

Waterson, Nigel

Sykes, John

Watts, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Widdecombe, Ann

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thomason, Roy

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Willetts, David

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Wilshire, David

Thurnham, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

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

Wolfson, Mark

Tracey, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Tredinnick, David

Yeo, Tim

Trend, Michael

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Trimble, David

Trotter, Neville

Tellers for the Noes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mr. Irvine Patrick.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Question: (b), leave out `Mr. Charles Hendry' and insert 'Mr. Harry Barnes'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 313.

Division No. 185]

[8.44 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clelland, David

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Allen, Graham

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Connarty, Michael

Armstrong, Hilary

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Ashton, Joe

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Corbett, Robin

Barnes, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Corston, Ms Jean

Battle, John

Cousins, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Cox, Tom

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Cryer, Bob

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bell, Stuart

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bennett, Andrew F.

Dalyell, Tam

Benton, Joe

Darling, Alistair

Bermingham, Gerald

Davidson, Ian

Berry, Roger

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Betts, Clive

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Blunkett, David

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

Boateng, Paul

Denham, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dewar, Donald

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Dixon, Don

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

Dobson, Frank

Burden, Richard

Donohoe, Brian H.

Byers, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Caborn, Richard

Eagle, Ms Angela

Callaghan, Jim

Eastham, Ken

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Enright, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Faulds, Andrew

Canavan, Dennis

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Cann, Jamie

Fisher, Mark

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Flynn, Paul

Chisholm, Malcolm

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Clapham, Michael

Foulkes, George

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Fraser, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Fyfe, Maria

881

Gapes, Mike

Martlew, Eric

Garrett, John

Maxton, John

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Gerrard, Neil

Meale, Alan

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Michael, Alun

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Godsiff, Roger

Milburn, Alan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Miller, Andrew

Gordon, Mildred

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Graham, Thomas

Morley, Elliot

Grant, Bermie (Tottenham)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Grocott, Bruce

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gunnell, John

Mudie, George

Hall, Mike

Mullin, Chris

Hanson, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hardy, Peter

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Hara, Edward

Heppell, John

Olner, William

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Neill, Martin

Hinchliffe, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hoey, Kate

Patchett, Terry

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Pickthall, Colin

Horne Robertson, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hood, Jimmy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Prescott, John

Hoyle, Doug

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Purchase, Ken

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Radice, Giles

Hume, John

Randall, Stuart

Hutton, John

Raynsford, Nick

Illsley, Eric

Redmond, Martin

Ingram, Adam

Reid, Dr John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Rendel, David

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jamieson, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Janner, Greville

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rooney, Terry

Jowell, Tessa

Rowlands, Ted

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ruddock, Joan

Keen, Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Short, Clare

Khabra, Piara S.

Simpson, Alan

Kirkwood, Archy

Skinner, Dennis

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lewis, Terry

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

Litherland, Robert

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Livingstone, Ken

Snape, Peter

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Soley, Clive

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Spellar, John

McAllion, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Steinberg, Gerry

McCartney, Ian

Stevenson, George

Macdonald, Calum

Stott, Roger

McFall, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McGrady, Eddie

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McKelvey, William

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Turner, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Vaz, Keith

McMaster, Gordon

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

McNamara, Kevin

Walley, Joan

McWilliam, John

Warded, Gareth (Gower)

Madden, Max

Wareing, Robert N

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Watson, Mike

Mahon, Alice

Wicks, Malcolm

Mallon, Seamus

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Marek, Dr John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Winnick, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wise, Audrey

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Worthington, Tony

882

Wray, Jimmy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wright, Dr Tony

Mr. John Cummings and

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Aitken, Jonathan

Dunn, Bob

Alexander, Richard

Durant, Sir Anthony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dykes, Hugh

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Eggar, Tim

Ancram, Michael

Elletson, Harold

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Ashby, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Aspinwall, Jack

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Atkins, Robert

Evennett, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Faber, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fabricant, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baldry, Tony

Fishburn, Dudley

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Forman, Nigel

Bates, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Batiste, Spencer

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Beggs, Roy

Forth, Eric

Bellingham, Henry

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bendall, Vivian

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Body, Sir Richard

French, Douglas

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fry, Sir Peter

Booth, Hartley

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Gallie, Phil

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gardiner, Sir George

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Garnier, Edward

Bowden, Andrew

Gill, Christopher

Bowis, John

Gillan, Cheryl

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brazier, Julian

Gorst, John

Bright, Graham

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Grylls, Sir Michael

Burns, Simon

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Butterfill, John

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

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hawkins, Nick

Coe, Sebastian

Hawksley, Warren

Colvin, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Congdon, David

Heald, Oliver

Conway, Derek

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hendry, Charles

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Cormack, Patrick

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Couchman, James

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cran, James

Horam, John

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

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Day, Stephen

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Devlin, Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jack, Michael

Dover, Den

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Duncan, Alan

Jenkin, Bernard

883

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kellett-Bowrnan, Dame Elaine

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Roger

Leigh, Edward

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lidington, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

MacKay, Andrew

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Maclean, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Steen, Anthony

Madel, Sir David

Stephen, Michael

Maginnis, Ken

Stern, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stewart, Allan

Malone, Gerald

Streeter, Gary

Mans, Keith

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Sweeney, Walter

Marlow, Tony

Sykes, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Thomason, Roy

Mills, Iain

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Thurnham, Peter

Moate, Sir Roger

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

Monro, Sir Hector

Tracey, Richard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trend, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Trimble, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Trotter, Neville

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Viggers, Peter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Norris, Steve

Walden, George

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Ottaway, Richard

Waller, Gary

Page, Richard

Ward, John

Paice, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Waterson, Nigel

Patten, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Pawsey, James

Wells, Bowen

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Pickles, Eric

Whitney, Ray

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Whittingdale, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Widdecombe, Ann

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Rathbone, Tim

Wilkinson, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Willetts, David

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wilshire, David

Richards, Rod

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

884

Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'f'ld)

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Noes:

Wood, Timothy

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Yeo, Tim

Mr. Irvine Patnick

Yound, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Question: (c), leave out `Mr. Richard Spring' and insert 'Mr. Norman Hogg'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 307.

Division No. 186]

[8.56 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dixon, Don

Adams, Mrs Irene

Dobson, Frank

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Allen, Graham

Dowd, Jim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Armstrong, Hilary

Eastham, Ken

Ashton, Joe

Enright, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Etherington, Bill

Barnes, Harry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Barron, Kevin

Faulds, Andrew

Battle, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bayley, Hugh

Fisher, Mark

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Flynn, Paul

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bell, Stuart

Foulkes, George

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fraser, John

Bennett, Andrew F.

Fyfe, Maria

Benton, Joe

Gapes, Mike

Bermingham, Gerald

Garrett, John

Berry, Dr. Roger

George, Bruce

Betts, Clive

Gerrard, Neil

Blunkett, David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Boateng, Paul

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

Burden, Richard

Graham, Thomas

Byers, Stephen

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Mike

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hanson, David

Canavan, Dennis

Hardy, Peter

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clapham, Michael

Heppell, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hoey, Kate

Clelland, David

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Home Robertson, John

Cohen, Harry

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Corbett, Robin

Hoyle, Doug

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cox, Tom

Hume, John

Cryer, Bob

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Darling, Alistair

Jamieson, David

Davidson, Ian

Janner, Greville

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Denham, John

Keen, Alan

Dewar, Donald

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

885

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Prescott, John

Khabra, Piara S.

Primarolo, Dawn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Lewis, Terry

Radice, Giles

Litherland, Robert

Randall, Stuart

Livingstone, Ken

Raynsford, Nick

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Redmond, Martin

Llwyd, Elfyn

Reid, Dr John

Loyden, Eddie

Rendel, David

McAllion, John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

McAvoy, Thomas

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

McCartney, Ian

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Macdonald, Calum

Rogers, Allan

McFall, John

Rooney, Terry

McGrady, Eddie

Rowlands, Ted

McKelvey, William

Ruddock, Joan

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

McLeish, Henry

Sheerman, Barry

McMaster, Gordon

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Short, Clare

McWilliam, John

Simpson, Alan

Madden, Max

Skinner, Dennis

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahon, Alice

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

Mallon, Seamus

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marek, Dr John

Snape, Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Spearing, Nigel

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Spellar, John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Maxton, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Meacher, Michael

Stevenson, George

Michael, Alun

Stott, Roger

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Milburn, Alan

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Thompson, Jack (Wansback)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Turner, Dennis

Morley, Elliot

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

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

Wicks, Malcolm

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)

Winnick, David

O'Hara, Edward

Wise, Audrey

Olner, William

Worthington, Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wray, Jimmy

Patchett, Terry

Wright, Dr Tony

Pickthall, Colin

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Mr. John Cummings, and Mr. Alan Meale.

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bellingham, Henry

Aitken, Jonathan

Bendall, Vivian

Alexander, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Body, Sir Richard

Ancram, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arbuthnot, James

Booth, Hartley

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Aspinwall, Jack

Bowden, Andrew

Atkins, Robert

Bowis, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

Brandreth, Gyles

Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Bright, Graham

Baldry, Tony

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Bates, Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Batiste, Spencer

Burns, Simon

Beggs, Roy

Butterfill, John

886

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hawkins, Nick

Carrington, Matthew

Hawksley, Warren

Carttiss, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Sydney

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Churchill, Mr

Hendry, Charles

Clappison, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coe, Sebastian

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Colvin, Michael

Horam, John

Congdon, David

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

Hunter, Andrew

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jenkin, Bernard

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Dorrell, Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Key, Robert

Dover, Den

Kilfedder, Sir James

Duncan, Alan

King, Rt Hon Tom

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dunn, Bob

Knapman, Roger

Durant, Sir Anthony

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Eggar, Tim

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

Elletson, Harold

Knox, Sir David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Legg, Barry

Evennett, David

Leigh, Edward

Faber, David

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Fabricant, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lidington, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lightbown, David

Fishburn, Dudley

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Forman, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lord, Michael

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Luff, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Maclean, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Madel, Sir David

French, Douglas

Maginnis, Ken

Fry, Sir Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gale, Roger

Malone, Gerald

Gallie, Phil

Mans, Keith

Gardiner, Sir George

Marland, Paul

Garnier, Edward

Marlow, Tony

Gill, Christopher

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gillan, Cheryl

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Gorst, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Merchant, Piers

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mills, Iain

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moate, Sir Roger

Hague, William

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Monro, Sir Hector

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hanley, Jeremy

Moss, Malcolm

Hannam, Sir John

Nelson, Anthony

Hargreaves, Andrew

Neubert, Sir Michael

Harris, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

887

Nicholls, Patrick

Stephen, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stern, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stewart, Allan

Norris, Steve

Streeter, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Sumberg, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sweeney, Walter

Ottaway, Richard

Sykes, John

Page, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Paice, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Pawsey, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thomason, Roy

Pickles, Eric

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Tracey, Richard

Richards, Rod

Tredinnick, David

Riddick, Graham

Trend, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Trimble, David

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Trotter, Neville

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Viggers, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Walden, George

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Waller, Gary

Sackville, Tom

Ward, John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Shaw, David (Dover)

Watts, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wells, Bowen

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Whitney, Ray

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Whittingdale, John

Shersby, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Sims, Roger

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Willetts, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wilshire, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Soames, Nicholas

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Speed, Sir Keith

Wolfson, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wood, Timothy

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Spink, Dr Robert

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Tellers for the Noes:

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Michael Brown

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Question: (d), leave out 'Mr. David Wilshire' and insert 'Mr. Andrew Mackinlay'.—[Mr. McNamara. ]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 308.

Division No. 187]

[9.08 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Allen, Graham

Benton, Joe

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bermingham, Gerald

Armstrong, Hilary

Berry, Dr. Roger

Ashton, Joe

Betts, Clive

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Blunkett, David

Barnes, Harry

Boateng, Paul

Barron, Kevin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Battle, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Bayley, Hugh

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

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Burden, Richard

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Byers, Stephen

Bell, Stuart

Caborn, Richard

888

Callaghan, Jim

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hoyle, Doug

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Hume, John

Cann, Jamie

Hutton, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Illsley, Eric

Chisholm, Malcolm

Ingram, Adam

Clapham, Michael

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Jamieson, David

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Janner, Greville

Clelland, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cohen, Harry

Jowell, Tessa

Connarty, Michael

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Keen, Alan

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Corbett, Robin

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Khabra, Piara S.

Corston, Ms Jean

Kirkwood, Archy

Cousins, Jim

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cox, Tom

Lewis, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Litherland, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Livingstone, Ken

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dalyell, Tam

Loyden, Eddie

Darling, Alistair

McAllion, John

Davidson, Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McCartney, Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Macdonald, Calum

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

McFall, John

Denham, John

McGrady, Eddie

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

Mackinlay, Andrew

Donohoe, Brian H.

McLeish, Henry

Dowd, Jim

McMaster, Gordon

Eagle, Ms Angela

McNamara, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

McWilliam, John

Enright, Derek

Madden, Max

Etherington, Bill

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Faulds, Andrew

Mahon, Alice

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mallon, Seamus

Fisher, Mark

Marek, Dr John

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Foulkes, George

Martlew, Eric

Fraser, John

Maxton, John

Fyfe, Maria

Meacher, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Meale, Alan

Garrett, John

Michael, Alun

George, Bruce

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Gerrard, Neil

Milburn, Alan

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Miller, Andrew

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Godsiff, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Gordon, Mildred

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Graham, Thomas

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mudie, George

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mullin, Chris

Grocott, Bruce

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Gunnell, John

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hall, Mike

O'Hara, Edward

Hanson, David

Olner, William

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Harman, Ms Harriet

Patchett, Terry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pickthall, Colin

Heppell, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hinchliffe, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hoey, Kate

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Prescott, John

Horne Robertson, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Hood, Jimmy

Purchase, Ken

Hoon, Geoffrey

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Randall, Stuart

889

Raynsford, Nick

Stevenson, George

Redmond, Martin

Stott, Roger

Reid, Dr John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Rendel, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Turner, Dennis

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Vaz, Keith

Rogers, Allan

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Rooney, Terry

Walley, Joan

Rowlands, Ted

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Ruddock, Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Sedgemore, Brian

Watson, Mike

Sheerman, Barry

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Short, Clare

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Simpson, Alan

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Wise, Audrey

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Worthington, Tony

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

Wray, Jimmy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, Dr Tony

Snape, Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spellar, John

Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Steinberg, Gerry

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Conway, Derek

Aitken, Jonathan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Cormack, Patrick

Ancram, Michael

Couchman, James

Arbuthnot, James

Cran, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Ashby, David

Davies, Ouentin (Stamford)

Aspinwall, Jack

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Day, Stephen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Devlin, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Dorrell, Stephen

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bates, Michael

Dover, Den

Batiste, Spencer

Duncan, Alan

Beggs, Roy

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bellingham, Henry

Dunn, Bob

Bendall, Vivian

Durant, Sir Anthony

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dykes, Hugh

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Eggar, Tim

Body, Sir Richard

Elletson, Harold

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfleld)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Boswell, Tim

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evennett, David

Bowden, Andrew

Faber, David

Bowis, John

Fabricant, Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandreth, Gyles

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brazier, Julian

Fishburn, Dudley

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Forman, Nigel

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burns, Simon

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Butterfill, John

Forth, Eric

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carrington, Matthew

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carttiss, Michael

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Cash, William

French, Douglas

Chapman, Sydney

Fry, Sir Peter

Churchill, Mr

Gale, Roger

Clappison, James

Gallie, Phil

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gardiner, Sir George

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Garnier, Edward

Coe, Sebastian

Gill, Christopher

Colvin, Michael

Gillan, Cheryl

Congdon, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

890

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorst, John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Grylls, Sir Michael

Merchant, Piers

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mills, Iain

Hague, William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Moate, Sir Roger

Hampson, Dr Keith

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hanley, Jeremy

Monro, Sir Hector

Hannam, Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hargreaves, Andrew

Moss, Malcolm

Harris, David

Nelson, Anthony

Haselhurst, Alan

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hawksley, Warren

Nicholls, Patrick

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heald, Oliver

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Norris, Steve

Hendry, Charles

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Ottaway, Richard

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Page, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Paice, James

Horam, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howarth, Alan (Strafrd-on-A)

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Pickles, Eric

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Richards, Rod

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Robert B. (WHertfdshr)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Key, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knapman, Roger

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

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

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Roger

Leigh, Edward

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lidington, David

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lightbown, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lord, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Iain

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Madel, Sir David

Steen, Anthony

Maginnis, Ken

Stephen, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stern, Michael

Malone, Gerald

Stewart, Allan

Mans, Keith

Streeter, Gary

Marland, Paul

Sumberg, David

Marlow, Tony

Sweeney, Walter

891

Sykes, John

Waller, Gary

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ward, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Waterson, Nigel

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Watts, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Wells, Bowen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Thomason, Roy

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Whittingdale, John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Thumham, Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wilkinson, John

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

Willetts, David

Tracey, Richard

Wilshire, David

Tredinnick, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Trend, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Trimble, David

Wolfson, Mark

Trotter, Neville

Wood, Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Yeo, Tim

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Viggers, Peter

Walden, George

Tellers for the Noes:

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Michael Brown

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Question: (e), leave out 'Mr. Mark Wolfson' and insert 'Mr. Austin Mitchell'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 307.

Division No. 188]

[9.21 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Corbett, Robin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Corston, Ms Jean

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cousins, Jim

Armstrong, Hilary

Cox, Tom

Ashton, Joe

Cryer, Bob

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cummings, John

Barnes, Harry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Barron, Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Battle, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Bayley, Hugh

Dalyell, Tam

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Darling, Alistair

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davidson, Ian

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bennett, Andrew F.

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

Benton, Joe

Denham, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Berry, Roger

Dixon, Don

Betts, Clive

Dobson, Frank

Blunkett, David

Donohoe, Brian H.

Boateng, Paul

Dowd, Jim

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eagle, Ms Angela

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eastham, Ken

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

Enright, Derek

Burden, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Byers, Stephen

Faulds, Andrew

Callaghan, Jim

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Canavan, Dennis

Fraser, John

Cann, Jamie

Fyfe, Maria

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Gapes, Mike

Chisholm, Malcolm

Garrett, John

Clapham, Michael

George, Bruce

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clelland, David

Godsiff, Roger

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Golding, Mrs Llin

Cohen, Harry

Gordon, Mildred

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Graham, Thomas

892

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Morley, Elliot

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gunnell, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hall, Mike

Mudie, George

Hanson, David

Mullin, Chris

Hardy, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

Heppell, John

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Hara, Edward

Hinchliffe, David

Olner, William

Hoey, Kate

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Patchett, Terry

Horne Robertson, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hood, Jimmy

Pike, Peter L.

Hoon, Geoffrey

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hoyle, Doug

Prescott, John

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Purchase, Ken

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hume, John

Randall, Stuart

Hutton, John

Raynsford, Nick

Ingram, Adam

Redmond, Martin

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Reid, Dr John

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Rendel, David

Jamieson, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Janner, Greville

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rogers, Allan

Jowell, Tessa

Rooney, Terry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Keen, Alan

Ruddock, Joan

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Sheerman, Barry

Khabra, Piara S.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kilfoyle, Peter

Short, Clare

Kirkwood, Archy

Simpson, Alan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Litherland, Robert

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

Livingstone, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Snape, Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Soley, Clive

Loyden, Eddie

Spearing, Nigel

McAllion, John

Spellar, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McCartney, Ian

Steinberg, Gerry

Macdonald, Calum

Stevenson, George

McFall, John

Stott, Roger

McGrady, Eddie

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McKelvey, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McLeish, Henry

Turner, Dennis

McMaster, Gordon

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

McNamara, Kevin

Walley, Joan

McWilliam, John

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Madden, Max

Wareing, Robert N

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Watson, Mike

Mahon, Alice

Wicks, Malcolm

Mallon, Seamus

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Marek, Dr John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Winnick, David

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wise, Audrey

Martlew, Eric

Worthington, Tony

Maxton, John

Wray, Jimmy

Meacher, Michael

Wright, Dr Tony

Michael, Alun

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Milburn, Alan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Miller, Andrew

Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Aitken, Jonathan

Ancram, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

893

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fishburn, Dudley

Ashby, David

Forman, Nigel

Aspinwall, Jack

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Forth, Eric

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Baldry, Tony

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bates, Michael

French, Douglas

Batiste, Spencer

Fry, Sir Peter

Beggs, Roy

Gale, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

Gallie, Phil

Bendall, Vivian

Gardiner, Sir George

Beresford, Sir Paul

Garnier, Edward

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Gillan, Cheryl

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Booth, Hartley

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boswell, Tim

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowden, Andrew

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Grylls, Sir Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brazier, Julian

Hague, William

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burns, Simon

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Harris, David

Carrington, Matthew

Haselhurst, Alan

Carttiss, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Hawksley, Warren

Chapman, Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Churchill, Mr

Heald, Oliver

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hendry, Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Coe, Sebastian

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Colvin, Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Congdon, David

Horam, John

Conway, Derek

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cormack, Patrick

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Couchman, James

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cran, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jack, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Day, Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Duncan, Alan

Key, Robert

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Kilfedder, Sir James

Dunn, Bob

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Sir Anthony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dykes, Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Eggar, Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Elletson, Harold

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knox, Sir David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Evennett, David

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Faber, David

Legg, Barry

Fabricant, Michael

Leigh, Edward

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

894

Lidington, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lightbown, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Shersby, Michael

Lord, Michael

Sims, Roger

Luff, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

MacKay, Andrew

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Maclean, David

Soames, Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Speed, Sir Keith

Madel, Sir David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Maginnis, Ken

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Spink, Dr Robert

Malone, Gerald

Spring, Richard

Mans, Keith

Sproat, Iain

Marland, Paul

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marlow, Tony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Steen, Anthony

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stephen, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stern, Michael

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Streeter, Gary

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Sweeney, Walter

Merchant, Piers

Sykes, John

Mills, Iain

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moate, Sir Roger

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Monro, Sir Hector

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Thomason, Roy

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tracey, Richard

Norris, Steve

Tredinnick, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Trend, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Trimble, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Page, Richard

Twinn, Dr Ian

Paice, James

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Paisley, Rev Ian

Viggers, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Walden, George

Patten, Rt Hon John

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Pawsey, James

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waller, Gary

Pickles, Eric

Ward, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waterson, Nigel

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Watts, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Whitney, Ray

Richards, Rod

Whittingdale, John

Riddick, Graham

Widdecombe, Ann

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wilkinson, John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Willetts, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wilshire, David

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Wolfson, Mark

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Yeo, Tim

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Tom

Tellers for the Noes

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr. James Cran, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Ken

895
Maginnis, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Peter Robinson, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John D. Taylor, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Mark Wolfson be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.—[Mr. Patnick]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10401/93, relating to European social policy; and shares the Government's view that future social policy in the Community should promote jobs and competitiveness and not impose unnecessary costs on industry.—[Mr. Patnick.]
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 211.

Division No. 189]

[9.33

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Couchman, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Cran, James

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Ancram, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arbuthnot, James

Day, Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Ashby, David

Dicks, Terry

Aspinwall, Jack

Dorrell, Stephen

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dover, Den

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Duncan, Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Baldry, Tony

Dunn, Bob

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dykes, Hugh

Bates, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Batiste, Spencer

Elletson, Harold

Beggs, Roy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bellingham, Henry

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bendall, Vivian

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evennett, David

Body, Sir Richard

Faber, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fabricant, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fishburn, Dudley

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Forman, Nigel

Bowden, Andrew

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowis, John

Forth, Eric

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brandreth, Gyles

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brazier, Julian

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Browning, Mrs. Angela

French, Douglas

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fry, Sir Peter

Burns, Simon

Gale, Roger

Butterfill, John

Gallie, Phil

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gardiner, Sir George

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garnier, Edward

Carrington, Matthew

Gill, Christopher

Carttiss, Michael

Gillan, Cheryl

Cash, William

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Chapman, Sydney

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Churchill, Mr

Gorst, John

Clappison, James

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Coe, Sebastian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Colvin, Michael

Grylls, Sir Michael

Congdon, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Conway, Derek

Hague, William

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Cormack, Patrick

Hanley, Jeremy

896

Hannam, Sir John

Nelson, Anthony

Hargreaves, Andrew

Neubert, Sir Michael

Harris, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholls, Patrick

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hawksley, Warren

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hayes, Jerry

Norris, Steve

Heald, Oliver

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hendry, Charles

Ottaway, Richard

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Page, Richard

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Paice, James

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Horam, John

Patnick, Irvine

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pickles, Eric

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Richards, Rod

Jenkin, Bernard

Riddick, Graham

Jessel, Toby

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Key, Robert

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kirkhope, Timothy

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knapman, Roger

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shersby, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sims, Roger

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Legg, Barry

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Leigh, Edward

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Soames, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Speed, Sir Keith

Lidington, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lightbown, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Luff, Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Madel, Sir David

Streeter, Gary

Maginnis, Ken

Sumberg, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sweeney, Walter

Malone, Gerald

Sykes, John

Mans, Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thomason, Roy

Mates, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Merchant, Piers

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

Mills, Iain

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Tredinnick, David

Moate, Sir Roger

Trend, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Trotter, Neville

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Twinn, Dr Ian

Moss, Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

897

Viggers, Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Walden, George

Wilkinson, John

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Willetts, David

Waller, Gary

Wilshire, David

Ward, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Waterson, Nigel

Wolfson, Mark

Watts, John

Yeo, Tim

Wells, Bowen

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Widdecombe, Ann

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Darling, Alistair

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davidson, Ian

Allen, Graham

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

Armstrong, Hilary

Denham, John

Ashton, Joe

Dewar, Donald

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dixon, Don

Barnes, Harry

Dobson, Frank

Barron, Kevin

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bayley, Hugh

Dowd, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Eagle, Ms Angela

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Eastham, Ken

Bell, Stuart

Etherington, Bill

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Bennett, Andrew F.

Faulds, Andrew

Benton, Joe

Fisher, Mark

Bermingham, Gerald

Flynn, Paul

Betts, Clive

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Blunkett, David

Foulkes, George

Boateng, Paul

Fraser, John

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

Gapes, Mike

Burden, Richard

Garrett, John

Byers, Stephen

George, Bruce

Callaghan, Jim

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gordon, Mildred

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Graham, Thomas

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Grocott, Bruce

Clelland, David

Gunnell, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hall, Mike

Cohen, Harry

Hanson, David

Connarty, Michael

Hardy, Peter

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heppell, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cousins, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Cox, Tom

Hoey, Kate

Cryer, Bob

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cummings, John

Home Robertson, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hood, Jimmy

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Dalyell, Tam

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

898

Hoyle, Doug

O' Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Olner, William

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Patchett, Terry

Hutton, John

Pickthall, Colin

Ingram, Adam

Pike, Peter L.

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Prescott, John

Janner, Greville

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jowell, Tessa

Randall, Stuart

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Raynsford, Nick

Keen, Alan

Redmond, Martin

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Reid, Dr John

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Rendel, David

Khabra, Piara S.

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Kirkwood, Archy

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Rogers, Allan

Lewis, Terry

Rooney, Terry

Litherland, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Livingstone, Ken

Ruddock, Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Llwyd, Elfyn

Sheerman, Barry

Loyden, Eddie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAllion, John

Short, Clare

McAvoy, Thomas

Simpson, Alan

McCartney, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McFall, John

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

McGrady, Eddie

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McKelvey, William

Snape, Peter

Mackinlay, Andrew

Soley, Clive

McMaster, Gordon

Spellar, John

McNamara, Kevin

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Madden, Max

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mahon, Alice

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mallon, Seamus

Turner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Vaz, Keith

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Walley, Joan

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Martlew, Eric

Wareing, Robert N

Maxton, John

Watson, Mike

Meacher, Michael

Welsh, Andrew

Michael, Alun

Wicks, Malcolm

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Milburn, Alan

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Miller, Andrew

Winnick, David

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Wise, Audrey

Morley, Elliot

Worthington, Tony

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy"nshawe)

Wray, Jimmy

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Tellers for the Noes:

Mudie, George

Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Eric Illsley

Mullin, Chris

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Shipbuilding (Wearside)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
9.44 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I want to speak tonight about the one remaining shipyard on the River Wear in Sunderland. Sad to say, it is mothballed now. A certain air of mystery and a certain amount of misunderstanding surround this whole business, which is why I am pleased to bring it to the attention of the House.
Earlier today, I was in South Shields, at a function organised by the RMT union: the function was organised on behalf of the seamen's campaign known as Save Our Shipping. At the meeting, it was pointed out that the British merchant fleet is now 20 per cent. of the size it was in 1979. That statistic coincides almost exactly with the running down of the British shipbuilding industry.
Recently, an early-day motion on the subject of British shipping and Government intervention was tabled and signed by 70 Conservative Members. I only wish that they would all vote with the Opposition; then we could reverse the seemingly irreversible drift towards the decimation of our merchant fleet and of our remaining shipyards.
My predecessor, Bob Clay, was the Member for Sunderland, North when the last two shipyards on the Wear came under threat in 1988. I pay tribute to his attempts to keep at least one of those shipyards open. The best site on the river, the former Thompson shipyard—capable of launching ships of 100,000 tonnes draught carrying capacity—was sterilised by the Tyne and Wear development corporation. As most people know, the corporation is an arm of Government and carries out Government instructions on how localities are to be run.
Unfortunately, it was decided to build a university campus on the site, and on the site of the adjoining wharf, an excellent fitting out yard. The river is therefore almost denuded of shipbuilding capacity, and the one yard that is left, run by Pallion Engineering Ltd, has been mothballed. It is about a mile and a half up the river and it cannot produce such large ships anyway. It is nothing like as good a site as the Thompson site would have been.
In 1957, when I started serving my apprenticeship as a fitter at the Austin Pickersgill yard at Southwick, there were no fewer than seven shipyards on the River Wear—all extremely viable. Because the old merchant fleet was to be gradually replaced at the time, it appeared that there were many years of work to come. All that started to collapse in the 1960s, however, and eventually only two yards were left—one of them, Pickersgills, the most modern yard in Europe. It built the famous SD14 cargo ships, which were acclaimed throughout the world for their quality and utility.
Nevertheless, the quality did not seem to stop the yard closing. It became obvious that the EC, together with the British Government, was determined to get rid of all shipbuilding capacity on the River Wear. Bob Clay was active in trying to keep open some remnant of the industry, and he was instrumental in setting up what became known as Pallion Engineering. This was a fairly unusual company, in as much as 75 per cent. of it was owned by a Greek shipping conglomerate, Tycoon Marine, which was registered in Liberia: beggars cannot be choosers. The other 25 per cent. was owned by a works co-operative known as an ESOP—an employee share ownership plan.
900
Well-wishers put their money into the concern on behalf of the workers; it would have been nice if they had had some return for their good work, because their motives were of the best philanthropic kind.
It took almost two years to get agreement that the Pallion yard would be leased for a period of 10 years for a down payment and also a peppercorn rent. I had heard of a peppercorn rent, but only once have I seen a lease that mentioned that the annual rent would be one peppercorn. Not being a lawyer, I thought it was a derisory term, but we live and learn.
Eventually, it was agreed that the yard would be leased and that at the end of the 10-year period it would become the property of the conglomerate. I know Bob Clay and others who worked tirelessly in the campaign, including my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who was the convener of the campaign to keep the yard open, and Jacquie Apperley, who is now my research assistant and who also worked with Bob Clay. Everyone was under the impression that there would be no shipbuilding, ship repair or maritime work for five years and that at the end of five years the position would be re-examined. There was a strong possibility that, by then, it would be possible to continue with some shipbuilding work. I have spoken to numerous people, and what happened subsequently was quite amazing.
The yard staggered on; it was always run on a shoestring, yet the Greeks probably put more than £1 million into the yard to maintain it as a going concern so that should there be an upturn in trade it could be utilised.
As the end of the five-year term approached, the Greek shipowners made it obvious that they wanted to use their property to carry out some ship repair work. They produced a business plan which would have led to the employment initially of perhaps 250 people, eventually increasing to 600 or 700 people.
When I was approached, the yard had lain dormant for many years. Bob Clay had left the scene for reasons I do not know and, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I had several meetings with the management of the yard to appraise what was going on. It was never a very happy scenario. The yard was staggering from one crisis to another. There was a little prefabrication work and it was possible to employ 80 or 90 people at the most, but eventually that work dried up and the Greek shipowners reluctantly put the yard on to a care-and-maintenance basis.
At that time, we became aware that they wanted to carry out ship repair work. Following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I had with the yard management, I wrote to the Minister and asked for his assistance in trying to get the terms relaxed or varied in such a way that at least some ship repair work would be done. That point is paramount for the owners and it should carry some weight.
The shipowners said that if they could refurbish six to eight ships, it would provide two or three years' work and would make the yard viable. They made the point forcefully that they were not looking for financial assistance from the Government or from what is now the European Union. They also stressed that if the yard was not allowed to carry out the work it would not be carried out within the European Union, and would probably go outside what was then the EEC to some other foreign country.

901
They stressed that this would not in any way affect the other yards and ship repair facilities within the Community.
In all our discussions, everyone took the view that there would be no difficulty in getting that agreed. When I wrote to the Minister on 13 July last year, he replied that meetings were in progress between two of the directors, one representing the ESOP and one representing the Greek shipowners—Canon Brian Hales and Alan Dickinson—and the regional officials of the Department of Trade and Industry in Newcastle. The Minister said that he would write to me again following the outcome of the talks.
At that time, we also sought the assistance of the MEP for the region, Alan Donnelly. He eventually arranged a meeting for us in Brussels. Originally, it was to have been with Karel van Miert, the Commissioner; as it happened, he was not available, and we saw one of his senior civil servants who had advised him on the subject. We understood that we were meeting someone with a certain amount of knowledge and prestige.
We met on 22 December last year—that is, the two directors Brian Hales and Alan Dickinson, Alan Donnelly, Askar Petersen, the EC civil servant, and me. We had a long and constructive discussion. The civil servant told us that, if we couched the application in terms of ship repair, it should be possible to obtain sympathetic consideration from the Commission. It was not the best time to be traveling: I did not particularly enjoy coming back on Christmas eve through airports. I do not do much flying in any event, and that was rather a burden. Nevertheless, I felt content that we had made some progress.
At the meeting, it was agreed that Alan Donnelly, Karel van Miert and his civil servant would arrange a meeting with the directors and people in the EC to try to make some progress. On 10 January, I wrote to the Minister to explain what had happened, and again asked for his assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I wrote again on 1 February to ask for a meeting. On 24 February, I received a reply refusing the meeting and saying that there was no point.
As always, the Minister's reply was very polite but somewhat daunting. It read:
"Thank you for your letters of 10 January and 1 February about the prospects of re-opening the former Pallion shipyard in Sunderland for the purpose of ship repair.
You asked whether it is correct that the terms on which the Sunderland yard was leased to Pallion Engineering precluded its use for shipbuilding, ship conversion and ship repair until 31 January 1999. I can confirm that that is indeed the case.
With respect to Mr. Petersen's remarks last December, my officials have established that there had been no softening of the Commission's policy on ship repair. Mr. Petersen left open the possibility of ship repair because of his unfamiliarity with the detail of the 1988 agreement which wound up North East Shipbuilders Ltd."
Mr. Chris Mullin: Are we not all unfamiliar with the detail of that 1988 arrangement? One of the useful things that the Minister could do tonight—if he were listening, which he is not at the moment—is make clear the details of that arrangement, or at least agree to put them in the Library. Over the years, it has proved particularly puzzling. I recall that it even puzzled the Lord President of the Council—or, at any rate, he did not know about it until after he should have. It is good to see him here this evening.
We are all puzzled about that agreement—and we would like to see it, would we not?
Mr. Etherington: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I said earlier, he has been actively involved in the matter. In what is now the city of Sunderland, it does not matter very much where any manufacturing output is; people in his constituency are affected, and we have tended to take a joint approach.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we are all unfamiliar with the details. Perhaps some of us are more unfamiliar with them than others. I was very unfamiliar with them: all I had to go on was hearsay. I had no direct inkling of what had gone on. I shall return to that shortly. I intend to quote from another rather disturbing letter.
The letter continues:
"I am sorry to disappoint you but I am sure that you will agree that, in these circumstances, there can currently be no question of re-opening the Pallion yard. For that reason I do not think that it would be useful to hold a meeting."
We should bear in mind that only nine months before that talks were being arranged between the regional officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the yard management, presumably to see what could be clarified. It had not been clarified by December when we went to Brussels and it was only finally clarified on receipt of the letter from the Minister dated 24 February.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Mr. Etherington: I am a little puzzled about that procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman should simply carry on speaking. We have just dealt with the 10 o'clock business motion.
Mr. Etherington: I thought that it might have been meant as a bit of a sprag in my wheel, but it is obviously of no real consequence.
You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I mentioned the letter that I wrote in July to which the Minister replied by stating that talks were going on within the region. All the dealings that I have had with our MEP, the Commission and the management of the shipyard have given me the impression that the regional DTI officials were supportive and encouraging. However, as is often the case, we do not have anything in writing to that effect.
I have another letter which pre-dates the Minister's response to me last August. It is from Karel van Miert of the Commission of the European Communities to Bishop David Jenkins. We all appreciate what Bishop Jenkins is doing within our region to try to alleviate the high unemployment and other social problems. I will not read it all, but the relevant parts state:
"The British government committed itself to the irreversible nature of the closure"—
referring to the Pallion yard—
"for a period of not less than five years."
That is what everybody understood. It went on:
"The agreed closure date was 27 January 1989. In 1991 the Commission approved the sale of the yard to `Pallion Engineering', after having been informed that a clause was included on the contract prohibiting its use for shipbuilding, ship conversion and ship repair until 31 January 1999.
The Pallion yard is still in the first five year period (ending 27 January 1994). After that period and before ten years, the Commission would have to give its prior approval to the eventual reopening of the yard."

903
I do not think that I am alone in being confused. I hope that I have not made the confusion any worse by my speech tonight. I am rather puzzled.
While those gyrations are taking place, we have problems in my constituency. We have lost the last colliery in County Durham. It may be reprieved if private enterprise takes it over. That is a bitter pill for me to swallow. It is a little like Hobson's choice. We do not see a week go by without some group of people becoming unemployed or put on short-time working. Despite what we are told about the strenuous efforts being made in the area, the unemployment level remains about the same as it has been for the past three or four years. New jobs are being created, but they are unable to keep up with what we are losing.
I should have thought that a Government who were committed to, I will not say full employment, but perhaps less unemployment—that is what they say—might have been a little more constructive in their offer to provide jobs in my constituency. As I have stated already, the work will not affect the overall position within the European Union.
I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions and I keep getting the reply that this is a matter for the European Union—a fact of which I am only too well aware. All I have asked is for the Minister and his Department to say, "Yes, we back the people of Sunderland. We will go to the Commission and ask whether something can be done". That is what it is all about: the Minister should ask whether there can be a variation.
The proposal that has been put forward is very good; there can be no doubt about that. But I get the impression that there is some ambivalence. The regional office of the DTI is saying one thing and the Minister is writing letters to me which say something entirely different. We want to know where we stand. I do not want to spend another 18 months running about unnecessarily, and I do not want to waste another European trip, perhaps next year, seeing some Commissioner about getting something changed and knowing full well that the matter has been decided before I go.
In this short speech, I have given the Minister the opportunity to reply—my hon. Friends might have something to say about this matter also. As a former shipyard worker, I have seen the River Wear slowly destroyed, I have seen our merchant shipping fleet slowly denuded, and I have watched the number of seamen dwindle. I am always conscious of the fact that the National Union of Seamen was formed in Sunderland, which has a very proud tradition of shipbuilding and seamanship.
I get the impression that the Government, through the Tyne and Wear development corporation, have sterilised the river. It now seems more important to provide flash, yuppie-type university campuses than to produce jobs, enabling people to make a meaningful contribution to society and the economy.
The site that has been chosen could hardly be worse. Even before the university has been built, we face a problem with traffic. As the Tyne and Wear development corporation, in its wisdom, has decided to build student accommodation on the other side of the river, perhaps we will see a reincarnation of the ferry service that was ended
904
some 25 years ago. Those are the sorts of planning decisions from which we seem to be suffering. It is a very sad state of affairs.
I want to know exactly where we stand. I ask the Minister: will he join us in trying to put some pressure on the European Union to see whether we can get the shipyard operating and perhaps see a return of some semblance of shipbuilding on the River Wear, or are we to allow our assets to go to waste? The Greeks will not wait another five years. The yard has been standing idle for five years and they have invested a lot of money in it—as have other people. Something must be done in the reasonably near future.
There is work available; we are not talking about chasing orders. The orders are there in black and white, which is more than I can say for what we will get from the regional branch of the DTI. In those circumstances, I make that request of the Minister and I hope that he will respond to it.
10.7 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: This is the situation: a fine facility—one of the best of its kind—is lying idle in Sunderland. It has survived the bulldozers only through enormous efforts, led by our colleague Bob Clay, the former Member for Sunderland, North. The company which holds the lease on the facility owns a large fleet of ships which it wants to repair there. There is an agreement with the EC, the details of which have never been fully disclosed to us, which appears to say that no ships can be built at the yard for five years but that the situation is reviewable after five years.
Therefore, for the last five years all who have been associated with this matter have laboured under the illusion that, come the end of the five years, we might persuade the EC—we always thought the EC was the source of the difficulty—to allow this company to start using the Pallion yard to repair its fleet of ships at no cost to public funds. But what happened? When my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) went to the EC before Christmas, the EC still seemed to be under the impression that there was a possibility of opening the yard for ship repairs. We came back and discovered that the problem did not lie with the EC but with the Department of Trade and Industry. It appears that the terms that the DTI has imposed on the Pallion yard are stronger than those demanded by the EC. That is the source of our frustration. As I said in my intervention, it would be most helpful if the Minister could disclose the details of the 1988 agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North quoted a letter from Karel van Miert to the Bishop of Durham. It clearly refers to a period of not fewer than five years, which implies that the matter was at least renegotiable and that there was a window of opportunity at the end of those five years which are now coming to an end. However, everything that we hear from the Minister and his Department suggests that it is absolutely impossible and that nothing can be done until 1999 when, as we all know, it will be far too late.
We should like to hear that the Minister is going to help us in our efforts and is going to back Britain, and that the next time it will not be a question of the Member of the European Parliament, Alan Donnelly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North going cap in hand to Brussels, but that a Minister could also come to try to

905
persuade the EC to allow us to use the fine facility for the purpose for which it was created, because the work is available. I cannot stress too strongly the fact that the work is there and would involve no public subsidy. We cannot understand why the DTI appears to be more anxious than the EC to close the facility. I want to hear not only the explanation but what the Minister is going to do to resolve the issue.
10.11 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this Adjournment debate. It is a very important subject, certainly to the people of Sunderland. it also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and support the representations that they have both made to the Minister.
I know a fair bit about the Sunderland shipyards as I have worked in almost every yard on the River Wear. I worked at Bartrams, Pickersgill, Iaings and Thompsons. I have worked on oil tankers, cargo boats, refrigerator ships and the SD14s which were successfully built by Pickersgills. They were well known across the world and did a tremendous amount of good for the shipbuilding industry in this country. I worked on the Timeroo Star which was built at Bartrams and 200 joiners worked alongside me, insulating the holds and chambers between the decks. I do not know how many houses would have to be built to employ 200 joiners, but such employment was available on the River Wear at that time.
Sunderland was always known as the biggest shipbuilding town in the world. Now that it has city status, it has no shipbuilding, which is a tragedy. Sunderland, or the Wear, cannot be separated from the Tyne. It has always been called Tyne and Wear—the county council was called the Tyne and Wear county council and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) did a tremendous job as its deputy leader for a long time until the Government abolished it.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, I stayed in the shipyard while he left to take a cushy job down the pits.
Mr. Etherington: It cannot have been that cushy a number or my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) might have done the same thing, although there are not many shipwrights down the pits.
Mr. Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has more faith in the EC than I have. Since I was elected to the House in 1979, every debate on the EC has involved discussion of a maritime policy. We have talked about getting orders for more ships for the shipyards to build. We have talked about a scrap and build policy. Indeed, the European Union has been talking about scrap and build since 1977 and it has not made a decision yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has far more faith in the EU than I do. The Government must take the decision and they must act on behalf of shipbuilding in our areas.
I certainly support the representations made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I have the same problem on the River Tyne. There is a shipyard up the river, Swan Hunter, which, as the Minister knows, is just hanging on. It would be a tragedy if that yard
906
was to go. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the retention of shipbuilding on the River Tyne.
When we talk about Sunderland shipyards and the 10-year embargo that the EC imposed, to which my hon. Friends have referred—
Mr. Mullin: It was supposed to be a five-year embargo, but that is the question. It was either a 10-year embargo or a five-year embargo, but we do not know.
Mr. Dixon: That embargo was certainly discussed widely when Sunderland received an amount of money to create enterprise zones and so on in the area. Sixty years ago in 1934, Jarrow was one of the biggest shipbuilding towns in the world. Ships used to come into the old Palmers yard as iron ore and leave as complete ships. It was closed in 1934 by an organisation called Shipbuilding Security Ltd. That was an organisation of shipbuilders, ship owners and bankers who decided that there was too much shipbuilding capacity in the country, so it closed yards and put embargoes on the building of ships. Those embargoes used to be for 40 years, such as in Jarrow. Views on shipbuilding have not changed a great deal in 60 years.
One of the yards where I worked for a considerable time on the Tyne, Hawthorne Leslies, is now a housing estate called Hebburn village. We built some of the finest ships in the world at that yard. That is the tragedy of shipbuilding in our area. I certainly support my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North and for Sunderland, South and I know that we have the support of those hon. Members who have stayed for the Adjournment debate. There are not many such audiences for an Adjournment debate and it is because of the importance of the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was involved in the campaign to save the Sunderland shipyards for a considerable time before he became a Member of Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what my hon. Friends have said and do something about saving Sunderland shipyards because it is vital. The entire Tyne and Wear area depends a great deal on shipbuilding and I hope that our representations will be taken up by the Minister tonight.
10.16 pm
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I well understand the concerns for Tyne and Wear and for the shipbuilding tradition of the area which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I congratulate him on securing the Adjournment debate and his hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) on their comments. The hon. Member for Jarrow has a double reason to comment from his long experience and involvement in the industry and, even if the hon. Member for Sunderland, North opted for the cushy job later, he did serve his apprenticeship with Austin and Pickersgill. All hon. Members are aware of the long and distinguished history of shipbuilding on the Tyne and on the Wear.
It may help if I put the situation into the context of the privatisation of the shipbuilding industry, which was an objective of the incoming 1979 Conservative Government. The vehicle created to achieve privatisation was the British

907
Shipbuilders Act 1983, which allowed the Secretary of State to direct British shipbuilders to dispose of special assets or subsidiaries. As hon. Members will be aware, the war shipbuilding yards were sold in 1985 and 1986. Of course, that is another story, especially in connection with the present situation at Swan Hunter.
Due to the worldwide depression in shipbuilding, which existed then and, as hon. Members will know, has persisted, the merchant shipbuilding yards were not sold until later. By May 1988, many of the smaller yards and the engineering facilities had been sold or closed. By then, support given by the Government to British Shipbuilders since the inception of BS in 1977 had amounted to almost £2 billion with no foreseeable return to sustained viability. It was therefore decided that subsidies should cease for BS and that the remaining companies be closed or sold.
In June 1988 the remaining yards were Appledore Shipbuilders, Govan Shipbuilders Ltd., Ferguson Shipbuilders and North East Shipbuilders Ltd. Buyers were found for the first three yards and, as the House will know, all three remain in production today. Sadly, however, it was not possible find a buyer for North East Shipbuilders Ltd. NESL was formed in February 1986 through the amalgamation of two British Shipbuilders companies, Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd., which operated at Pallion, and Austin and Pickersgill Ltd., which has also been mentioned. A third yard, North Sands, was used for fitting out the ships built at the other two yards. In 1977, the yards employed between them some 7,500 people, but when closure was announced in December 1988, employment had fallen to about 2,000.
After the yards were put on the market in 1988, the original deadline for bids was extended from September to October 1988, because of various problems with contracts then current. That series of extensions demonstrated how hard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was then the Secretary of State—
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry; my right hon. Friend was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not Secretary of State. The series of extensions shows how hard he tried to find a buyer and to keep the thing going—with the help of Mr. Bob Clay, then the Member of Parliament for Sunderland, North. But the vital ingredients that were absent were customers and the likelihood of profitable business for the yard.
Further evidence of the efforts that were made is the fact that another extension, to the end of November, was given following rejection of the previous unsatisfactory bids, to allow a further expression of interest by a consortium led by Bob Clay. However, the bids were judged by British Shipbuilders and ourselves not to provide the basis of a viable future for merchant shipbuilding at Sunderland, and in December my right hon. Friend, who was not only the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but the Minister for Trade and Industry, announced the closure of NESL and the institution of remedial measures.
To facilitate the completion of a ferry contract, it was announced that British Shipbuilders would keep the yard intact until at least the end of June 1989 to allow any other
908
potential interests to come forward. Four positive proposals emerged over that period, two involving shipbuilding operations and two non-shipbuilding operations. Again, regrettably, the shipbuilding bids were not seen as viable because of the continuing depressed state of the shipbuilding market and the fact that they would not be eligible for intervention fund money.
Furthermore—here we come to the role of the European Commission—the Commission suggested at the time that if shipbuilding were resumed at NESL it would mean the reinvestigation of the whole British Shipbuilders remedial package, which had been agreed and which was beginning to be put in place. It would have been most undesirable if the Commission had disallowed it.
When it became clear that closure was inevitable, the Government negotiated with the Commission and secured an aid package worth some £45 million to assist those who would be affected. The major elements of that package, which had to be approved under Community competition rules, were an enterprise zone, which will last until the year 2000, a radical retraining programme and the establish-ment of Wearside Opportunity, a business-led team specialising in training and development grants for small firms and in the promotion of Sunderland generally.
I realise that some hon. Members may not always agree with everything that the Tyne and Wear development corporation does, but I believe that it has achieved a great deal for the area. At that time, it extended its Wearside activities in redeveloping the riverside, and it will remain in being until 1997. Its most recent development, the Doxford Park site, is nearing completion and will provide a hi-tech business environment for new investment. English Estates, as it then was, provided a substantial number of industrial units at Hylton riverside, on the site of an old colliery.
Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, have described what they saw as the confusion surrounding the arrangements that accompanied the closure and the agreement to the substantial aid package. However, when the Commission agreed to the closure of North East Shipbuilders and to the remedial package, it was acting in line with its policy at the time, which was to reduce excess capacity. It perceived that only in that way would the industry be able to return to normal competitive conditions.
After negotiation, we agreed with the Commission to close the site permanently for all shipbuilding activities. The Commission interprets permanent closure in this context as meaning that no shipbuilding, ship conversion or ship repair should take place for five years. It may be that the confusion has arisen from what follows from that. In this connection, I shall pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. For the next five years—this was provided for in the original agreement with the Commission—no such activity would take place without the consent of the Commission. That lasts until 1999.
From approaches that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, the Member of the European Parliament for the area and others have made to the Commission, hon. Members will know that the Commission is very conscious of continuing over-capacity in the European merchant shipbuilding sector and that the Commission, in conformity with the agreement originally entered into, will not permit any shipbuilding, ship conversion or ship repair to take place at Pallion. That is the unfortunate situation.

909
The agreement was an absolute ban for five years, followed by a continuing ban unless the Commission agreed to relax the rules.
Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Jarrow, will know that it has been very difficult indeed and has taken a great deal of time—much longer than I should have wished—to get out of the Commission a very limited agreement in respect of Swan Hunter. That reflects the problems that the Commission envisages arising if it were to open up one of these agreements. Opposition Members are no doubt aware that the whole shipbuilding industry of the European Community was substantially restructured and that over half the total capacity throughout the Community was eliminated during this period in an attempt to bring capacity more into line with demand.
Mr. Mullin: What representations has the Minister or his Department made to the European Community with regard to the question of another look at this agreement after five years? We get the impression that the Department takes a much harder line than does the EC. That is what concerns us.
Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members that that is not the position. My officials and I have had a continuing series of discussions with the Commission to see whether, at any time, there would be a likelihood of a change in its attitude. On the basis of my personal discussions with Commissioner Van Miert and of the numerous meetings in which my officials have taken part, I am well aware of the fact that the Commission takes a very strong line on this point because, as the House knows, there continues to be over-capacity in the European shipbuilding industry—indeed, in the world shipbuilding industry. We have all been waiting for some time for the revival of demand. It has continuously been forecast as being about two years away, but, so far as I can see, it remains two years away, although a number of authorities still expect it to come. There is a desperate shortage of orders and there continues to be over-capacity.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does that mean that the Minister would support an application for the use of these facilities for ship repairing?
910
That is the practical possibility on offer. It is that proposition, and no other, which the people of Sunderland ask the Minister to support.
Mr. Sainsbury: If I had any indication that there might be a softening of the Commission's attitude, yes, but, from my discussions with Commissioner Van Miert and from the continual contact between my officials and the relevant parts of the Commission, I know that the Commission is very firm in its view. The ban applies not just to shipbuilding, but, as I have explained, to ship conversion and ship repair. That, I am afraid, continues to be the position.
It was unfortunate that Mr. Petersen's remarks of last December gave a misleading impression. I am afraid that the reason is that Mr. Petersen was not fully conversant with the situation.
Mr. Etherington: I should like to put a fairly blunt and straightforward question to the Minister. In view of what he has said, will he write to the Commissioner and ask for a meeting involving himself, the interested Members of Parliament from the area, the company, the Euro Member of Parliament and the Commissioner to see whether some progress might be made?
Mr. Sainsbury: I am always happy to make approaches. I shall do so yet again when I next see the Commissioner. Indeed, I might take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I shall also investigate the possibility—there may be questions of commercial confidentiality—of placing a copy of the agreement in the Library of the House. That might help to explain the position. Although it is not up to me to do so, I can only apologise on behalf of the Commission for the fact that it was the cause of confusion.
I wish that we could see an upturn in demand. That would change the attitude and enable—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates were in post in 1993; and how many resigned for reasons other than age.

  Mr. John Taylor
  At 31 December 1993 there were 30,054 magistrates in post in England and Wales; during 1993, 1,043 magistrates resigned for reasons other than age.

  Divorce Law Reform
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) people and (b) organisations have responded to the Green Paper on divorce law reform "Looking to the Future"; and what were their names.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As at 22 March, 533 responses had been received from private individuals and 103 from organisations, institutions or professional bodies.

  Of these, 52 individuals and 78 others sent a written response only; 434 individuals and 15 others sent a completed questionnaire only; and 47 individuals and 10 others sent both a written response and a completed questionnaire.

  Responses are still being received. Once they have all been received, I will write to the hon. Member listing those who have responded. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff have been in the employment of his Department for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of staff who have been in the employment of the Lord Chancellor's Department for each of the last 10 years is set out in the table.

  Total numbers of staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department

  Year

  Total Number of Staff

  1985–86

  10,190

  1986–87

  10,206

  1987–88

  10,489

  1988–89

  10,880

  1989–90

  10,753

  1990–91

  10,954

  1991–92

  11,460

  1992–93

  11,774

  21993–94

  111,809

  1 Forecast.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  These figures include part time staff who have been shown as whole numbers.
  610

  Redundancies
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to(a) make redundant and (b) seek voluntary redundancies from the staff of his Department in the next financial year; and how many and what grade of (i) civil servants and (ii) qualified lawyers he estimates will be affected.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has no plans to make members of staff redundant or to seek voluntary redundancies from the staff during the next financial year.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 73, what percentage of the total number of staff employed, and how many qualified lawyers, are affected by the requests for voluntary redundancies by the Legal Aid Board.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Voluntary redundancy has been sought from approximately 9 per cent. of the staff employed by the Legal Aid Board. The board is seeking the voluntary redundancy of 11 qualified lawyers.

  Matrimonial Cases
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answers of 9 February,Official Report, columns 249–50, about matrimonial cases, what plans he has to undertake an investigation into the arrangement between his Department and the Home Office immigration and nationality department; when it will be completed; and if he will place a copy of the report of the investigation in the Library.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An internal investigation conducted in February revealed that the facts of the matter were straightforward. The arrangement was made by officials of my Department, as described in my earlier answer, and was terminated as soon as it came to my attention. Measures have been put in place to ensure that no similar action can be taken without proper consideration. I do not propose to publish a report.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Information
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes have been made to the code of practice on Government information proposed in draft in the White Paper, "Open Government", Cm. 2290; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In my statement of 15 July 1993,Official Report, columns 1115–17, I described the Government's plans for increasing openness in government. We received more than 100 consultation responses to the White Paper, many of which gave the proposals a broad welcome. I am placing a summary of the consultation responses and copies of the responses themselves in the Library of the House.

  The White Paper proposed a new code of practice on Government information. This will come into effect on

  611
  Monday 4 April. The draft code has been revised and improved since last summer. Copies of the new code have been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies of the code and of a leaflet describing the new system may be obtained by telephoning 0345 223242.

  Ministers will be responsible for the performance of their Departments under the code of practice. Complaints that information has not been provided should be addressed in the first instance to the Department concerned. Where applicants are still dissatisfied, they can complain—through a Member of Parliament—to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  The code of practice means that, in future, anyone seeking information from Government Departments and public bodies can be assured that their request will be received positively. When there is a case for confidentiality it must be based on specific tests in part II of the code. I am confident that the advantages of the code, which puts into practice key principles of the citizens charter, will rapidly become apparent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the Government of Malta about luggage alleged to have left Luqa airport for the Rhein-Main airport in December 1988, destined to destroy Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  The Prime Minister
  As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate made clear in issuing warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing, the investigation concluded that the bomb which caused Pan Am 103 to explode over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 was placed on board a flight from Luqa airport to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to flight PA 103. I have received no representations from the Maltese Government on this matter.

  Engagement
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

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

  Bosnia
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Bosnia.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited central Bosnia and Sarajevo on 18 March. In central Bosnia I met British and other United Nations soldiers and civilian aid experts. I was impressed, as always, by their courage and professional dedication. UNPROFOR's achievements on the ground have helped to transform the situation in Bosnia and the prospects for a settlement.

  In Sarajevo I met Bosnian Vice-President Ganic and General Rose. I announced a further £12 million of United
  612
  Kingdom aid for Bosnia: £5 million to help rebuild Sarajevo, and £7 million to support the work of UN agencies throughout Bosnia. With the £2 million announced by my right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Chalker, to support the Tuzla airlift, this brings total United Kingdom humanitarian aid to former Yugoslavia to £171·5 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many political refugees are settled in the United Kingdom at the present time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information on those given leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a recognised refugee is that in the period 1979 to end 1993 around 43,200 persons, including associated dependants, were given such leave. These comprise some 19,700 asylum applicants who were recognised as refugees and granted asylum in the United Kingdom, and 23,500 south-east Asian refugees accepted for settlement, mainly on arrival. Information on the number of these persons who have since died, left the country, obtained British citizenship or otherwise ceased to hold refugee status here, and information prior to 1979, is not available.

  Persons granted asylum here apply for permanent settlement after four years. Information on persons accepted for settlement in the years 1979–92 on this basis, along with south-east Asian refugees, is published in table 8 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 22/90 "Refugee Statistics United Kingdom 1989" and Table 10.1 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin Issue 19/93 "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1992". Copies of both these publications are in the Library. Corresponding information for 1993 will be published in the summer.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the charities involved in the complaints of improper political activity investigated by the Charity Commission since 1990; and what are the dates of the investigation, the nature of the complaint and the conclusion in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1990 the Charity Commission has investigated 76 complaints concerning possible political or campaigning activity of which 24 have been upheld.

  Formal reports have been published on two of these investigations: (i) "War on Want: Report of an Inquiry to the Charity Commissioners 15 February 1991" (ISBN 0–117–016128); and (ii) "Oxfam: Report of an Inquiry submitted to the Charity Commissioners 8 April 1991" (ISBN 0–117–016217). Both are available from HMSO. Full details on all 76 cases would be available only at disproportionate cost, but I will write to the hon. Member shortly with a summary based on those cases most recently concluded.
  613

  Metropolitan Police Area Crime Rate
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded by the Metropolitan police within each division, for each category of crime during the 12 months ended 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not yet available.

  Criminal Justice Act 1993
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to implement the remaining provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  The following new provisions to combat money laundering are being brought into force on 1 April by means of Commencement Order No. 6: sections 18–19, 26, 32, 48, 50–51, 77 and 79. Section 77 implements schedule 4 of the Act and section 79 relevant consequential amendments in schedule 5.

  Youth Detention
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his future policy will be on the detention of youths convicted of crimes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's policy is to ensure that the courts have available to them a wide range of penalties, including custodial sentences. Custodial sentences in respect of young offenders aged 10 to 17 will be considerably extended by provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now before Parliament.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what forms of detention are available to deal with convicted youths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following sentences of detention are currently available to the courts after the conviction of young offenders between the ages of 10 and 17:
  Detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder from age 10.From age 14 (and from age 10 for manslaughter), terms of detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 up to the adult maximum are available for crimes which are punishable in the case of an adult with 14 years imprisonment or more. In addition 14 to 17-year-olds who are convicted of the offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs may be sentenced to terms of detention under section 53 for a period up to the adult maximum penalty, which is 10 years. In the case of 16 and 17-year-olds, a term of detention under section 53 is also available for the offence of indecent assault on a woman up to the adult maximum, which is 10 years.

  Area

  Project

  Total cost

  Cost to the Home Office

  £ million

  £ million

  Doncaster

  Works complex HM young offenders institution, Hatfield (commenced 1988)

  1·0

  1·0

  Doncaster

  Construction of HM prison Moorland (commenced 1990)

  47·2

  47·2

  Doncaster

  Construction of HM prison Doncaster (commenced 1990)

  82·0

  82·0

  Doncaster

  Conversion of dormitories into cubicles, HM prison Lindholme (commenced 1993)

  3·7

  3·7

  Wakefield

  Works Unit HM prison, Wakefield (commenced 1988)

  1·1

  1·1

  614
  For juveniles aged 15 to 17, detention in a young offender institution for a maximum of 12 months is available for any offence for which an adult may be sentenced to imprisonment.

  "Black Book of Captain Ramsey"
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the present whereabouts of the "Black Book of Captain Ramsey"; and if he will make it available for public inspection and publication.

  Mr. Howard
  A check of departmental records has revealed reference only to a ledger known as the "Red Book", which lists membership of the Right Club. The ledger is currently in private hands.

  Visitors (Pakistan)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors from Pakistan have overstayed for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Comprehensive information on the number of visitors who remain in the United Kingdom after the expiry of their leave is not available.

  Sex Shops
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sex shops there are in each English district council and London borough.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Deputy Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what clothing, travel or other allowances are available from public funds to deputy lords lieutenant.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no provision for the payment of allowances or expenses to deputy lieutenants from central funds.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what major building projects valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1989 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  The information is set out in the table:
  615

  Area

  Project

  Total cost

  Cost to the Home Office

  £ million

  £ million

  Wakefield

  Cell block, HM prison New Hall (commenced 1989)

  4·5

  4·5

  Wakefield

  Chapel and Sportshall HM prison, Wakefield (commenced 1990)

  1·9

  1·9

  Wakefield

  Kitchen and other facilities, HM prison New Hall (commenced 1991)

  3·1

  3·1

  Wakefield

  Dispersed gas boilers HM prison, Wakefield (commenced 1992)

  1·8

  1·8

  Wakefield

  Ossett divisional police headquarters (commenced February 1992)

  1·4

  0·714

  Wakefield

  Hospital and mother and baby unit, HM prison New Hall (commenced 1993)

  1·9

  1·9

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Howard
  When making appointments I seek information from a variety of sources, including professional bodies, other Government Departments, the public appointments unit at Cabinet Office and any others that I consider relevant.

  Chief of Defence Staff
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he was first informed that the position of Sir Peter Harding as Chief of the Defence Staff might be compromised.

  Mr. Howard
  I first became aware of the circumstances leading up to the resignation of Sir Peter Harding on Sunday 13 March.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Plymouth Council (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Attorney-General what estimate has been made of the cost to the Crown Prosecution Service of prosecuting a number of Plymouth councillors under section 106 of the Local Government Act 1992.

  The Attorney-General
  The estimated costs to the Crown Prosecution Service of the prosecution of 14 past or present Plymouth city councillors under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 are £10,900. This figure is inclusive of all case preparation, disbursements, and court attendances before and during the trial.
  616

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The percentage of(a) Asians and (b) black people appointed to public bodies by my Department in 1993 was:

  (a)13·33 per cent.

  (b)0 per cent.

  It is not our policy to provide details of the ethnic origins of appointees.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the desirability of releasing more prisoners to aid the peace process in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and European Union partners regularly make representations to the Israelis to urge them to release Palestinian detainees.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to secure the return to the United Kingdom of Asil Nadir.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have an extradition treaty with the Republic of Cyprus, but the writ of the lawful Government does not run in the north of the island. Officials of the Serious Fraud Office have pursued their investigations in both Turkey and northern Cyprus.

  North Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the mandate of the International Atomic Energy Agency team in North Korea; and to what extent it has been allowed to carry out that mandate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 15 February, North Korea agreed to open its seven declared nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections, and to the agency's requirements for inspection at each facility. On 21 March, the IAEA director
  617
  general stated that the inspections, carried out between 3 and 14 March, had not permitted the agency to conclude that nuclear material had not been diverted for military use in North Korea since February 1993. Agency inspectors were not allowed to proceed with a full inspection at one of the declared nuclear facilities as previously agreed.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 292, if he will list the number of contracts and their costs with management consultants in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The number of management consultancy contracts and their costs for the latest year for which figures are available ie 1992–93 is:

  Number

  £

  Diplomatic wing

  4

  129,000

  Aid wing

  8

  451,907

  (this excludes management consultancies awarded under the aid programme)

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the systematic killing of handicapped babies in China; what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning this abuse of human rights; and if he will raise this issue with the United Nations Secretariat dealing with human rights.

  The latest available figures are:

  Grades1

  1

  2

  3

  42

  5

  6

  7

  below 7

  Women

  Number

  —

  1

  4

  —

  25

  19

  129

  2,953

  Percentage of all staff

  —

  3 per cent.

  4 per cent.

  —

  7 per cent.

  11 per cent.

  17 per cent.

  38 per cent

  Ethnic minority respondents3

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  4

  291

  Percentage of all staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·6 per cent

  0·6 per cent.

  0·5 per cent.

  4 per cent

  Registered disabled staff4

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  57

  Percentage of all staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3 per cent

  —

  —

  0·7 per cent

  1Grades which are not part of the Open Structure have been aggregated with the equivalent Open Structure grades.

  2 There is only one individual employed at this grade.

  3 Includes only those members of staff who have responded to questionnaires; there is no compulsion on staff to record their ethnic origin, although well over 90 per cent, have done so.

  4 Includes only staff who are registered disabled.

  Security Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts his Department has put out to tender for the supply of security services at its buildings; how many of them cover the protection of classified information held on the premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office puts out to tender contracts for security services at its premises overseas, but these do not directly concern the
  618
  Mr. Goodlad
  We have not received any representations about this issue. We regularly raise human rights, including population policy issues, with the Chinese authorities, urging them to adhere to internationally approved standards of behaviour. We co-sponsored a resolution on China, with our European partners, at this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which specifically drew attention to reports of forced abortion. But it was stopped by a no-action motion introduced by the Chinese.

  Palestine
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about progress to increase protection for the Palestinian people in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Details of the international presence and other measures to protect the Palestinians in the occupied territories called for in United Nations Security Council resolution 904 are the subject of on-going negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information is as follows:

  protection of classified material. Information on the number of such contracts is not readily available. As regards the FCO's buildings in central London, the guarding of the entrances and the patrolling of buildings where classified information is stored will shortly be put out to tender under the market testing programme. Six companies will be invited to bid, and the present in-house team will also be tendering. The FCO will award the contract to the contractor which offers the best overall value for money.
  619

  East Timor
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position the United Kingdom has taken at the United Nations since 1974 on the legality of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We do not recognise the Indonesian annexation of East Timor.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government will support an economic embargo being imposed against Indonesia until that country ends its occupation of East Timor; and what other sanctions against Indonesia the British Government will support to assist bringing this occupation to an end.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No. Sanctions would be neither appropriate nor effective.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings have been held between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Indonesian Government to discuss human rights issues in East Timor since January 1993.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our regular discussions with the Indonesians cover a wide range of issues, including human rights.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the human rights situation in East Timor since March 1993.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We believe that the human rights situation in East Timor continues steadily to improve.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are encouraging Indonesia and Portugal to continue to co-operate with the United Nations Secretary-General to find a solution to East Timor. We therefore welcome the return to consensus language at this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and hope that it will help provide an atmosphere conducive to progress at the next round of talks on the territory's future between Portugal and Indonesia under the Secretary-General's auspices in May.

  Mr. Raja
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's consulate in Düsseldorf refused to see Mr. Raja, case number MP A363834/6, PO 24915/93, husband of Mrs. Carol Raja, of 145 High street, Linlithgow, when he applied for an interview.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The consulate-general in Dusseldorf has never refused to see Mr. Raja. He and his wife were interviewed in June and August 1993 respectively, after which his application was referred to the Home Office. The Home Office refused it in December 1993, but the relevant papers never reached the
  620
  post, for reasons that we have been unable to establish. A further copy was sent to Dusseldorf by fax on 15 March. The consulate-general wrote to Mr. Raja so to inform him, and enclosing an appeal form, the following day.

  European Parliament, Strasbourg
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cost of building the new European Parliament in Strasbourg; and whether the United Kingdom supported the expenditure.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: A decision was taken at the Edinburgh European Council in December 1992 on the seat of the European Parliament and of other Community institutions. It is for the European Parliament itself to decide policy on buildings in the light of that decision.

  UNITA
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he intends to take to enforce the measures imposed under paragraph 19 of resolution 864 (1993) against UNITA.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  United Nations Security Council resolution 864, imposing sanctions against UNITA, was implemented in the United Kingdom under the United Nations Act 1946 by the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1993, SI 2355, which came into force on 1 October 1993. A copy is available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to expel UNITA's official representative in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The long tradition of free political expression in the United Kingdom means that anyone can set up a representative office here. So long as staff of the office comply with our laws—and I am not aware of any evidence that they have failed to do so—there is no basis in United Kingdom law for closing the office. This position is well understood by the Angolan Government.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult with his counterparts on the United Nations Security Council to enforce the sanctions against UNITA in Angola, Zaire, South Africa and in the various locations where UNITA enjoys the benefits of its material and financial assets.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Operative paragraph 22 of the United Nations Security Council resolution 864, imposing sanctions against UNITA, established a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the council to oversee and advise on the implementation of those sanctions. The United Kingdom is a member of this committee and has participated fully in its work.

  Turkey
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been killed by Turkish security services during the past year; and if he will make a statement.
  621
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no reliable statistics. Our embassy in Ankara estimates, on the basis of press reports and other information, that some 1,370 alleged terrorists, 720 civilians, and 650 members of the security forces have been killed during the past year.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Iran regarding the number of dissidents abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas-Hogg
  We and our European partners frequently discuss this issue with the Iranian authorities.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Letterheaded Paper
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 23 March,Official Report, column 292, what payment his Department has received from the Conservative and Unionist party for the mistaken use of letterheaded paper.

  Mr. Hurd
  The cost of the three sheets of headed notepaper used was less than a penny. No further costs were incurred since all photocopying and distribution was done by Conservative central office. It would be disproportionate to seek any reimbursement to the FCO from Central Office.

  Norway (Whaling)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what concessions were made to Norway in respect of whaling activities within the context of that country's terms of accession to the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As part of its terms of accession to the European Union, Norway agreed that its policy on whales will fully respect the European Community's existing legislation.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions are taking place between Government Departments on funding for the Commonwealth Institute after 1996.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  By long-standing convention, discussions of this nature between Departments are confidential.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what view the Government have formed about the quality of the work of(a) the Scottish Commonwealth Institute and (b) the regional centre of the Commonwealth Institute in Bradford.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The educational work of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland and the institute's office in Bradford has been positive and useful.
  622
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the management committee of the Scottish Commonwealth Institute is determined; and what is its current membership.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland, is determined by the board of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland. Its membership is:

  Sir Mark Russell KCMG—Chairman

  T. J. Barron, MA PhD

  J. C. Horobin, BSc PhD

  G. Paton, MA MEd FEIS FITD

  Miss A. J. B. Sloan, MA

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the membership of the board of the Scottish Commonwealth Institute; and what representation it has made to the Government about the future of the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Membership of the board of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland is as follows:

  Chairman—Sir Mark Russell, KCMG

  Members nominated by educational and local government bodies:

  E. T. Laing, BSc MSc

  Association of Directors of Education

  R. Paul, MA

  Headteachers' Association of Scotland

  W. Anderson, MA MEd

  Headteachers' Association of Scotland

  Miss M-R Caden, MA FEIS

  Educational Institute of Scotland

  G. M. Wilson, MA PhD

  Joint Committee for Colleges of Education Vacancy

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Councillor W. Speirs

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  N. E. Paine, BE(hons) MA FITD

  Scottish Council for Educational Technology

  Members co-opted by the Committee:

  T. J. Barron, MA PhD

  W. Borthwick, CBE DL JP

  J. R. Carson, MA

  J. C. Horobin, BSc PhD

  M. E. Jogee, JP

  G. Paton, MA MEd FEIS FITD

  Sarah J. Sieley, BA MEd PhD

  Miss A. J. B. Sloan, MA

  Assessors

  D. Broad

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  D. Campbell

  Scottish Office Education Department

  I. K. Gamble, HMI

  Scottish Office Education Department

  Representations have been made to the Government through the committee of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland, and through the executive committee of the board of governors.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Lord Armstrong took in reviewing the work of the Commonwealth Institute for his Department to visit(a) the Scottish Commonwealth Institute and (b) the Commonwealth Institute in Bradford and assess the work of staff.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As an independent reviewer of the Commonwealth Institute, Lord Armstrong chose his own
  623
  modus operandi. His views on the operation of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland and of the Bradford office were formed from papers and interviews in London.

  South Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approach he has made to Chief Buthelezi to urge Inkatha to take part in the South African elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met Chief Buthelezi on 6 September 1993. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we attach the utmost importance to the constructive participation of all major political figures in the peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey spoke with Chief Buthelezi again in similar terms on 9 December 1993. Through our embassy in Pretoria we continue to keep in close touch with all South Africa's major leaders.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  D-day
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much Lowe Bell Communications is being paid for its work for the D-day anniversary.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on 2 February at column 716.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what major building projects valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1992 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not financed any major building projects in Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham or Wakefield.

  Slave Trade (Museum)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will consider the establishment of a national museum in Liverpool dedicated to the history of the slave trade.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does provide grant in aid to National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, which is opening a new permanent gallery in October called "Transatlantic Slavery: Against Human Dignity" with the help of funding from the Peter Moores Foundation. This gallery will address the history of the transatlantic slave trade.

  Sport (Museum)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further consideration he has given to the creation of a national museum for sport to be situated on Merseyside.
  624
  Mr. Sproat
  I understand that Liverpool city council is carrying out a feasibility study on a possible museum of sport based on Merseyside. The backers of such a project would be responsible for taking it forward and for ensuring the necessary funds.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is contained in the annual disability report in the magazine "Independent" which was published on 18 March 1994. The publication of this magazine was announced in a written reply on 18 March at column 874 and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

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

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

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the objects and property accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax during the financial year ended 31 March; and if, in listing these, he will specify(a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case, (b) whether any offers of objects carried conditions as to destination, (c) the dates in each case of the recommendations received by him from the Museums and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax this satisfied and (e) how much of this total was covered in the public accounts by means of resort to the reserve in accordance with Government policy as announced on 26 July 1985, Official Report, column 779.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department will, before the end of this financial year, be announcing the acceptance of a further four items in lieu of tax. In the interest of completeness I will reply to the hon. Member on the day of that announcement.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female, (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The total number of full-time and part-time male and female staff in each grade within the Department of National Heritage, excluding its two executive agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces and the Royal Parks, are listed in the table:
  625

  DNH staff as at 28 February 1994

  Males

  Females

  Grades

  Full time

  Part time

  Totals

  Full time

  Part time

  Totals

  1A

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  G3

  3

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  G4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  G5

  12

  —

  12

  4

  —

  4

  G6

  1

  —

  1

  4

  —

  4

  G7

  33

  —

  33

  7

  4

  11

  SEO

  8

  —

  8

  7

  —

  7

  HEOD

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  HSOD

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  AT

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  HEO

  29

  —

  29

  16

  1

  17

  EO

  36

  —

  36

  21

  —

  21

  AO

  30

  —

  30

  25

  —

  25

  AA

  12

  2

  14

  15

  —

  15

  SPS

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4

  PS

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  18

  Typist

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  SGB1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  SGB2

  3

  —

  3

  7

  —

  7

  SIO

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  IO

  3

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1

  CUR E

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  CUR G

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Librarian

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  183

  2

  185

  146

  5

  151

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up; what was the annual

  Name

  1991–92 running cost

  1992–93 running cost

  1993–94 running cost

  Staff employed in 1991

  Staff employed in 1993

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Broadcasting complaints commission

  0·465

  0·457

  0·537

  8

  8

  Independent television commission

  21·43

  20·42

  1—

  254

  239

  The radio authority

  2·28

  2·75

  1—

  25

  27

  Office of the national lottery

  n/a

  n/a

  0·28

  n/a

  12

  1Not yet available.

WALES

  Head Teachers, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to Clwyd county council in respect of head teacher pay awards and consequential efficiency savings.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has consulted interested parties on his proposals for implementing the recommendations of the third report of the School Teachers' Review Body and on the first of two pay and conditions orders which would give effect to its recommendations. The review body's recommendations took account of evidence from the Government, the teacher unions, the employers, and Government provision for local authority spending in 1994–95. The review body also took the view that"there is significant scope for … efficiency savings".
  626
  running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The information required is as follows:

  Decisions on the scope for such savings and the implementation of the pay award are matters for the employers.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had concerning the national curriculum as it affects primary schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In response to concerns by teachers and parents about the manageability of the national curriculum in both primary and secondary schools, my right hon. Friend announced last year a review of the national curriculum and its assessment arrangements in Wales by the Curriculum Council for Wales and Sir Ron Dearing. I refer the hon. Member to the statements issued in response to the interim and final reports on the review on 2 August 1993 and 5 January 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House and which were sent to all hon. Members in Wales.
  627

  Rehabilitation Therapy
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients with severe head injuries in(a) Wales and (b) each health authority area are currently receiving rehabilitation therapy within the NHS.

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

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on the number of psychotherapists employed by the NHS in Wales in(a) the rehabilitation of all patients and (b) the rehabilitation of children with severe head injuries.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Psychotherapy is a form of treatment and can be carried out by medical and other professional staff. The following table gives the whole-time equivalent numbers of staff in post in Wales who are specifically designated as working in the field of psychotherapy. Other staff groups, whose work may include psychotherapy but not as a major part of their duties, are excluded.

  Number

  Child psychotherapists1

  4·3

  Clinical psychologists1

  182·9

  Consultant psychotherapist2

  0·6

  1 In post as at 31 December 1993.

  2 In post as at 30 September 1993.

  Information relating to the number of psychotherapy staff involved in the rehabilitation of children with severe head injuries is not available centrally.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research studies his Department has commissioned in each of the last 10 years on the effects of rehabilitation programmes in Wales for patients who have suffered severe head injuries.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Research costing £1,118,000 into the rehabilitation of brain-injured adults is currently being funded jointly by the Welsh Office and the Department of Health. The project started in May 1992 and will take three years to complete. In addition the Welsh Office has funded two projects on rehabilitation following brain damage. These received some £60,000 between 1989 and 1992.

  Insulin-dependent Diabetics
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the guidance he has issued to insulin-dependent diabetics in Wales regarding the methods they should use to dispose of (a) blood-glucose testing strips, (b) lancets and (c) hypodermic syringes and needles.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance for insulin-dependent diabetics on the disposal of hypodermic syringes and needles has been provided under Welsh health circular WHC (FP)(87)24 dated 6 August 1987. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. No guidance has been issued in respect of the disposal of blood-glucose testing strips or lancets.
  628

  Redundant NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many redundant NHS hospitals have been disposed of since 1987 without the benefit of planning permission.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  National Continence Week
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what projects his Department instigated in respect of national continence week.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Health Promotion Wales, on behalf of the Welsh Office, arranged for a continence awareness campaign during the period 13 to 19 March 1994. This ran in parallel with a Department of Health campaign in England.

  Leaflets and posters, for the attention of the general public, were distributed to health authorities, family health services authorities, community health councils, NHS premises, general practitioners' surgeries, pharmacies, social services departments, health promotion units and voluntary organisations.

  Continence advisers in Wales ran local campaigns, the details of which are not held centrally.

  A bilingual helpline, charging local call rates, will operate in Wales until the end of March.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy farmers there were in Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of holdings on which the dominant activity is dairy farming is shown in the table. The information for 1993 is not yet available.

  Dairy holdings in Wales1

  Year

  Number

  1985

  6,554

  1986

  6,384

  1987

  6,024

  1988

  5,647

  1989

  5,433

  1990

  5,224

  1991

  5,076

  1992

  4,891

  Source: June agricultural and horticultural census.

  1Excluding minor holdings.

  Ysgol Maes Garman Mold
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to the delegation of pupils from Ysgol Maes Garman Mold he met on Monday 21 March regarding teacher losses at the school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is for Clwyd county council to decide from within its available resources the level of funding to be devoted to primary and secondary education in the county. Individual schools are funded according to the authority's local management of schools scheme, and it is the responsibility of the governing body of schools with delegated budgets to decide how many staff they should employ.
  629

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on the number of holdings and workers on those holdings is available from the annual June agricultural census and is shown in the following table.

  Farms and farm workers in Wales1

  Year

  Holdings

  Workers2

  1980

  29,508

  21,144

  1981

  29,567

  20,703

  1982

  29,822

  20,794

  1983

  29,957

  20,323

  1984

  29,752

  19,784

  1985

  29,811

  20,504

  1986

  29,924

  20,179

  1987

  29,985

  19,797

  1988

  30,231

  18,948

  1989

  30,508

  18,148

  1990

  29,646

  18,167

  1991

  29,710

  18,234

  1992

  29,903

  17,812

  1993

  29,916

  17,495

  Source June agricultural and horticultural census.

  1Excludes data for minor holdings.

  2 All workers on holdings who are not farmers, partners or directors and who are not spouses of farmers, partners or directors.

  Council Meetings (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the availability of methods of transport for local councillors to attend meetings on his proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the suitability of the present bus timetable linking Llandridod Wells and. Llanelly Hill for the use of councillors wishing to attend council meetings;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of his local government reorganisation in Wales on the ability of councillors to travel to and from council meetings by existing public transport routes within one day.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on ethnic minority appointments as at 1. September 1993 is shown in "Public Bodies 1993", available in the Library of the House.

  Education Authorities (Standard Spending Assessment)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the standard spending assessment for each education authority in Wales in 1993–94.
  630
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 March 1994 at column 453.

  Mostyn Docks, Clwyd (Planning Application)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to answer the letter from Mr. P. McGreevy, chief executive of Delyn borough council, of 21 February, regarding the proposed planning application at Mostyn docks, Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Secretary of State worte to Mr. McGreevy on 28 March.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  The position at 1 January 1994 is given in the following table:

  Number

  Percentage

  Women

  Grade 1 and equivalents

  0

  0

  Grade 2 and equivalents

  0

  0

  Grade 3 and equivalents

  1

  8

  Grade 4 and equivalents

  2

  33

  Grade 5 and equivalents

  9

  15

  Grade 6 and equivalents

  14

  18

  Grade 7 and equivalents

  53

  27

  Total number

  1,304

  53

  Ethnic minorities

  Grade 1–5 and equivalents

  0

  0

  Grade 6 and equivalents

  1

  1·3

  Grade 7 and equivalents

  1

  0·5

  Total number

  34

  1·4

  Disabled

  Grade 1–5 and equivalents

  0

  0

  Grade 6 and equivalents

  1

  1·3

  Grade 7 and equivalents

  1

  0·5

  Total number

  41

  1·7

  Notes:

  1. Part-time staff are counted as one.

  2. Figures exclude casual staff.

  3. Figures show registered disabled staff only.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Consultation Documents
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the documents issued for consultation in the last year, indicating the time provided for consultation and the recipients of each consultation document.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  631

  School Visits
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will visit Sealand CP School to meet the governors and staff to discuss the pupil-teacher ratio for the next school year;

  (2) if he proposes to visit Golftyn High School, Deeside, in order to discuss the concerns of parents, governors and staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I will bear these schools in mind when considering our programme of visits to schools.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policies on special needs for the next school year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Children with special educational needs will benefit from the range of measures introduced in the Education Act 1993 to improve the present statutory framework, including a code of practice containing guidance and criteria for the identification, assessment and other arrangements for such pupils. We hope to lay the code before Parliament shortly.

  We remain committed to the principle that children with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools wherever possible and sensible.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his aims to create new style apprenticeships; in what industries he expects the new apprenticeships to be created; and what estimate he has of the number of new apprenticeships he expects to be created.

  Mr. Redwood
  Modern apprenticeships will be introduced in manufacturing engineering in Wales in 1994–95, and I have made £3·6 million available to support them; 550 additional opportunities will be offered to young people to begin training for national vocational qualifications at levels 3 and 4. Details about the extension of modern apprenticeships to other sectors from 1995–96 onwards will be announced in due course.

  Public Transport (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to encourage the provision of accessibility to public transport for disabled people in urban and rural areas of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are already committed to the development of accessible transport systems which meet the travel needs of all users. Since the early 1980s significant progress has been made in improving access to public transport for people with disabilities.

  Farm Colleges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual amount of public funding allocated to farm colleges in(a) Wales and (b) Great Britain as a whole; and if he will make a statement.
  632
  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh funding councils allocated £4·7 million to agriculture colleges in Wales for the academic year 1993–94. The agriculture colleges in England and Scotland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Scotland. However, I understand that the allocations for agriculture colleges in England and Scotland were £67·3 million and £11·2 million respectively. The figure for England relates to the academic year 1993–94 and the figure for Scotland to the financial year 1993–94.

  Courses in agriculture are provided by many institutions which do not have "agriculture college" in their names. Expenditure on courses in these institutions has not been included in the figures given here.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to the chairman of the Welsh health authorities in respect of the application of total waiting times guarantees for hospital treatment, inclusive of the first out-patient appointment waiting time; and if he will place a copy of such guidelines in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  A copy of the letter sent to all health authorities outlining the new approach to waiting times in Wales will be placed in the Library of the House. Detailed work on operational aspects of the approach will take place this year in preparation for its implementation from April 1995.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to Welsh health authorities and to provider units in Wales in respect of dates being given for first out-patient appointment within a short period after receipt of the referral letter from the general practitioner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  All patients referred to a hospital out-patient clinic by their GP are included in waiting list statistics whether or not they have been provided with a fixed appointment date.

  Comprehensive guidance on the management of waiting lists has been issued to all health authorities, NHS trusts and other healthcare providers, identifying the provision of booked dates for first out-patient appointments as best practice.

  Rural Areas (Assistance)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of state for Wales (1) what policies the Development Board for Rural Wales has for the voluntary sector to be a vehicle for assisting rural communities;

  (2) how much funding in each of the last five years and for the next financial year has been allocated by the Development Board for Rural Wales to the voluntary sector for assisting rural communities; and if he will list those organisations and how much each received.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have asked the chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales to write to the hon. Member, and for a copy of the. reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures are used by the board members and officials of(a) the Welsh Development Agency and (b) the

  633
  Development Board for Rural Wales to inform themselves of the needs of individual rural areas within their areas of responsibility.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have asked the chief executives of the agency and the board to write to the hon. Member and for copies of their responses to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much funding in each of the last five years and for the next financial year has been allocated by the Welsh Development Agency to the voluntary sector for assisting rural communities; and if he will list those organisations and how much each received;

  (2) what policies the Welsh Development Agency has for the voluntary sector to be a vehicle for assisting rural communities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have asked the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 196, if he will list all the appraisals commissioned by his Department of the options for improving cancer services for north Wales; and if he will place a copy of each appraisal in the Library.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Lady.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what directions he has given to the Development Board for Rural Wales to sell its industrial estates on the open market; how many estates are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: None. However, the development board seeks to identify opportunities for property disposal and under its guidelines is expected to encourage private ownership and secure the disposal of its completed premises and estates to the private sector.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States and Egypt about the provision of pharmaceuticals, water pumps and water-filtering equipment to the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. Our substantial aid to Iraq is organised through the United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on which aid and trade provision offers in principle were made to the Governments of countries overseas in each year since 1986.
  634
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The dates of all ATP offers are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A list of successful ATP projects on which offers have been accepted by developing country Governments has been placed in the Libraries of the House. This list is based on the dates when the formal Government-to-Government agreements or exchanges were signed; this is the operative date for project commencement.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Rwanda for British-based aid organisations; what progress is being made in Rwanda by the United Nations mission; and what estimate has been made of the number of refugees and displaced people in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Although some difficulties remain, most aid organisations can now operate with relative freedom. The United Nations assistance mission for Rwanda continues to encourage full implementation of peace agreements signed last August in Arusha. A copy of the United Nations Secretary-General's report of 30 December 1993 on UNAMIR's progress has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The number of refugees and displaced persons in Rwanda at present is estimated at 650,000.

  UK Assistance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much United Kingdom Government assistance was given for: the covered reservoir scheme 1985 at Irbid, Jordan; sewage works at Rustamiyah, Iraq and the Suez Canal Authority, Egypt 1985; water works at Tangerang, Indonesia 1985; water development department, Cyprus 1985; canal project at Rahimyakham, Pakistan 1986; canal project in Cameroon 1986; canal project in Kwasa State, Nigeria 1986; Kwasa project in Nigeria 1987; water projects in Niger, Uganda and Panama 1987; Hill Country water scheme, Sri Lanka 1988; water schemes in Greece and Turkey 1988; Akashat scheme in Iraq 1989; El Nasr Co. in Egypt 1991; water valve equipment in Singapore 1991; Larnaca scheme, Cyprus 1992; the Great Cairo wastewater scheme 1992; and water project in Ghana 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Of the projects listed, the following have been supported from the United Kingdom aid programme:

  Project

  Overall commitment £ million

  Canal project, Rahimyakham, Pakistan

  10·77

  Hill country water scheme, Sri Lanka

  2·13

  Water schemes, Turkey

  1·13

  Greater Cairo waste water scheme, Egypt

  69·14

  Two regions water rehabilitation project, Ghana

  11·39

  Uganda water projects (three)

  0·07

  635

  Child Mortality Rates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on(a) the child mortality rates and (b) the average life expectancy of inhabitants of (i) El Salvador, (ii) Nepal, (iii) Paraguay, (iv) Benin, (v) Togo, (vi) Sierra Leone, (vii) Mauritius, (viii) Burundi, (ix) Rwanda, (x) Haiti, (xi) Chad, (xii) Albania, (xiii) Barbados, (xiv) Malta, (xv) Botswana, (xvi) Ukraine, (xvii) The Gambia and (xviii) Mongolia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The latest information we have on child mortality and average life expectancy rates in the countries listed, based on data contained in the World Bank Atlas 1994, is as follows:

  Country

  Infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) as at 1992

  Average life expectancy at birth (years) as at 1992

  El Salvador

  46

  66

  Nepal

  99

  54

  Paraguay

  47

  67

  Benin

  110

  51

  Togo

  85

  54

  Sierra Leone

  143

  43

  Mauritius

  18

  70

  Burundi

  106

  48

  Rwanda

  110

  46

  Haiti

  93

  55

  Chad

  122

  47

  Albania

  28

  73

  Barbados

  10

  75

  Malta

  10

  76

  Botswana

  35

  68

  Ukraine

  18

  70

  The Gambia

  142

  45

  Mongolia

  60

  64

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding the proposal to build an airstrip on St. Helena.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am aware of a proposal for the construction of an airfield on St. Helena and the subsequent introduction of an air service to the islands. While this could bring benefits to the island's economy, it would also be costly.

  The Government of St. Helena has not so far approached Her Majesty's Government about this matter. Should we receive such an approach, we will consider it very carefully.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax Charges
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of. the Exchequer what were the average annual VAT charges incurred by(a) people with a disability and (b) people with no disability for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Estimates are not readily available on VAT incurred by people with a disability.
  636

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures of tiger products or material containing tiger products have been made by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the last three years.

  Sir John Cope
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise made seizures apparently of such a kind over the period as follows:

  Tiger skin—1 whole, 1 piece, 1 handbag and 1 pair of shoes.

  Tincture of tiger bone—2 bottles.

  Tiger bone plaster—43 packets and 30 strips.

  Tiger bone pills—51 boxes and 420 tablets.

  Tiger bone medicine—1 package and 3 sachets.

  Tiger claws—2.

  Liquor Duty
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the balance of payments and Treasury receipts resulting from lower liquor duties in mainland Europe.

  Sir John Cope
  The effect of cross-border shopping on the balance of payments is difficult to assess. It takes place for a variety of reasons. Duty differentials encourage personal imports, but are only one factor. Duty free shopping arrangements are another. The overall effect on the balance of payments will depend on where cross-border shopping is taking place and the country of origin of the product purchased as well as the amounts purchased. Receipts of duty on alcoholic drink held up well in 1993.

  Taxation
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for each of a single person, a single-wage married couple and a single-wage couple with two children, showing the percentages of earnings taken in(a) income tax, (b) national insurance contribution, (c) VAT, (d) local authority rates/community charge and (e) other indirect taxation, at 75 per cent., 100 per cent. and 150 per cent. of average male manual earnings, in 1979–80, 1989–90 and the latest year for which such figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information available is given in the tables.

  Percentage of gross earnings paid in direct taxes in 1979–80

  Multiples of average male manual earnings

  ¾

  1

  1½

  Single

  Income tax

  20·2

  22·6

  25·1

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  5·8

  Married, no children

  income tax

  15·2

  18·9

  22·6

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  5·8

  Married, two children

  Income tax

  4·7

  11·0

  17·3

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  5·8

  Percentage of gross earnings paid in direct taxes in 1989–90

  Multiples of average male manual earnings

  ¾

  1

  1½

  Single

  Income tax

  17·1

  19·1

  21·0

  NICs

  8·1

  8·3

  8·2

  637

  Multiples of average male manual earnings

  ¾

  1

  1½

  Married, no children

  Income tax

  12·6

  15·7

  18·8

  NICs

  8·1

  8·3

  8·2

  Married, two children

  Income tax

  4·0

  9·2

  14·5

  NICs

  8·1

  8·3

  8·2

  Percentage of gross earnings paid in direct taxes in 1993–94

  Multiples of average male manual earnings

  ¾

  1

  1½

  Single

  Income tax

  16·0

  18·3

  20·5

  NICs

  7·1

  7·6

  8·0

  Married, no children

  Income tax

  12·1

  15·3

  18·6

  NICs

  7·1

  7·6

  8·0

  Married, two children

  Income tax

  3·5

  8·9

  14·3

  NICs

  7·1

  7·6

  8·0

  Notes to tables.

  1Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in-rate.

  2 In order to provide comparability with 178–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  3. Average male manual earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time manual males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Average male manual earnings stood at £101·10 in 1979–80 and £225·60 in 1989–90. They are assumed, on the basis of an illustrative assumption of 3·5 per cent growth in 1993–94, to be £281·50 in 1993–94.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Treasury in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 of tax expenditures and structural reliefs; and what specific changes in this cost will be brought about by the changes announced in his last Budget.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimate of the cost of tax expenditures and structural reliefs, which are for 1993–94, were published in a Treasury booklet "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" in July 1993. A copy of this was placed in the Library. Preliminary estimates for 1994–95 will be published later this year.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's tax policies on the economic well-being of people on low incomes and below the pension age.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 3 March at column 880.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) of 21 March,Official Report, column 22, if he will set out the reasons for the unavailability of the information on arms exports requested.
  638
  Mr. Nelson
  The question to which the hon. Member refers asked for the proportion of gross domestic product derived from the sale of armaments. This information cannot be supplied as the term "armaments" is not defined in the classifications used for national accounts purposes. The value of exports of defence equipment can be estimated from overseas trade statistics and is published in table 1.11 of "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the Exchequer of the loss in value immediately after the withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism of the sterling purchased by the Bank of England two weeks prior to United Kingdom withdrawal.

  Mr. Nelson
  For good reasons of market management, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish intervention figures. Whether or not intervention results in a profit or loss depends on a number of factors, including the cost at which foreign currency assets are bought and sold, and the rate at which reserves are rebuilt and foreign currency borrowing is repaid. No unambiguous estimate can therefore be made of any profit or loss arising from intervention.

  Royal Yacht
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to Customs and Excise of hiring the royal yacht for a reception; who was invited; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  According to records going back to 1980, Customs and Excise have made no use or application for use of the royal yacht.

  Brian Charrington
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance will be given by his Department to the investigation by Thames Valley police into the conduct of the Brian Charrington case by Cleveland police force.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise will co-operate fully with the Thames Valley police inquiry team.

  Inland Revenue Adjudicator
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases the Inland Revenue adjudicator has dealt with since being established; and how many cases have been adjudicated in favour of the complainant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since the adjudicator took up appointment on 1 July 1993, she has completed 98 investigations. She has found wholly or partly in favour of the complainant in 63 cases.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95 of raising the threshold for capital gains tax to £5,800.
  639
  Mr. Dorrell
  The capital gains tax annual exempt amount was increased in 1992–93 to £5,800 in line with the statutory indexation formula. Therefore there was no cost to the Exchequer measured against an indexed base.

  Taxation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has further to reduce tax evasion; if he will make it his policy to abolish the road fund licence and recoup the lost revenue from additional petrol duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The Government devote substantial resources to tackling tax evasion.

  We have no plans to abolish vehicle excise duty and recoup the lost revenue from additional petrol duty. I also refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 9 February 1994 at col. 248.

  Mr. Christopher Thompson
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to review the case of Mr. Christopher Thompson of 18 Bootham terrace, York, in relation to the treatment by Customs and Excise of his VAT liabilities and those of his competitors;

  (2) what account he has taken in considering the case of Mr. Christopher Thompson of 18 Bootham terrace, York, in the past of Mr. Thompson's affidavit about competitors' tax affairs and the reported inaccuracy of advertisements for their services.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: None. His complaints, which relate to events before and during 1979, have been reviewed carefully over the last 15 years by Customs and Excise, by Ministers and by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and full account has been taken of all the many thousands of documents that Mr. Thompson has sent, both direct to customs and via Members of Parliament and others.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 567, if value added tax would be applied to standing charges for electricity and gas if billed separately.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Separate billing of standing charges for electricity or gas would not affect the VAT liability of these charges. They remain part of the consideration for a single supply of fuel and power. Were they to be viewed otherwise, they would now be liable to VAT at the standard rate.

  Nurse Training Courses (VAT)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he is giving health trusts about value added tax exemption for essential training courses for nursing staff who are converting from state enrolled nurse to state registered nurse.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: None. There is no VAT on in-house training. Nursing training provided by external suppliers is exempt.
  640

  Lower Earnings Limit
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level the national insurance lower earnings limit has been set in each year since 1989(a) in money terms and (b) at 1994 prices.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  Because the lower earnings limit has moved broadly in line with the increase in prices, the value of the limits applying since 1989 at 1994 prices will be approximately £57, that is the limit for 1994–95. The cash value of the limits requested is in the table.

  Year

  Cash LEL £ per week

  1989–90

  43

  1990–91

  46

  1991–92

  52

  1992–93

  54

  1993–94

  56

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Aircraft Trade Agreement
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the time scale for completion of negotiations on the aerospace part of the GATT negotiations postponed from December 1993.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Members of the GATT civil aircraft committee reached an agreement on 14 December 1993 that negotiations on a new GATT agreement on trade in civil aircraft would continue for a further year, ending in December 1994.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish tables showing the number of sub-agency and Crown status post offices in each English region, Wales and Northern Ireland in each year since 1989; how many of each category of post office in each case opened or closed in each year since 1989; and how many changed status.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The number of directly operated main post offices, other main post offices and sub post offices in operation in each of the years from March 1989 to February 1994 are shown in tables 1 to 6 by current Post Office Counters English regions, and with Northern Ireland and Wales shown separately. Because of administrative boundary changes during the period, the historic apportionment between regions is a best estimate. Figures of sub office closures and openings are available from March 1993 only and are shown in table 7; for 1992–93 they are available only at disproportionate cost, and are not available for earlier years. The number of Crown post office conversions is shown on a cumulative basis in the column "other main post offices", with openings and closures not linked to Crown office conversions shown separately for each year.
  641

  Table 1

  Regional breakdown of offices—March 1989

  Post Office Counters Regions

  Directly Operated Main Post Offices

  Other Main Post Offices

  Sub Offices

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  28

  0

  663

  691

  Wales

  109

  0

  1,995

  2,104

  North East

  131

  0

  2,836

  2,967

  North West

  147

  0

  1,863

  2,010

  Midlands

  137

  0

  2,247

  2,384

  South West

  139

  0

  2,449

  2,588

  North Thames/East Anglia

  346

  0

  3,072

  3,418

  South East

  263

  0

  2,219

  2,482

  Total

  1,300

  0

  17,344

  18,644

  Table 2

  Regional breakdown of offices—March 1990

  Post Office Counters Regions

  Directly Operated Main Post Offices

  Other Main Post Offices

  Sub Offices

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  11

  24

  3

  657

  684

  Wales

  94

  15

  1,978

  2,087

  North East

  113

  18

  2,801

  2,932

  North West

  128

  19

  1,856

  2,003

  Midlands

  11

  120

  17

  2,220

  2,357

  South West

  127

  12

  2,397

  2,536

  North Thames/East Anglia

  323

  22

  3,043

  3,388

  South East

  248

  15

  2,184

  2,447

  Total

  1,177

  121

  17,136

  18,434

  1 Two main offices closed.

  Table 3

  Regional breakdown of offices—March 1991

  Post Office Counters Regions

  Directly operated main post offices

  Other main post offices

  Sub-offices

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  24

  3

  647

  674

  Wales

  11

  78

  30

  1,949

  2,057

  North East

  12

  92

  38

  2,766

  2,896

  North West

  11

  111

  35

  1,834

  1,980

  Midlands

  11

  107

  21

  29

  2,192

  2,328

  South West

  12

  21

  111

  27

  2,335

  2,473

  North Thames/East Anglia

  12

  293

  50

  2,987

  3,330

  South East

  218

  45

  2,150

  2,413

  Total

  1,034

  257

  16,860

  18,151

  1Nine main offices closed.

  2Two new main offices opened.

  Table 4

  Regional breakdown of offices—March 1992

  Post Office Counters Regions

  Directly operated main post offices

  Other main post offices

  Sub-offices

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  22

  5

  648

  675

  Wales

  67

  40

  1,897

  2,004

  North East

  11

  83

  23

  48

  2,742

  2,873

  North West

  103

  43

  1,824

  1,970

  Midlands

  11

  93

  42

  2,187

  2,322

  South West

  12

  98

  40

  2,309

  2,447

  North Thames/East Anglia

  262

  21

  83

  2,987

  3,332

  South East

  192

  70

  2,130

  2,392

  Total

  920

  371

  16,724

  18,015

  11 Four main offices closed.

  11 Four new main offices opened.

  642

  643

  Table 5

  Regional breakdown of offices—March 1993

  Post Office counters regions

  Directly operated main post offices

  Other main post offices

  Sub offices

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  21

  6

  652

  679

  Wales

  59

  49

  1,878

  1,986

  North East

  73

  22

  61

  2,701

  2,835

  North West

  1221

  96

  49

  1,816

  1,961

  Midlands

  78

  56

  2,156

  2,290

  South West

  87

  22

  ..

  51

  2,259

  2,397

  North Thames/East Anglia

  1321

  233

  22

  102

  2,961

  3,296

  South East

  187

  22

  ..

  87

  2,105

  2,379

  Total

  834

  461

  16,528

  17,823

  1 Five main offices closed.

  2 Nine new main offices opened.

  Table 6

  Regional breakdown of offices—February 1994

  Post office counters regions

  Directly operated main post offices

  Other main post offices

  Sub offices

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  19

  8

  650

  677

  Wales

  54

  54

  1,865

  1,973

  North East

  70

  65

  2,668

  2,803

  North West

  89

  56

  1,805

  1,950

  Midlands

  65

  65

  2,073

  2,203

  South West

  80

  58

  2,253

  2,391

  North Thames/East Anglia

  224

  12

  117

  2,974

  3,315

  South East

  172

  11

  103

  2,105

  2,380

  Total

  773

  526

  16,393

  17,692

  1 Three new main offices opened.

  Table 7

  Regional breakdown of changes to sub-offices—March 1993—February 1994

  Post office counters regions

  Net closures of sub-offices

  Conversions to main offices

  New sub-offices

  Net reduction

  Northern Ireland

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Wales

  13

  —

  —

  13

  North East

  32

  —

  —

  33

  North West

  10

  1

  —

  11

  Midlands

  83

  —

  —

  83

  South West

  10

  —

  4

  6

  North Thames/East Anglia

  1-10

  —

  3

  —13

  South East

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  140

  2

  7

  135

  1 This figure relates to re-opening of sub-offices which have previously been temporarily closed.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) of 8 March,Official Report, columns 204–5, how regional challenge and the envisaged competition between local deprived communities in a locality will help to achieve sustainable regeneration; what is meant by the term "Community support framework areas"; and if he will place in the Library, information regarding the rules of this competition and how bids will be judged.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Regional challenge, an alternative method of selecting projects for European regional development fund grant, will improve the use of this fund for sustainable regeneration because the competition will 644
  stimulate better applications, which should involve the co-operative participation of appropriate authorities and bodies and the private sector.

  Detailed rules will be published in due course.

  The community support framework areas in England will be:

  Objective 1

  Merseyside

  Objective 2

  North East

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire

  Greater London

  West Cumbria

  Thanet

  Plymouth

  Objective 5(b)

  South West

  645

  Shropshire/Herefordshire/Worcestershire (the Marches)

  Staffordshire/Derbyshire (Midlands Uplands)

  Northern Uplands

  Lincolnshire

  East Anglia

  I do not intend to include west Cumbria, Thanet and Plymouth in the first regional challenge competitions.

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the total money spent, (b) the percentage of that money allocated according to decisions made by Ministers on competitive bids and (c) the percentage of that money allocated according to some statistical measure of need in the last available operational year of the regional enterprise grants.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the 1992–93 financial year payments of regional enterprise grants in England totalled £5.7 million. The other questions are not applicable to this scheme.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much public money was invested in the Rover Group from 1977 to privatisation; and what is his estimate of the replacement cost of the assets sold by British Aerospace to BMW.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Between 1975, when the Government took a majority shareholding in the company that became British Leyland, and of which Rover was part, until privatisation, some £3·5 billion was invested in BL in the form of grants, loans and equity.

  The group last made profits, after tax, on ordinary activities in the 1975–76 financial year. By 1988, Rover's accumulated losses amounted to £1,600 million.

  We are not in a position to estimate the replacement cost of the assets sold by British Aerospace to BMW.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the]Board of Trade whether he will ensure that the forthcoming White Paper on competitiveness will include an analysis of United Kingdom and world exports of manufactures since 1979 similar to that in the article published in the 18 November 1966 issue of the Board of Trade journal.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The White Paper on competitiveness will be presented to the House later in the year.

  Charter Markets
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many charter markets he had visited in his official capacity prior to publication of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have not visited a charter market in an official capacity.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of United Kingdom overseas investment in 1979; what it was in 1993; and what was the percentage increase.
  646
  Mr. Heseltine
  The level of United Kingdom overseas investment was £5·9 billion in 1979 and £16·9 billion in 1993. This represents a percentage increase of 186 per cent.

  Tobacco Companies (Grants)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many regional selective assistance grants were given to tobacco companies in the United Kingdom in each year since 1989–90; and if he will list the companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No regional selective assistance grants have been given to tobacco companies in the United Kingdom since 1989–90. Reference to "regional selective assistance grants" in answer to an earlier question from the hon. Lady on 1 February 1994,Official Report, column 613, should have read "selective financial assistance to industry". This assistance is available to companies in Northern Ireland only under the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and the Employment and Training (Northern Ireland) Act 1950.

  Arms Exports (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what type, quantity and value of arms have been exported to south-east Asia by Britain for each year since 1985; and what proportion of sales in that region have gone to Indonesia.

  Mr. Heseltine
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries.

  Trade and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the draft work programme on trade and the environment, recently agreed in Geneva, for the general agreement on tariffs and trade and World Trade Organisation meeting in Marrakesh.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have today placed a copy of the draft ministerial decision on trade and environment in the Library of the House.

  Concorde
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the life expectancy of Concorde.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of Trade and Industry has made no such assessment.

  Legislation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish compliance cost assessments of the burden on businesses of legislation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Government publish compliance cost assessments with all proposals for United Kingdom and EC legislation that have an impact on business. The arrangements for publishing CCAs for proposed domestic legislation were set out in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 19 October,Official Report, column

  647
  202. The arrangements for publishing the assessments for proposed EC legislation were set out in the written answer by my right hon. Friend the Lord President to the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 19 July, Official Report, column 24.

  Local Business Partnerships
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the 18 pilot local business partnerships set up by his Department's deregulation unit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The 18 pilot local business partnerships, established by local authorities and the business community with the help of my Department, are located at:Kent county council, Tunbridge Wells borough council, Suffolk county council, Ipswich borough council, Nottinghamshire county council, Gedling district council, Barnsley metropolitan borough council, London borough of Hounslow, South Ribble borough council, West Sussex county council, East Sussex county council, Cardiff city council, Warwickshire county council, Hertfordshire county council, Oxfordshire county council, Hereford and Worcester county council, Berkshire county council and Lewes district council.

  In addition to these 18 pilot partnerships, a new partnership has been established at Hastings borough council and I understand that launches for new partnerships are already planned this year by Gloucestershire county council, Essex county council and Rother and Wealden district councils.

  I am keen to encourage the creation of other partnerships and to this end hosted a series of regional seminars in late-1993 to help promote them. The response to these seminars was encouraging and officials in my Department's deregulation unit are planning a number of initiatives to follow up on the many expressions of interest.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1993 the Department of Trade and Industry made 887 public appointments. Of these, 0·34 per cent. were Asian appointments, 0·34 per cent. black appointments and 0·12 per cent. other ethnic origin appointments.

  Names cannot be provided as ethnic origin information was obtained in confidence from those concerned.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Eggar
  The required information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent 648
  information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Such consultations are made in accordance with the "Guide to Public Appointments Procedures".

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons;

  (2) what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not hold information on the political affiliations of public appointees or potential public appointees. Appointments are made on the basis of the person judged best for the job; political affiliation is not a factor.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Between 1 March 1993 and 28 February 1994, Department of Trade and Industry Ministers referred 31 parliamentary questions to chief executives of my Department's agencies for reply. They represent 1·1 per cent. of the total of 2,812 written questions answered by my Department during that period.

  RECHAR Programme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the projects and their costs covered by the RECHAR programme to date in(a) the Doncaster area and (b) the rest of south Yorkshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  To date, in Doncaster, 25 infrastructure projects have attracted RECHAR funding of £6,872,236 out of a total South Yorkshire programme of £18,575,176. In addition £8,621,016 has been allocated to 73 business support projects. Although not specific to Doncaster, the projects cover a wide area of South Yorkshire and are all available to companies in Doncaster. I have today placed copies of the list of projects in the Library of the House.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what major building projects valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1989 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Regional selective assistance grants can be offered in support of investment projects which
  649
  create or maintain jobs. While the details concerned are commercially confidential, five projects involving building costs of over £1 million have received RSA offers since 1 April 1989, as shown in the table.

  In addition, English Estates has been undertaking building and development activities in these areas supported in part by grant aid from the Department.

  Number of projects

  Total project costs £ million

  Building costs £ million

  Grant £ million

  5

  81·6

  15·7

  8·55

  European Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of European imports to the Yorkshire and Humberside region are transported directly by(a) sea and (b) air (i) currently, (ii) five years ago and (iii) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no data on the level of European imports into the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  BS 5750
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue guidelines on the issuing of quality management systems equivalent to BS 5750 by both certifying bodies and consultants who themselves have not been approved in particular industrial sectors in which they are offering their services by the National Accreditation Council for Certifications Bodies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Certification to BS 5750 and the accreditation of certification bodies are commercial decisions for the parties concerned. I recognise that accreditation provides confidence in certification services. My Department does, therefore, encourage certification bodies to seek accreditation and individual companies to use the services of accredited certification bodies. This is reflected in the current edition of the DTI QA register which now lists only accredited certification bodies.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been made under the statutory security provisions for sites occupied by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or which require permits under section 2 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Mr. Eggar
  Sites belonging to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and those where enrichment or reprocessing operations take place are subject to special statutory security provisions. These are designed principally:

  (a)to protect information about and restrict access to enrichment technology, which could be misused for the purposes of nuclear weapons proliferation. The House recognised the importance of this last year in passing the Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 1993; and

  (b)to protect information about and restrict access to facilities, where this is desirable for the safekeeping of plutonium and other fissile materials.

  650
  Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 as amended, sites, other than those of the UKAEA, require a permit for reprocessing or enrichment. Sites to which permits apply and those of the UKAEA can be made prohibited places for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

  Work undertaken last year identified that the current list of nuclear prohibited places ought to be updated generally, including to align with current site boundaries. New permits have been issued for Sellafield and Capenhurst and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday made a new prohibited places order.

  This order significantly reduces the number of places that are prohibited. Current or past UKAEA sites at Risley and Culcheth, and in London at Rex house and 11 Charles II street have been dropped. The small part of the Sellafield site managed by the UKAEA, which had been omitted from the previous order, has been added to the Sellafield prohibited place. Land has also been added as a result of aligning the permit with the current Sellafield site boundary. The UKAEA sites at Harwell and Dounreay remain prohibited places in the latter case under a separate order.

  The new arrangements will ensure that at Sellafield and Capenhurst, the entire site within the security fence is a prohibited place and that this will remain the case following any transfers of land between British Nuclear Fuels plc and UKAEA at Sellafield or BNFL and Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. at Capenhurst. The areas of land affected are defined by the permits; copies of these, together with proof copies of the prohibited places order, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Diamonds (Angola)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to consult his counterparts in the European Union on the question of formulating cross-frontier measures to prevent the importation of diamonds traded by, and on behalf of, the UNITA organisation in Angola;

  (2) what plans he has to take measures to prevent Angolan diamonds, stolen and traded by UNITA, being imported and marketed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no such plans. There is no reliable way of identifying the geographical origin of diamonds imported into the United Kingdom. Technically, it is seldom possible to do so and the channels of distribution are also varied and complex. It would be impractical to track the origin and provenance, legal or otherwise, of individual stones. Nor, for the same reasons, would it be practicable to seek a Community-wide restriction.

  Coal Industry Privatisation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are in place to ensure that potential purchasers of British Coal's mining assets are given equal access to relevant information about the five mining businesses being offered for sale by the Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government attach importance to ensuring that no potential purchasers are given preferential access to the relevant information. I expect in the coming weeks to clarify the basis on which the Government will be making information available.
  651
  British Coal has issued instructions which govern the conduct of all corporation employees during the privatisation period. These instructions set out, among other things, the consents which managers are required to obtain before they can participate in any buy-out bid, and the undertakings which they are obliged to give as a condition of such consents. British Coal has equally introduced detailed arrangements which seek to prevent the unauthorised disclosure by corporation employees of information which might impede the privatisation process. These measures are designed to provide effective safeguards against the possibility of conflicts of interest on the part of British Coal staff who may be authorised to participate in management and employee buy-outs. British Coal will also put in place specific additional measures in the case of individual MEBO participants where necessary.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what budget provision is planned for the financial year 1994–95 to commission consultants to provide advice on the restructuring and privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Provision of £11.7 million for consultants costs has been included in the 1994–95 Main Supply Estimates, HC 3.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the value of capital allowances to be transferred to licensed operators under schedule 4 to the Coal Industry Bill.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The Coal Industry Bill provides a mechanism for the transfer of capital allowances from British Coal Corporation to successor companies. No firm estimate of the value of such allowances has yet been made.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for the year 1993 as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Yes. The tenth report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1993. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Post Office (Damaged Letters)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many incidents have been reported by the Post Office of letters and small packages being(a) irrecoverably damaged and (b) damaged but recoverably so by the new mark 1, 2 and 3 GT 4000 machines in use in some sorting offices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: I understand from the Post Office that it does not use any sorting machines designated as GT 4000 but that Royal Mail currently operates 185 NP 4000 sorting machines. Incidents of damage to mail during sorting processes are not recorded centrally by Royal Mail.
  652

  Consorzio Ital Offshore
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the proposed visit by Offshore Supplies Office officials to the Sicilian fabrication site, Consorzio Ital Offshore.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: In the course of discussions between British consulate officials and the Consorzio Ital Offshore, an invitation was extended to OSO to visit CIO's fabrication site in Sicily.

  Apparently following adverse comment in the United Kingdom press the invitation to visit the site was withdrawn.

  Tobacco Companies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the tobacco companies that have received regional selective assistance grants in each year since 1990; and for what purpose each grant was given.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: Payment of selective assistance to individual companies is confidential to those companies.

  British Coal (Assets)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the total investment by British Coal over the most recent five-year period at those collieries and opencast sites currently in operation;

  (2) what is the total value of capital allowances outstanding against corporation tax on British Coal in respect of assets of collieries and opencast sites currently in operation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answers 28 March 1994]: These are matters for British Coal.

ENVIRONMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the last five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information in answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Gummer
  I answer parliamentary questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I also seek to comply with the Speaker's guidance on the need for brief answers to oral questions.

  Malaysian Airlines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates Ministers, or officials from his Department, including his Department's agencies, have used the Malaysian airline MAS for each year since 1985 including this year to date on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is not available.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what major building projects valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed
  653
  since 1989 in (a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following major building projects valued at over £1 million have been or are being funded wholly or partly by my Department since 1989 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield. This excludes major reclamation schemes funded through derelict land grant.

  Cost to the department £'000

  Doncaster

  Estate Action

  Stainforth Estate, Phases 1–3

  9,120

  City Challenge (Dearne Valley)

  Mexborough Business Centre

  1,197

  Dearne Valley Business School

  799

  Denaby Crags

  2,038

  Earth Centre

  444

  4,478

  Urban Programme

  Mexborough Business Centre

  463

  Barnsley

  City Grant

  Hoyle Mill/Pontefract Road

  492

  Rockingham Business Park, Birdwell Ph I and II

  738

  Wombwell Industrial Estate

  2,149

  Wath Road, Wombwell

  2,533

  Redbrook Business Park

  559

  Station Road, Wombwell

  163

  6,634

  Estate Action

  Cloughfields Estate, Phase 2

  1,320

  Kendray Estate, Phases 1 and 2

  2,385

  Lundwood Estate

  3,550

  Athersley North Estate, Phases 1–3

  8,225

  15,480

  City Challenge (Dearne Valley)

  Elsecar Heritage Centre

  1,545

  St. Hilda's

  680

  Thurnscoe East

  687

  2,912

  City Challenge (Barnsley NE Corridor)

  Priory Campus

  2,610

  Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre

  750

  Cundy Cross

  2,416

  5,776

  Urban Programme

  Elsecar Heritage Centre

  657

  Grimethorpe Workshops

  540

  Thurnscoe Factory/Workshops

  2,354

  3,551

  Rotherham

  City Grant

  Cortonwood

  10,230

  Rodger Street

  170

  Phoenix Business Park

  436

  Kilnhurst Business Park

  385

  11,221

  654

  Cost to the department £'000

  Estate Action

  Canklow Community Refurbishment Scheme

  1,964

  City Challenge (Dearne Valley)

  Technology Transfer Centre

  1,789

  Swinton Patio

  3,000

  4,789

  Urban Partnership Fund

  Rotherham Engineering and Computing Technology Centre

  685

  Wakefield

  Estate Action

  Smirthwaite Estate

  838

  Kershaw Avenue, Airedale Estate

  2,057

  Dacre Avenue, Lupset

  1,574

  4,469

  Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) hospitals in use, (b) redundant hospitals and (c) converted or redeveloped hospitals there are on green-belt land.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available centrally. Planning guidelines on redundant hospital sites in the green belt are contained in DOE circular 12/91.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the proposals under consideration by the European Parliament and European Commission to halve the pollution emissions from cars.

  Mr. Atkins
  The European Parliament at its March plenary meeting rejected proposed amendments to the latest directive on vehicle emissions which called specifically for the halving of pollution emissions from cars. The Council of Environment Ministers therefore adopted this directive, further amending directive 70/220/EEC, on 24 March, taking account of the European Parliament's views. In addition to specifying new tighter standards, the latest directive also calls for the European Commission to bring forward by the end of this year further proposals to reduce emissions from cars.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rights those who are waiting assessment as to whether they are unintentionally homeless will have under the citizens charter in respect of(a) the time such an assessment should take and (b) temporary assistance pending assessment under his proposed legislation.

  Sir George Young
  When reaching the final decisions following our consideration of the responses to the consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies", we will take full account of the principles of the citizens charter.
  655
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library(a) the original advice memo given to James Gray advising Ministers on how to use the political network to rebut criticisms of the Government's homelessness consultation paper and (b) the revised guidelines reissued by Richard Wilson to his staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. I am also placing in the Library a copy of the press release issued by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, on 24 February commenting on Shelter's misleading and inaccurate statements on the Government's "Consultation Paper on Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies".

  Sefton Park Palm House
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funding will be available to enable the completion of the renovation of the Sefton Park palm house, Liverpool; and what timetable has been established for the completion of the work.

  Mr. Baldry
  The hon. Member will recall that urban programme funding of £0·254 million, was secured for a short-term rescue package to arrest further deterioration and make the structure safe and secure.

  These works were completed last summer. Their purpose, to secure the palm house for a maximum of seven years while proposals for its long-term use were developed, has been achieved. The consideration, by Liverpool city council, of the palm house's future, together with the wider issue of maximising the use of Sefton Park and its facilities, will need to be carried out as part of an overall tourism strategy.

  There will be opportunities, under both the single regeneration budget and objective 1, for projects developed in partnership with the private sector and the Community to be successful in a bid for funding. Obviously, I cannot judge whether such a partnership approach would be forthcoming in the case of Sefton Park palm house, nor can I say that if it did, such a bid would be successful.

  Housing
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds have been made available to the Liverpool city council during the past financial year for the modernisation of homes under the provisions of the mandatory house improvement grant system; whether all available funds were claimed; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The level of resources dedicated to house renovation grants is a matter for Liverpool city council to decide within the framework of its capital programme and available resources. A guideline figure of £9·9 million was included in the housing investment programme allocation for 1993–94. Liverpool claimed a total grant expenditure of £13·846 million and a supplementary credit approval for £3·558 million was issued last December.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how management and maintenance cost assumptions are calculated for the purpose of allocating housing revenue account subsidies.
  656
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Each housing authority is allocated an allowance for housing revenue account subsidy which reflects its relative need to spend on the management and maintenance of its dwellings. This allowance is based on the particular characteristics of the authority's stock, including the type, age and size of the dwellings, the proportion of flats to houses, the sparsity of the stock and its geographical location. Local authorities are consulted in advance about the details.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list local authority housing departments which have submitted successful housing investment programmes in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Sir George Young
  Under the housing investment programme process, all local housing authorities in England are invited each year to submit bids for capital resources for their housing programmes. Allocations are then announced in December. Lists showing the allocations for each authority in 1991–92 and 1992–93 are available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the allocation of resources to local authorities under his Department's housing partnership fund for 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  A list of the resources being allocated to local authorities under the housing partnership fund for 1994–95 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of changes in housing association grant on housing association rent levels.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The relationship between the Government's decisions on changes in housing association grant rates and the rent levels determined by housing associations for their new properties is not direct. The implications for rents of a change in the grant rate will depend on the costs of construction and borrowing, as well as on an association's management and other costs.

  Reductions in average grant rates from 80 per cent in 1990–91 to a ceiling of 62 per cent. for 1994–95 have reflected a considerable reduction in procurement costs across the period. Housing associations have also been able to reduce the rents they would otherwise need to charge on new properties by their ability to pool rents across their stock and to make efficiency savings.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on fire safety in large open-plan single-storey buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: I have received representations about the safety of both firefighters and the occupants of large single-storey buildings, and about the effect of fires in such buildings on fire service resources, contamination of the environment,

  657
  loss of property and disruption to the life of local communities. I have also met representatives of the fire service, the Loss Prevention Council and the Institute of Building Control. A scrutiny team is currently looking at fire safety issues, as announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 17 January, Official Report, column 381. In the light of their findings, and of the representations made to me, I shall consider whether any changes should be made to the relevant part of the building regulations.

  Countryside Organisations
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs of reorganising the Countryside Commission for England and Wales, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The estimated total cost of the reorganisation of the conservation agencies in 1991–92 was £9·18 million, excluding administrative costs within Government

  Part time

  Full time

  Total

  F

  M

  Total

  F

  M

  Total

  F

  M

  Total

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  7

  3

  4

  7

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  1

  3

  30

  33

  4

  30

  34

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  7

  0

  7

  7

  Grade 5

  5

  2

  7

  16

  117

  133

  21

  119

  140

  Grade 6

  4

  6

  10

  25

  287

  312

  29

  293

  322

  Grade 7

  31

  3

  34

  103

  651

  754

  134

  654

  788

  SEO and equivalent

  18

  5

  23

  125

  611

  736

  143

  616

  759

  HEO and equivalent

  49

  6

  55

  263

  661

  924

  312

  667

  979

  EO and equivalent

  53

  5

  58

  493

  693

  1,186

  546

  698

  1,244

  AO and equivalent

  140

  5

  145

  851

  573

  1,424

  991

  578

  1,569

  AA and equivalent

  99

  2

  101

  391

  240

  631

  490

  242

  732

  Total

  400

  34

  434

  2,273

  3,875

  6,148

  2,673

  3,909

  6,582

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 280, if he will list the number of contracts and their cost with management consultants in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total capital receipt from the sale of county hall in London; and if he will publish the amounts that have been paid to each London borough.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: I refer to my answer of 23 November, Official Report, column 17, in which I explained that the total capital receipt from the sale of county hall was a matter of commercial confidentiality. Under the terms of the London Government Reorganisation (Capital Money) (Greater London) (Amendment) Order 1993, the London residuary body distributed the following amounts, totalling £60 million, to the London boroughs and to the City of London:
  658
  disbursed across three Departments. The latter could only be supplied at disproportionate cost. In addition £1·4 million was provided in 1990–91 to cover the agencies initial costs. The direct implementation costs of merging the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland to form Scottish Natural Heritage incurred in 1991–92 were £118,000. This figure is exclusive of the administrative costs incurred by the Scottish Office Environment Department and the two existing agencies which could, again, be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female, (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department—excluding PSA services—as at 1 March 1994:

  £

  City of London

  45,373·34

  Camden

  1,681,516·01

  Greenwich

  1,808,561·84

  Hackney

  1,569,474·18

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,375,421·52

  Islington

  1,499,766·02

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,354,877·70

  Lambeth

  2,174,754·19

  Lewisham

  2,035,628·31

  Southwark

  1,904,780·74

  Tower Hamlets

  1,410,859·15

  Wandsworth

  2,279,922·50

  Westminster

  1,696,516·88

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,245,366·67

  Barnet

  2,654,118·04

  Bexley

  1,913,948·53

  Brent

  2,165,808·27

  Bromley

  2,637,789·90

  Croydon

  2,804,029·41

  Ealing

  2,522,823·09

  Enfield

  2,289,346·21

  Haringey

  1,815,070·93

  Harrow

  1,788,598·36

  Havering

  2,012,152·23

  Hillingdon

  2,073,971·23

  Hounslow

  1,817,964·77

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,237,042·62

  Merton

  1,512,659·01

  Newham

  1,833,105·05

  Redbridge

  2,002,535·88

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,473,820·06

  Sutton

  1,506,433·98

  659

  £

  Waltham Forest

  1,855,863·28

  Total

  60,000,000·00

  Valpak Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects that consultation on the Valpak scheme proposed by the packaging industry producer responsibility group will be completed; and if he will list those organisations which have been consulted.

  Mr. Atkins
  The producer responsibility industry group which represents 28 of the largest companies with interests in packaging has asked for comments on its proposals by 15 April. PRG has invited comments from all interested parties and I have asked them to send the hon. Member a list of those consulted.

  Single Regeneration Budgets
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 18 March,Official Report, column 863, by what means and when the recommendation of any senior regional director of single regeneration budgets will be publicised.

  Mr. Baldry
  The advice and recommendations from regional offices to Ministers about bids for the single regeneration budget will not be published. Ministers will reach final views on the bids in the light of these recommendations. Decisions will subsequently be published around the end of the year.

  Race Bank (Dredging)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if an environmental impact assessment complying with current European directives was carried out in relation to proposals to dredge sand from Race bank; and if he will place a copy of that assessment in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  An environmental statement was produced on behalf of the applicant by Posford Duvivier, and a copy will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the progress made during 1993 to extend CCT to white collar services and on the operation of CCT during the year.

  Mr. Baldry
  Last year, I was very pleased to witness the close co-operation of the local authority associations with the Department in developing the detailed proposals for the extension of CCT to local government professional services. During the year, I had to look into 122 cases where local authorities were alleged to have acted anti-competitively in tendering services, or where their direct services organisations failed to meet the required financial rate of return; and I had to take statutory follow-up action in 23 of these cases. But these figures indicated that the great majority of local authorities approach CCT positively and properly, to the benefit of their local taxpayers.
  660
  These are the themes which run through the "CCT in Local Government in England Annual Report" which my Department has published today. The report is the first of its kind. It describes the achievements of 1993, both on the work of extending CCT and in promoting fair competition amongst the current blue-collar services. The report also describes the research projects completed and initiated during the year.

  Copies of the report will be sent to all local authorities in England, and to the main trade associations and others involved with CCT. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has never purchased a Proton car.

  Derelict Sites
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers local authorities have to compel owners of derelict and unsightly sites in urban areas to improve their appearance.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local planning authorities may serve a notice on the owners and occupiers of land under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if it appears to them that its condition is adversely affecting the amenity of their area.

  Local authorities may also use their powers under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to improve land if they judge it to constitute a statutory nuisance.

  Children's Play Facilities
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest available annual figures for grants for children's play facilities; and if he will list in each case the size and location of the grant.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest forecast of expenditure under the urban programme in 1993–94 includes £3,042,000 for children's play facilities. Figures for individual grants are not available centrally. In addition, my Department provides local authorities with revenue support grant which they may use to fund such facilities. The total amount of revenue support grant for England and its distribution among local authorities are set out in the "Local Government Finance Report (England) 1994–95" and the accompanying exemplifications, which were placed in the Library of the House on 27 January 1994.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of the CAP(a) to the United Kingdom and (b) to the EC in each year since 1990; and what are her estimates for 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is contained in chapter 4 of the 1994 departmental report by the Ministry of
  661
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board, a copy of which was deposited in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the CAP budget was spent on(a) set-aside and (b) environmental protection measures other than set-aside in each year since 1990; and what is her estimate for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on expenditure on set-aside and on the CAP as a whole from 1990 to 1992 is available from the annual financial reports of the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, copies of which were lodged in the Library of the House of Commons. Until the end of 1992, agri-environment measures were not financed from the CAP budget—that is, the EAGGF guarantee section—but rather from the guidance section. It is not possible to identify expenditure on these measures under the guidance section. For 1993, expenditure on set-aside and on agri-environment measures accounted for 1·2 per cent. and 0·5 per cent., respectively, of total CAP expenditure. The latest official estimates suggest that the corresponding figures for 1994 will be 4·5 per cent. and 1·5 per cent. We have no estimates of the future proportions as EC budgets are set only one year in advance. The 1995 budget has not yet been set. EC agri-environment schemes, and set-aside outwith the arable area payments scheme, are co-financed by member states. The above figures do not include any nationally funded expenditure. EU-wide information on this is not available.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage of tobacco production in the EC in each year since 1990; what are her

  £/tonne

  Crop

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  11993–94

  Wheat

  105·33

  114·54

  115·82

  128·88

  106·07

  Barley

  107·20

  109·85

  107·29

  118·22

  106·38

  Oats

  102·81

  107·65

  105·82

  127·37

  118·39

  1 July to December only.

  Source: MAFF.

  Ex-farm cereal prices are influenced by a number of factors, including annual variations in the size and quality of the harvest both at home and abroad. It is therefore not possible to make a meaningful estimate of likely future prices.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of public appointments made by her Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if she will list their names.

  Mr. Jack
  So far as I am aware there were no Asian or black people appointed in 1993 to the public bodies sponsored by the Ministry and listed in "Public Bodies 1993".
  662
  estimates of tobacco production for the next three years showing, in each case, the amount (a) consumed in the EC and (b) exported, and indicating the main export markets.

  Mr. Jack
  European Commission figures show Community annual tobacco production since 1990 as follows:

  1990–419,953 tonnes

  1991–429,739 tonnes

  1992–408,451 tonnes

  1993–364,219 tonnes (latest estimate)

  As the revised regime, which came into force from the 1993 harvest, limits tobacco support to a maximum guaranteed quantity of 350,000 tonnes, production may fall in the next three years. Producers are also being encouraged to switch to more marketable varieties.

  EC consumption was estimated at around 670,000 tonnes in 1992, the latest year for which we have information. Consumption, over two thirds of which is met by imported supplies, in the next few years may depend more upon consumer demand than production.

  Exports to third countries were some 200,319 tonnes in 1992 of which half went to the United States of America, Egypt, Algeria, Japan and Switzerland and a fifth to eastern European countries. As part of the regime reform, export refunds have been abolished in all but exceptional circumstances. In the future exports may decline.

  Cereal Prices
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the harvest cereal prices for each year since 1990; and what is her estimate for these prices for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Jack
  During the crop years 1989–90 to 1992–93 and the first six months of 1993–94, average ex-farm prices for the principal cereal crops grown in the United Kingdom were as follows:

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the total number of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers in England in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures are from the June agricultural census for each year and incltide estimates for minor holdings not covered by the census.

  Number of farmers and farm workers on agricultural holdings as at June each year (thousands)

  Farmers1partners and directors

  Spouses2

  All other farm workers3

  1980

  196·4

  50·2

  277·2

  1981

  193·9

  50·4

  269·7

  1982

  192·1

  50·1

  267·9

  1983

  189·8

  50·7

  264·7

  663

  Farmers1 partners and directors

  Spouses2

  All other farm workers3

  1984

  190·1

  50·5

  257·1

  1985

  187·8

  51·6

  256·0

  1986

  187·4

  51·5

  249·5

  1987

  185·5

  51·2

  241·2

  1988

  183·5

  51·2

  235·2

  1989

  182·4

  50·7

  224·3

  1990

  181·9

  50·5

  223·5

  1991

  180·3

  49·6

  215·1

  1992

  181·5

  49·8

  208·8

  1993

  184·3

  49·8

  206·4

  1 Farmers are defined here as farmers, partners and directors working on farms and who describe themselves in the agricultural census returns. There can be more than one farmer, partner or director per farm.

  2 Spouses of farmers, partners or directors.

  3 Excluding school children but including trainees under an official scheme at agricultural wages board rates or above.

  Export and Slaughter Levy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans she has to withdraw the export levy on meat; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what plans she has to increase the slaughter levy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Meat and Livestock Commission is financed by levy which is collected on each animal at the time of slaughter or on export. There is no levy on exported meat. One of the recommendations of the recent review of the Meat and Livestock Commission was that the levy should be collected only at slaughter and not on export. Publication of the findings of the review was announced on 1 March and views have been invited by 1 June 1994.

  Dog Exports
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what provisions apply to the export of greyhounds;

  (2) what steps the Government are taking to enforce the Balai directive in so far as it relates to banning the export of dogs other than from registered centres.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The transport of greyhounds both within this country and for export is subject to the provisions of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992.

  Commercially traded greyhounds intended for export to EC member states are required to be accompanied by official health certification confirming that the animals comply with the animal health conditions laid down in the so-called "Balai" directive—92/65/EEC. In accordance with the directive, the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1993 (SI 3247) make it an offence to export commercially traded dogs to another member state unless the animals originate from a holding registered with the Agriculture Departments and the owner or person in charge of the holding has given the undertakings laid down in the directive. Enforcement of the regulations is the responsibility of local authorities.

  The health certification requirements for pet dogs, including pet greyhounds, exported to other EC member states and to third countries vary according to the import conditions laid down by the country of destination.
  664

  Sand Dredging
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if any other aggregate company has offered to supply for coastal protection work from existing licensed dredging areas;

  (2) if any other licensed dredging area is to be closed down as a condition of the Race bank licence.

  Mr. Jack
  The National Rivers Authority has invited tenders for supply of 1·2 million cu m of sand for nourishment of the beaches between Mablethorpe and Skegness. In this Ministry's contribution to the Government response to their licence application, I have specified that maximum possible use must be made of supplies from existing licensed areas before any material is removed from Race bank.

  The NRA currently has no licensed areas and could not therefore relinquish any in lieu of the Race bank.

  Whaling
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the Russian authorities on the killing by former Soviet whalers of blue whales; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom is well aware of recent reports of under-reporting by the former Soviet Union of catches of a number of species of whale, including the blue whale. At a recent intersessional meeting of the International Whaling Commission, the Russian delegation undertook, in response to a request from a number of delegations, to submit to the IWC comprehensive updated statistical data on the USSR's whale catches.

  The United Kingdom commissioner to the IWC has since written to the Russian authorities welcoming the contribution Russia made at this meeting and reaffirming the importance we attach to obtaining accurate information on past whale catches.

  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the last date on which the milk marketing board may submit a reorganisation scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have made a further order under section 2(7) of the Agriculture Act 1993. This defers the last date on which the England and Wales milk marketing board may apply under the Act for approval of a reorganisation scheme from 31 March 1994 to 30 June 1994.

  Animal Health
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the amount spent by her Department on research programmes on animal health and welfare in each year since 1985–86; and what is the intended expenditure for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of MAFF expenditure on animal health and welfare research since 1991–92 are given in the table. Prior to 1991–92 the data were not recorded in the required format and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.
  665

  Financial year

  £ million

  1991–92 actual

  19·9

  1992–93 actual

  20·4

  1993–94 estimate

  22·0

  1994–95 plans

  21·1

  1995–96 plans

  21·8

  1996–97 plans

  21·8

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Departments who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Sir John Wheeler
  District councils, professional organisations, employers' and employees' organisations, the Irish Government under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985, and other individuals and organisations as considered appropriate are consulted or informed about forthcoming appointments to public bodies.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested on racial origins of public appointments made is not held by the Northern Ireland Office, nor by the Northern Ireland Departments. However, details of ethnic minority appointments are contained in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of children attending nursery school in(a) the controlled sector, (b) the maintained sector and (c) the integrated sector in each of the five education and library boards; and what proportion of under-five-year-olds attend the above schools.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of children attending nursery schools in the controlled and maintained sector in each of the five education and library boards is as follows:

  Appointment

  Minister

  Salary

  Term of appointment

  Post holder

  Adviser on Minister's Agencies to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  1—

  Three years or usual terms

  Mr. Clayton Brendish

  Special Adviser to the Prime Minister CNo 10 Policy Unit)

  Prime Minister

  1—

  Usual terms

  Mr. Damian Green

  666

  Education and library board

  Controlled

  Maintained

  Total

  Belfast

  783

  693

  1,476

  Western

  670

  —

  670

  North-Eastern

  1,006

  120

  1,126

  South-Eastern

  756

  419

  1,175

  Southern

  663

  100

  763

  Total

  3,878

  1,332

  5,210

  There are no nursery schools in the integrated sector. The proportion of under-five-year-olds in nursery schools is 10·3 per cent.

  Slopping Out
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each prison in the Province where slopping out is still in practice; and if he will set out his plans, and the estimated date, for ending slopping out for each prison.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Slopping out takes place in three Northern Ireland prisons—Her Majesty's prison Belfast, Her Majesty's prison Maze and Her Majesty's prison Magilligan.

  The provision of en suite and in-cell sanitation facilities is a major element of an extensive refurbishment programme currently under way at Belfast prison. As the prison will have to remain operational, the programme of work will continue until 2000.

  While there are currently no firm plans for ending slopping out at Maze and Magilligan prisons, where periods of unlock are extensive, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is continuing to explore a range of options for providing prisoners with 24-hour access to sanitation facilities.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. David Davis
  In the departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote, the appointments are set out in the table.

  The table does not refer to appointments to the research councils, which will be restructured on 1 April 1994.1 shall write to the hon. Member with the details.

  My right hon. Friend is also responsible for the appointment of justices of the peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside and appoints several individuals to posts which have historical connections with the Duchy of Lancaster. These receive no remuneration.
  667

  Appointment

  Minister

  Salary

  Term of appointment

  Post holder

  Special Adviser to the Prime Minister (Head of No. 10 Policy Unit)

  Prime Minister

  1—

  Usual terms

  Mrs. Sarah Hogg

  Special Adviser to the Chief Whip

  Chief Whip

  1—

  Usual terms

  Miss Shana Hole

  Special Adviser to the Chief Whip

  Chief Whip

  1—

  Usual terms

  Miss Sophie McEwen

  Special (Expert) Adviser to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  1—

  Two years or usual terms

  Dr. John Nicholson

  Special Adviser to the Prime Minister (No. 10 Policy Unit)

  Prime Minister

  1—

  Until 31 July 1994 or usual terms

  Lord Poole

  Special Adviser to the Prime Minister (No. 10 Policy Unit)

  Prime Minister

  1—

  Usual terms

  Mrs. Katharine Ramsay

  Special Adviser to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  1—

  One year or usual terms

  Mr. David Rutley

  Special Adviser to the Prime Minister (Deputy Head of No. 10 Policy Unit)

  Prime Minister

  1—

  Usual terms

  Mr. Nick True

  Special Adviser to the Prime Minister

  Prime Minister

  1—

  Usual terms

  Miss Arabella Warburton

  Chairman of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 31 December 1994

  The Rt. Hon. the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, QC

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 31 October 1996

  The Lord Bridges, GCMG

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 13 March 1997

  Sir John Blelloch, KCB

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 8 March 1997

  The Rt. Hon. Peter Shore, MP

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 31 October 1995

  The Rt. Hon. the Lord Thomson of Monifieth, KT

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 31 July 1994

  Sir Trevor Holdsworth

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 31 July 1994

  Sir Charles Huxtable, KCB, CBE

  Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  Three years to 31 October 1994

  Sir Robin Ibbs, KBE

  Chairman of Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  2—

  Three years to 31 May 1995

  Lord Lloyd of Berwick

  Alternative Chairman of the Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  2—

  Three years to 31 January 1996

  Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, DBE

  Member of the Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  £198 per day

  Three years to 31 August 1994

  Sir John Blelloch, KCB

  Member of the Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  £198 per day

  Three years to 31 August 1994

  Lt-General Sir Derek Boorman, KCB

  Member of the Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  £198 per day

  Three years to 31 August 1994

  Sir Christopher Curwen, KCMG

  Member of the Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  £198 per day

  Three years to 31 January 1996

  Lord Tombs of Brailes

  Member of the Security Commission

  Prime Minister

  £198 per day

  Three years to 31 October 1995

  Lord Wright of Richmond

  Chairman of Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Prime Minister3

  Unpaid

  The current Administration

  Lord Pym, MC

  Member of Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Prime Minister3

  Unpaid

  The current Administration

  Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, CH

  Member of Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Prime Minister3

  Unpaid

  The current Administration

  Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT

  668 669

  Appointment

  Minister

  Salary

  Term of appointment

  Post holder

  Administrative Trustee to the Chequers Trust

  Prime Minister

  Unpaid

  First appointed in summer of 1970

  Sir Ralph Vemey, KBE

  Chairman of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £13,125 pa

  Two years

  Sir James Blyth, KT

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  One year

  Sir Christopher Bland

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  Two years

  Angela Heylin

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  Two years

  Baroness Perry

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  One year

  Dr. Madsen Pirie

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  Two years

  Nick Rawlings

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  One year

  Christopher Swan

  Member of the Prime Minister's Panel of Advisers on the Citizen's Charter

  Prime Minister

  £10,500 pa

  One year

  Lady Judith Wilcox

  Chairman of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  £5,000 pa

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Lady Wilcox

  Member of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Professor Judith Allsop

  Member of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Mrs. Rosemary Edwards

  Member of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Mrs. Ros Gardner

  Member of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Mrs. Elizabeth Hodder

  Member of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Mr. Colin Skeen

  Member of the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Two years (w.e.f. June 1993)

  Mr. David Way

  Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. Brian Nicholson

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mrs. Anne Ferguson, OBE

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. John Mellon

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. Charles Auld

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. Richard Spelman

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. Nick Phillips

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. Eric Nicoli

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mr. Howard Mann

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Unpaid

  Three years

  Mrs. Caroline Marland

  Chairman of the LINK Steering Group

  CDL and PBT4 5

  Unpaid

  Two years

  Dr. John Pamaby

  670 671

  Appointment

  Minister

  Salary

  Term of appointment

  Post holder

  Member of the LINK Steering Group

  CDL and PBT4 5

  Unpaid

  Unspecified

  Dr. Ashok Ganguly

  Member of the LINK Steering Group

  CDL and PBT4 5

  Unpaid

  Unspecified

  Dr. Robert Whelan

  Member of the LINK Steering Group

  CDL and PBT4 5

  Unpaid

  Unspecified

  Dr. Brian Richards

  Member of the LINK Steering Group

  CDL and PBT4 5

  Unpaid

  Unspecified

  Professor Stanley Mason

  HMSO—Non-executive Director

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  £8,000

  Unlimited

  Simon Master

  Notes to the table:

  Usual terms for Special Advisers

  There are standard terms governing Special Adviser appointments concerning the length of their appointment. Unless a termination date is stated the appointment will terminate either:

  (i) at the end of the present Administration;

  (ii) in the event of the appointing minister leaving Government or moving to another appointment; or

  (iii) in the event of a General Election

  whichever is soonest. If a length of appointment is stated then the appointment will terminate when this period is up in the event that one of the above does not pre-empt this.

  1 Special Advisers are normally paid according to a salary spine which ranges from £19,121 to £59,957.

  2 Members of the Security Commission do not receive a salary, but are fee-paid. As members of the judiciary, the Chairman and Alternative Chairman do not receive a fee as they are already paid from public funds. All members (including Chairman and Alternative Chairman) are entitled to claim expenses.

  3All appointments to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee are made by the Prime Minister by Order of Council.

  4CDL—PBT—Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, President of the Board of Trade.

  5 Appointments to the LINK Steering Group are made jointly by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Departments who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend follows the procedures for the selection of candidates set out in the "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures" copies of which are available in the Library. The public appointments unit and the chairmen of the respective bodies are consulted in all cases. Other organisations that have been consulted about appointments are as follows:

  The Accounts Commission (Scotland)

  The Advisory Board for the Research Councils

  The Agricultural and Food Research Council

  The Association of County Councils

  The Association of District Councils

  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  The Audit Commission

  Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

  The Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel

  The Commissioner for Local Administration in England

  The Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland

  The Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council on Tribunals

  Department of Trade and Industry

  The Economic and Social Research Council

  Federation of Independent Advice Centres

  The Health Service Commissioner for England

  The Health Service Commissioner for Scotland

  The Health Service Commissioner for Wales

  The Local Government Management Board

  Mediation UK

  The Medical Research Council

  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  The National Audit Office

  672

  The National Consumer Council

  The Natural Environment Research Council

  The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints

  The Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner

  OFFER

  DEGAS

  OFTEL

  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  The Police Complaints Authority

  The Post Office

  The Post Office User's National Committee

  Reading Centre for Ombudsman Studies

  The Royal Society

  The Royal Academy of Engineering

  The Science and Engineering Research Council

  The Social Fund Commissioner

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what major building projects, valued at over £1 million, are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1992 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 March at column 505.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what procedures his Departments have to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in (a) extreme left-wing organisations,

  673
  (b) xtreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons.

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. Friend follows the procedures for the selection of candidates set out in the "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures" copies of which are available in the Library. Details of candidates' political views are not usually held but the appropriate security clearance is obtained where necessary.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by the Medical Research Council on research into the causes of epilepsy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the last financial year, 1992–93, the Medical Research Council spent £336,000 on research concerning epilepsy, the majority of which provided for clinical trials and studies of the physiological basis of epilepsy. The council recognises that epilepsy is an under-researched area, and has advertised that it wishes to encourage high-quality innovative research that may lead to understanding of causation or to clinical advances in the medium term, under its neuroscience approach to human health initiative.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the latest studies funded by the Medical Research Council of possible cures for Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1992–93 the Medical Research Council spent £1·5 million on research directly related to Alzheimer's disease, plus £3·4 million on research of relevance to Alzheimer's disease. A list of currently funded projects is attached. 'The Medical Research Council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.

  ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
  PROJECTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
  MRC Biostatistics Unit

  Cambridge

  Statistical methods in chronic disease epidemiology.

  MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology

  Cambridge

  The molecular biology of Alzheimer's Disease.

  MRC Brain Metabolism Unit

  Edinburgh

  Neuroendocrine, Neuropharmacological and Neuroimaging studies of dementia.

  MRC Cyclotron Unit

  London

  Use of positron emission tomographic camera to study regional tissue function in neurological disease.

  MRC Neurochemical Pathology Unit

  Newcastle on Tyne

  Neurochemical and neuropathological correlates of dementia.

  Neurotransmitter interactions and cognition in animals.

  Trace element accumulation in neurodegenerative disorders.

  Mechanisms of brain mineral homeostasis.

  Peptidases and protein catabolism in neurodegenerative disorders.

  Gene expression in neurodegenerative disorders.

  674

  Transgenic cell and animal models of cerebral amyloid deposition.

  MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit

  Southampton

  Alzheimer's disease in relation to drinking water (occupational and environmental hazards).

  GRANTS
  Dr. D. Allsop

  Biochemistry, Queen's University, Belfast

  The metabolism of amyloid precursor protein.

  Dr. D. Dawbarn

  Medicine, Bristol University

  Human neurotrophic factors: characterisation in neurodegenerative diseases and expression of recombinant proteins.

  Expression and mutagenesis studies with human B-nerve growth factor gene.

  Dr. Carol Brayne

  Community Medicine, Cambridge University

  Monitoring molecular, genetic and biochemical changes in psychiatrically assessed Alzheimer's disease patients.

  Dr. C. G. Fairburn

  Psychiatry, Cambridge University

  A prospective study of behaviour in dementia.

  Dr. J. R. Hodges

  Neurology, Cambridge University

  A longitudinal study of the patterns and consequences of semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease.

  Professor E. S. Paykel

  Psychiatry, Cambridge University

  MRC Multicentre study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Dr. J. H. Xuereb

  Psychiatry, Cambridge University

  Cambridge Brain Bank's contribution to clinical/epidemiological studies of dementia and Alzheimer's disease research.

  Multicentre neuropathological study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Professor D. J. H. Brock

  Medicine, Edinburgh University

  Mutation analysis in Alzheimer's disease.

  Professor L J. Whalley

  Psychiatry, Edinburgh University

  The epidemiology of presenile dementia of the Alzheimer type. (PSDAT) in Scotland (1974–1988).

  Professor J. R. M. Copeland

  Psychiatry, Liverpool University

  MRC Multicentre study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Multicentre neuropathological study of congitive function and ageing.

  MRC alpha study: the natural history of the dementias, cognitive change and other mental disorders and ageing.

  Professor B. H. Anderton

  Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, London.

  The mictrotubule-associated protein, tau: subcellular localisation, control of its metabolism and neurodegeneration.

  The abnormal metabolism of Alzheimer amyloid precursor protein and its relationship to neurofibillary pathology. Modelling of Alzheimer's disease in transgenic mice.

  Dr. D. M. Bowen

  Neurochemistry, Institute of Neurology, London.

  Neuropathological and neurochemical correlates of behavioural change in Alzheimer's disease.

  Professor P. L Lantos

  Neuropathology, Institute of Psychiatry, London.

  A London Brain Bank for research on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

  London Brain Bank for research on neurodegenerative diseases.

  Dr. A. J. Patel

  Biochemistry, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London

  675

  Involvement of trophic factors produced by glia in plaque biogenesis and neurodegenerative disorders.

  Dr. M. Claire Royston

  Anatomy, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London

  Head injury and ageing; does it lead to an increased risk of Alzheimer-type degeneration?

  Dr. J. A. Hardy

  Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London

  Transgenesis as a mechanism to develop animal models of human disease.

  Mr. J. Bond

  Health Care Research Unit, Newcastle upon Tyne University

  Mental and physical frailty in elderly people: resource implication to families, health and social services.

  Dr. P. Ince

  MRC Neurochemical Pathology Unit, Newcastle upon Tyne University

  Multicentre neuropathological study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Professor D. W. K Kay

  Psychiatry, Newcastle upon Tyne University

  MRC Multicentre study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Professor T. Arie

  Health Care of the Elderly, Nottingham University

  MRC Multicentre study of cognitive change and ageing.

  Dr. J. S. Lowe

  Histopathology, Nottingham University

  Multicentre neuropathological study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Dr. D. M. Bowen

  Neuropathology, Oxford University

  Neuropathological and neurochemical correlates of behavioural change in Alzheimer's disease.

  Dr. Margaret M. Esiri

  Clinical Neurology, Oxford University

  Multicentre neuropathological study of cognitive function and ageing.

  Professor J. Grimley Evans

  Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Oxford University

  MRC Multicentre study of cognitive change and ageing.

  Dr. C. G. Fairburn

  Psychiatry, Oxford University

  A prospective study of behaviour in dementia.

  Dr. M. Rossor

  Neurology, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London

  Positron emission tomography in familial and sporadic Alzheimer's disease.

  Professor R. Williamson

  Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London

  Familial dementias and Alzheimer's disease.

  PROJECTS RELEVANT TO ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
  MRC Brain Metabolism Unit

  Edinburgh

  Study of post translational processing and release of neuropeptides.

  Neuroendocime, neuropharmacological and neuroimaging studies of the major functional psychoses.

  Clinical Research Centre

  Harrow, Middlesex

  Studies of the transmissibility of A-4 amyloidosis in primates.

  MRC Neurochemical Pathology Unit

  Newcastle on Tyne

  676

  Transgenic cell and animal models of cerebral amyloide deposition.

  MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit

  Southampton

  Occupation: cancer in pottery workers, slaughtermen, cooks, butchers, and workers exposed to acid mists; solvents and dementia respiratory disease in radiographers.

  GRANTS
  Dr. K. Breen

  Pharmacology, Dundee University

  The role of the beta-amyloid precursor protein (beta app) in the mediation of neural cell adhesion.

  Professor R. W. Davies

  Genetics, Glasgow University

  Genes of dopaminergic neurons

  Dr. H. Beswick

  Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, London

  Isolation and sequencing of human disease loci.

  Dr. D. J. Bryant

  NMR Unit, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London

  Development and application of clinical magnetic resonance spectroscopy to disease of liver, brain and muscle.

  Dr. B. L Butterworth

  Psychology, University College London, London

  Universal and language-specific properties of reading.

  Dr. A. J. Lees

  Clinical Neurology, Institute of Neurology, London

  A United Kingdom Brain Bank for research on Parkinson's Syndrome and other movement disorders.

  Dr. E. T. Rolls

  Experimental Psychology, Oxford University

  Brain mechanisms of perception, memory and learning.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds are specifically being allocated to gene therapy and to explore the biochemical pathways in breast cancer.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Medical Research Council's current expenditure on research related to gene therapy for melanoma is £50,000 per annum. The council has very recently awarded support for two new multi-disciplinary teams—one at Birmingham for £2 million and another at the Institute for Cancer Research for £1·1 million—to develop gene therapy for common cancers. Both grants will run for five years.

  In 1992–93, the MRC spent £486,000 on projects exploring the biochemical pathways in breast cancer.

  The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funds are being put down for basic laboratory research into breast cancer.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the financial year 1992–93, the Medical Research Council expenditure on breast cancer research was £3·1 million. Included in that figure was £836,000 which was directly related to basic laboratory research into cancer. The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.
  677

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Phase 2 (New Parliamentary Building)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the current situation with regard to the development of the phase 2 new parliamentary building; what is the programme for demolition of the site; when the building is expected to be ready for occupation; and what steps are being taken to keep the House informed about progress on this project.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  On 2 February, following the Government's agreement that the Jubilee line should proceed, the House handed over to London Underground Ltd. the site on which the phase 2 building is to be constructed. Preliminary work on the site has begun and demolition work in preparation for the construction of the new underground station at Westminster will commence in a few weeks.

  A legal agreement has been signed between the House and London Underground under the terms of which the site is due to be handed back to the authorities of the House in February 1997 to allow construction of the new building to proceed. Detailed design work is progressing and contracts for the first of the prefabricated sections will be placed later in the year.

  The Accommodation and Works Committee is maintaining a close interest in the project and will receive monthly reports on its progress. At the earliest appropriate moment a further report will be made to the House.

  Arrangements are being made for an exhibition to be mounted shortly after Easter to advise Members on the work planned for Westminster station and its consequences for the House. In due course a further exhibition on the new parliamentary building will be arranged.

HEALTH

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each district health authority the number of community psychiatric nurses employed in each the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Air Toxics Study
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make an assessment of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's "Motor-Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study", Ann Arbor, 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are obtaining a copy of this report and will then consider it.

  Abandoned Babies
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new-born babies were abandoned by their mothers in the last year that the figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about new-born babies abandoned by their mothers is available in the register of children found abandoned in England and Wales,678
  maintained by the Registrar General for birth registration purposes. There were five entries on this register in 1992 and two in 1993.

  Hartley Hospital, Colne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to ascertain whether all the proper procedures were followed by the North Western regional health authority in its disposal of Hartley hospital in Colne.

  Mr. Sackville
  The North Western regional health authority is responsible for the management of the disposal of Hartley hospital, Colne. From the information available there are no grounds to conclude that there is a need to investigate the actions taken by the RHA.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information her Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons;

  (2) what procedures her Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the political affiliation of candidates for appointment is not readily available centrally. Public appointments are made on the basis of aptitude, merit and suitability.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the procedures adopted for the appointment of the new chief executives and general managers for the eight English health regions, coming into effect on 1 April, conformed with the Government Opportunity 2000 programme and procedures and practices on equal opportunities; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The particular circumstances of these appointments meant that the exercise was not run as open recruitment and the field was therefore restricted. As far as it was possible, we used good practice in line with Opportunity 2000 and equal opportunities policies and practices as they apply within the national health service and the Department of Health.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of public appointments made by her Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if she will list their names.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993, 4,801 people were serving on Health public bodies. Of these, 2·04 per cent.—98 appointees—were of Asian origin and 0·94 per cent.—45 appointees—were of black origin.

  Information about ethnic origin was given in confidence, and it would therefore be inappropriate to publish the names of these appointees.
  679

  Health Authority Staff, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by the Doncaster health authority in each half year since March 1990 to the latest date figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table. These figures exclude staff in trusts in September 1991 and September 1992. By 1992, all direct care staff were employed by the two trusts in Doncaster.

  National health service staff in Doncaster DHA area—England—September 1990 to 1992—excluding trusts.

  Whole-time equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  All direct care staff

  3,250

  1,620

  0

  All non-direct care staff

  1,170

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. "n/a indicates figures not available.Zero indicates figures less than five.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities in England have(a) appointed project workers to develop services for disabled children, (b) established multi-agency planning structures, (c) established budgets for services to disabled children and for how much, (d) developed home-based short-term care provision and (e) developed residential short-term care provision following the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. The 1993 report to Parliament on the operation and achievements of the Children Act will be available shortly and will include a commentary on the services provided by local authorities for children with disabilities.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if guidelines issued by her Department are of uniform status; and what action is taken to monitor guidelines with particular reference to those issued under the Children Act 1989 regarding the use of corporal punishment by child minders.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department's guidance on behaviour and sanctions by child minders if minded children misbehave is contained in volume 2 of the Children Act Guidance and Regulations series entitled "Family Support, Day Care and Educational Provision for Young Children", copies of which are available in the Library. All these volumes were issued under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 which requires local authorities in the exercise of their social services functions to act under the general guidance of my right hon. Friend the Secretry of State.

  The Department keeps the working of the Children Act under review and issues supplementary guidance when this is appropriate. At present we are studying the recent High Court judgment in the case of Mrs. Davis. This was not critical of the content of the Department's guidance. We will consider if any further clarification is appropriate.
  680

  Oldchurch Accident and Emergency Unit
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken in the business plans submitted by(a) Havering hospitals trust and (b) Redbridge healthcare trust of the projected closure of Oldchurch accident and emergency unit; and if she will place copies of those business plans in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Barking and Havering health authority has undertaken its statutory responsibility to consult on the proposed closure of the accident and emergency department at Oldchurch hospital. A decision will be announced shortly. Business plans are national health service trust internal working documents. Summary business plans of all NHS trusts for 1994–95 will be published no later than May 1994 and can be obtained from individual NHS trusts.

  Asthma
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to promote good asthma management for children at school.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 10 March at column 346.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's strategy for research into asthma; where major funding is being allocated; and how the allocation of resources is decided.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is 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 1992–93 the MRC spent £759,000 on research into asthma and a further £757,000 on research which may be relevant to the condition. The Medical Research Council takes account of the Department of Health's priorities for research when allocating resources.

  The Department of Health is a founder member of the respiratory research liaison committee, which includes the major organisations with a research interest in respiratory diseases, including asthma. In addition, the national health service research and development strategy determines research priorities on a range of difficult problems of direct relevance to the NHS and work is planned to establish detailed priorities in the field of respiratory diseases across all age groups.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she intends to make to the findings of a recent study showing that 13·1 per cent. of children suffer from doctor-diagnosed asthma with 2·2 per cent. experiencing more than 12 asthma attacks in the previous year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is concerned about the incidence of asthma in children. At our request the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has set up an expert sub-group to review the evidence linking asthma to air pollution.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will accept the finding of the recent Audit Commission
  681
  report, "A Prescription for Improvement", on under-prescribing for asthmatic patients; and what steps she is planning to take to ensure asthmatic patients receive the medications they need.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of general practitioners to decide the clinical needs of their patients. Since the introduction of chronic disease management programmes for asthma and diabetes in July of last year about 90 per cent. of general practitioners are running programmes for asthmatic patients. The British Thoracic Society's guidelines for the management of asthma are regularly drawn to the attention of all GPs and prescribing of preventtive medicine for asthma has increased sixfold over the last 10 years. Low levels of asthma prophylaxis are brought to the attention of GPs by family health services authority prescribing advisers.

  Schizophrenia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from SANE about(a) the difficulty in providing appropriate help for victims of schizophrenia and (b) the victims of schizophrenia being obliged to vacate hospital beds prematurely.

  Mr. Bowis
  Ministers and officials have been in close touch with SANE to exchange views on a range of issues.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Association of Denture Prosthesis on the introduction of a Bill on Professions Supplementary to Dentistry; what plans she has for further discussions; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I met the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and representatives of the Association for Denture Prosthesis on 28 February 1994.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 March,Official Report, column 830, what information her Department has centrally for England and Wales as a whole on the number of dental surgeons (i) providing national health service treatment and (ii) not providing national health service treatment for each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. Information is not held on dentists in wholly private practice.

  Number of general dental practitioners providing national health service treatment1 at 30 September

  England and Wales

  Year

  Number of dentists under contract to family health services authorities2

  1989

  16,178

  1990

  16,317

  1991

  16,287

  1992

  16,242

  1993

  16,616

  1 National health service dental treatment is also provided by the community dental service, the hospital dental service and by salaried dentists.

  2 Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees.

  682

  Acute Psychiatric Beds
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sanctions exist when guidelines in respect of the provision of acute psychiatric beds are broken.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health authorities to assess the need for acute psychiatric beds and to contract with providers of mental health services to ensure that sufficient beds are available to meet the needs of their residents.

  Chronic Disease Management Programme
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate what progress is being made on the chronic disease management programme.

  Mr. Sackville
  New arrangements for chronic disease management in general practice were introduced on 1 July 1993. The latest available data suggests that almost 90 per cent. of general practitioners have already been approved to run chronic disease management programmes for the treatment of asthma and diabetes. This is an excellent response by general practitioners and their practice teams towards improving the treatment of these conditions.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions she makes about the effect on neighbouring units of a closure of an accident and emergency unit; how that effect is assessed; and what degree of co-operation is expected from neighbouring units affected by a proposed closure of such a unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  Local health authorities plan the provision of accident and emergency services, based on existing patterns of treatment and assessments of future need. Closure of an accident and emergency department is only agreed where it can be demonstrated that there will be a net gain in the effectiveness and efficiency in patient services. It is for the appropriate health authority to undertake an assessment of the impact on surrounding hospitals, and to ensure an appropriate level of service. Only where there is no agreement locally should Ministers become involved in planning for local patient services.

  Life Expectancy Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on(a) the child mortality rates and (b) the average life expectancy for the inhabitants of (i) Manchester, (ii) Birmingham, (iii) Lambeth, (iv) Southwark, (v) Liverpool, (vi) Hackney, (vii) Leeds, (viii) Sheffield, (ix) Haringey, (x) Newham, (xi) Lewisham, (xii) Newcastle upon Tyne, (xiii) Salford, (xiv) South Tyneside, (xv) Coventry, (xvi) Hammersmith and Fulham, (xvii) Bristol and (xviii) Wakefield.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information on child mortality rates is shown in the table. The data requested on average life expectancy for the selected areas are not collected.

  Child mortality rates1 in England, 1992

  Location

  Sex

  Age group 0–14

  Manchester

  Male

  115·1

  Female

  88·5

  Birmingham

  Male

  94·5

  Female

  95·9

  683

  Location

  Sex

  Age group 0–14

  Lambeth

  Male

  93·1

  Female

  100·6

  Southwark

  Male

  112·3

  Female

  122·8

  Hackney

  Male

  102·3

  Female

  73·1

  Haringey

  Male

  119·4

  Female

  82·4

  Newham

  Male

  98·9

  Female

  69·4

  Lewisham

  Male

  85·1

  Female

  97·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Male

  51·2

  Female

  85·0

  Liverpool

  Male

  79·0

  Female

  47·3

  Leeds

  Male

  69·2

  Female

  68·1

  Sheffield

  Male

  86·9

  Female

  60·5

  Salford

  Male

  82·0

  Female

  59·7

  South Tyneside

  Male

  44·1

  Female

  73·3

  Coventry

  Male

  121·1

  Female

  53·0

  Bristol

  Male

  88·8

  Female

  48·2

  Wakefield

  Male

  78·2

  Female

  52·3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Male

  84·2

  Female

  64·6

  1Rates per 100,000 population.

  Hammersmith Hospital
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the Hammersmith hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 21 March at columns 68–69.

  Tuberculosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from tuberculosis occurred in each of the last five years by region; and how many new cases of tuberculosis were reported in each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Care Orders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children between the ages of 16 and 18 years have care orders; and how many of them are(a) currently with fostering families and (b) in homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest centrally available information relates to the position at 31 March 1992, when it is estimated that 6,900 children aged 16 or 17 were subject to care orders; of these 3,100 were placed with foster parents and 900 were resident in community homes.
  684

  Training Costs (Doctors)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the national health service of training a doctor.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The clinical training of medical students provided within the national health service is supported by the service increment for teaching and research. The amount of SIFTR paid annually in respect of each medical student is £36,292 at 1993–94 prices, for each of three clinical years. However, doctors also spend varying but significant periods in postgraduate training and subsequently throughout their careers in training activities designed to enable them to keep up to date in a rapidly changing clinical environment. It is not possible to quantify the total cost to the NHS of these forms of training.

  Vasectomies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information and guidance is available to men seeking vasectomies; what information is given on the failure rate of such operations; and what are the figures for the failure rate of this procedure.

  Mr. Sackville
  The handbook of contraceptive practice issued by the Department to all general practitioners and doctors and nurses working in family planning clinics gives advice on counselling for vasectomy, including the need to inform the patient about the possibility of failure. The overall failure rate is less than 0·5 per cent. Copies of the handbook are available in the Library.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of official entertainment in her Department in each year since 1990–91; if she will list the receptions held in each year at her Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure on hospitality since 1990–91 is shown in the table. A breakdown of past expenditure is not available in the form requested as hospitality expenditure tends to consist of large numbers of small payments—for example, refreshments for meetings of expert advisory committees, working groups etc.—which are summarised, managed and recorded by organisational group; I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 24 January at columns 109–10 for a breakdown of 1992–93 expenditure by organisational group within the Department.

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  158,000

  1991–92

  168,151

  1992–93

  246,374

  1993–94

  1223,000

  1Estimate.

  Note Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.
  685

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidance on the time before a repeat cervical smear test is needed after a result which shows no endocervical cells.

  Mr. Sackville
  An absence of columnar glandular endocervical cells per se does not in itself constitute an indication for a repeat smear as the smear could be adequate in other respects. Where a patient's smear is shown by the laboratory to be unsatisfactory, she is invited to have a smear as soon as possible.

  HIV-AIDS
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to her answer of 1 March,Official Report, columns 680–81, to what extent the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 reports for the past year revealed gaps in the area of HIV-AIDS-related services for those with a physical disability;

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the physical accessibility of those locations in which HIV-AIDS-related services for the physically disabled are based.

  Mr. Sackville
  The AIDS (Control) Act 1987 requires regional and district health authorities to report on:the known number of HIV seropositive people and people

  with AIDS in the area of the authority;

  a report of facilities and services;

  the number of staff employed;

  expenditure on HIV and AIDS-related services.

  Gaps in the area of HIV-related services for those with a physical disability have not been specifically identified. We would, however, expect authorities to provide services which are sensitive to the needs of and accessible by people with a physical disability since many people with AIDS would fall within this category.

  Profit Margins
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has collected data, or issued guidance, regarding the levels of profit margin placed on equipment and goods sold to national health service authorities or bodies.

  Mr. Sackville
  No, apart from the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.

  Health Promotion Clinics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will assess value for money in regard to health promotion clinics in general practice.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Practice-based health promotion programmes are a good use of national health service resources to improve people's health.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Proton cars were purchased by her Department and its predecessor in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.
  686

  Ritual Abuse
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Professor Jean La Fontaine's report on ritual abuse will be completed; and if the result will be made public.

  Mr. Bowis
  Professor La Fontaine's survey into the extent and nature of organised and ritual abuse will be completed later this year. No decision on publication has yet been made.

  Suicides (Paracetamol)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to deal with suicides from paracetamol.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are considering a number of measures designed to reduce the risk of deliberate or accidental paracetamol overdoses.

  Cancer Treatment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much in real terms was spent in each of the last three years in the NHS on(a) the treatment of cancer and (b) the prevention of cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the amount spent on treatment and prevention of cancer is not identified separately.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of billboard sites currently covered by the voluntary agreement with the tobacco manufacturing companies; and how many she estimates are within(a) three miles, (b) two miles, (c) one mile, (d) three quarters of a mile, (e) half a mile and (f) one quarter of a mile of school premises.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the voluntary agreement, billboard advertising of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco is not allowed which is in close proximity to and clearly visible from schools, places of education for young people and children's playgrounds. Information on the number of billboard sites covered by the voluntary agreement, and on the proportion within different distances of school premises is not held by the Department. However, the voluntary agreement limits expenditure on cigarette brand poster advertising by companies represented by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to 50 per cent. of the 1980 level, allowing for inflation.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service Supplies Authority, either centrally or through its divisions, employs independent consultants to undertake comparisons between the prices it pays or negotiates and the best available market price.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority currently contracts with three independent consultants to obtain regular price comparisons.
  687

  Trent RHA
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated to Trent regional health authority purchasers in each year since 1990; and what percentage this represents of all revenue funding for hospital and community health services in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations to district health authorities as purchasers of health care were made for the first time in the 1991–92 financial year. It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to allocate resources to districts and this information is not separately identifiable in the information collected by the Department.

  Expenditure by district health authorities in Trent in 1991–92 and 1992–93 is shown in the table; it excludes expenditure by general practitioner fundholders. The figures for individual authorities over the two years are not directly comparable in every case because of boundary changes.

  Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Trent district health authorities' expenditure accounted for 8·7 per cent. of the total expenditure by district health authorities in England in 1991–92 and 9·2 per cent. in 1992–93.

  Revenue expenditure by district health authorities in England

  District health authority

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £

  £

  North Derbyshire DHA

  105,670,742

  113,114,609

  Southern Derbyshire DHA

  167,981,567

  185,166,596

  Leicestershire DHA

  261,702,208

  297,169,389

  North Lincolnshire DHA

  91,668,517

  100,708,900

  South Lincolnshire DHA

  102,072,066

  109,472,637

  Bassetlaw DHA

  31,107,515

  n/a

  Central Nottinghamshire DHA

  87,214,069

  n/a

  North Nottinghamshire DHA

  n/a

  131,696,612

  Nottingham DHA

  201,912,223

  224,553,446

  Barnsley DHA

  70,930,301

  79,006,026

  Doncaster DHA

  88,483,141

  99,681,002

  Rotherham DHA

  75,355,705

  84,222,003

  Sheffield DHA

  212,577,749

  241,697,006

  Total DHAs, Trent

  1,496,675,803

  1,666,488,226

  Total DHAs, England

  17,114,662,189

  18,182,143,979

  Source: Annual accounts of health authorities (England).

  Notes:

  1. Figures shown are for total revenue expenditure.

  2. Figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  3. Bassetlaw and Central Nottinghamshire DHAs merges to from North Nottinghamshire DHA in 1992–93.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there were in each year between 1978–79 and 1988–89 in England excluding inner and outer London district health authorities and regional health authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information on the average daily number of available beds has been published and copies of the national and regional summaries placed in the Library. The data for the years 1978 to 1986 are contained in the publication "Hospital Statistics-Form SH3". Summary tables for the years from 1982 to 1992–93 are set out in "Bed availability for England: Financial Year 1992–93".
  688

  Breast Lump Clinics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospitals have specific breast lump clinics.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  It is for local provider units in consultation with their purchasers to decide what provision is required.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of her Department in 1993–94.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cash limit for class XII vote 1—hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England—will be increased by £5,794,000, from £19,880,171,000 to £19,885,965,000. This increase covers transfers of £5,000,000 for enabling work for phase IV development of Derriford Hospital, from class I, vote 1, Ministry of Defence; £763,000 for payments to the National Health Service Estate Management and Health Building Agency and £123,000 in respect of Public Health Laboratory Service Board, from class XII, vote 3, Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England; £93,000 for the cost of clinical placements in England in respect of Glasgow Caledonian university students, to class XIV, vote 18, student awards, Scotland; and an increase of £1,000 offset by receipts from members of the public towards the cost of medical treatment for Bosnian evacuees.

  The non-voted cash limit for supplementary credit approvals for personal social services—DOH/LACAP—in England is to be increased by £1,183,500, from £23,700,000 to £24,883,500 in respect of the take up of entitlement to carry forward of underspends from the 1992–93 financial year under the end-year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1993 at columns 512–17.

  All increases will either be offset by increased receipts, transfers to or from other votes, or from the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Microbiology
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future of the centre for applied microbiology and research.

  Mr. Sackville
  I announced on 15 January 1993 that the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research was to become independent of the Public Health Laboratory Service and would be separately accountable to Health Ministers. I can now announce that the centre will, from 1 April, be administered by a new authority called the Microbiological Research Authority under the chairmanship of Mr. J. E. Everitt, outgoing chairman and chief executive of Vickers Medical. I have also agreed to the appointment of Dr. J. Melling as chief executive and director of the centre. The greater independence and more appropriate management expertise provided by these measures should enable the centre to develop its full scientific and commercial potential.
  689

  Breast Cancer Treatment
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the encouragement of randomised controlled trails for the treatment of breast cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are committed to encouraging research into breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials are regarded as the scientific method for determining and evaluating new developments in health care, and are funded by the Department when they represent the most appropriate method of research for answering specific questions relevant to health care policy and practice.

  The United Kingdom Health Departments, along with 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, and the major cancer research charities—the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign—are currently funding four studies into breast screening at an estimated cost of £5 million over five years. Three of these trials involve RCTs. The trials are being co-ordinated by the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated in Greater London to general practitioner fundholders in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what percentage this represented of the total allocation for general practitioner fundholders in England for each year.

  In-patients in NHS hospitals in England 1990–91

  Average duration of stay (days)

  Region of treatment

  Hysterectomy

  Gall bladder excision1

  Hernia repair2

  Kidney transplant

  Angioplasty3

  Northern

  8·4

  9·5

  4·4

  16·6

  4·8

  Yorkshire

  9·0

  9·2

  4·3

  11·0

  3·8

  Trent

  8·4

  8·4

  3·5

  17·2

  3·7

  East Anglia

  8·0

  9·3

  3·9

  14·1

  3·6

  North West Thames

  9·2

  9·7

  3·7

  18·0

  4·4

  North East Thames

  8·4

  9·3

  3·8

  11·4

  4·7

  South East Thames

  8·6

  9·3

  3·9

  25·2

  4·7

  South West Thames

  8·8

  8·9

  3·8

  0·64

  3·8

  Wessex

  8·1

  8·5

  3·2

  15·8

  3·5

  Oxford

  7·9

  8·2

  3·4

  8·1

  2·9

  South Western

  9·0

  10·0

  3·9

  19·7

  4·9

  West Midlands

  8·4

  8·8

  3·5

  15·4

  4·6

  Mersey

  8·7

  9·8

  4·3

  16·3

  6·6

  North Western

  8·2

  9·8

  4·7

  16·2

  4·4

  ENGLAND

  8·5

  9·2

  3·9

  16·0

  4·3

  1 May exclude some laparoscopic cholecystectomies, not otherwise identifiable.

  2 Figures represent repairs of groin hernias. They exclude those of other less common hernias in other parts of the body.

  3 Covers coronary artery angioplasty. The term "angioplasty" covers a very large range of operative procedures on blood vessels in different parts of the body.

  4 It is believed that this extremely low figure reflects mis-coding at source.

  District Health Authority Mergers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all proposed district health authority mergers and the timetable for each.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 March at column 566 concerning district health authority mergers from 1 April 1994. Proposals to merge Wigan DHA with Bolton DHA and Newcastle DHA
  690
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities manage the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the Thames regional health authorities for local information in London.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding practices there were in Greater London for each year since 1991–92; and what percentage of the total figure for fundholders in England those figures represent in each year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information about general practitioner fundholder numbers is only available centrally at regional health authority level. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 7 February at columns 43–44.

  Patient Stays (Average Length)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of in patient stay for patients who receive(a) hysterectomy, (b) gall bladder removal, (c) hernia repair, (d) kidney transplant and (e) angioplasty in hospitals in (i) Birmingham, (ii) Leeds, (iii) London, (iv) Manchester, (v) Newcastle and (vi) Bristol.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The available information by regional health authority is shown in the table.

  with North Tyneside DHA have been received by the Department. Decisions on these proposals, which will include a timetable, will be made in due course.

  Disability Equipment
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average weekly cost of powering(a) a powered wheelchair, (b) a bed/bath hoist, (c) an automatic door opener, (d) a stair lift, (e) a respirator, (f) an automatic toilet-bidet unit and (g) a self-lift chair; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.
  691
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of public funding is granted each year to help disabled people not on benefits pay the costs of running disability equipment; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  A wide range of disability equipment is supplied and, where appropriate, maintained by the national health service, social services departments, and other public bodies.

  Health Authorities (Ethnic Minority Members)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific measures her Department plans to take to increase the percentages of ethnic minority members of health authorities, national health service trusts and working parties formed by her Department; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our aim is to appoint the best people we can to the boards of national health service authorities and trusts and to ensure that good candidates from ethnic minorities are given every encouragement to come forward. To this end, regional health authority chairmen are specifically encouraged to seek people from ethnic minorities when identifying candidates for chairman and non-executive positions.

  Urgent Cases
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the implications for patients of the letter by Sir Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the national health service, to district health authorities on the treatment of urgent cases within available resources.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Duncan Nichol wrote to all hospitals and health authorities on 24 February reminding those concerned with the purchasing and provision of hospital treatment of the need to ensure that appropriate clinical priority is given to patients on waiting lists. Copies of the letter, EL(94)19, are available in the Library.

  Continuing Care Provision
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the NHS Management Executive to complete its inquiry into NHS continuing care provision by those district health authorities identified in the recent Alzheimer's Disease Society report as supplying no NHS continuing care beds; whether the NHS Management Executive's findings will be made public; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I expect to receive a report from the National Health Service Management Executive shortly. Such advice is normally internal for the Department.

  Birth Deformities
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has carried out on the link between sea pollution and deformities of children at birth; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department itself has undertaken no such research. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 25 March at columns 462–63.
  692

  "Your Pocket Guide to Sex"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of(a) commissioning, (b) printing, (c) distributing, (d) promoting and (e) recalling "Your Pocket Guide to Sex", written by Nick Fisher for the Health Education Authority, which was withdrawn on 23 March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to issue patients charter maximum waiting times inclusive of the wait for the first time out-patient appointment; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  New initiatives to reduce hospital waiting times are constantly being considered. An announcement will be made in due course if it is decided to add to the successful standards contained in the patients charter.

  Farmers (Suicide)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will commission a report into the rate of suicide for farmers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have commissioned Dr. K. Hawton of the University of Oxford to carry out a study of individuals in high-risk groups, including farmers, for whom verdicts of suicide or undetermined death were returned. His report is expected in December 1995.

EMPLOYMENT

  Supported Employment
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on provision for supported employment in 1994–95.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The maximum grant payable in 1994–95 per contracted place in the supported employment programme will be £4,420 for both voluntary body and local authority providers. Under the arrangements I announced on the 10 March 1994,Official Report, column 338, coming into force on 1 April, the number of places in the programme will be for negotiation between the Employment Service and both local authorities and voluntary bodies. Payments to local authorities will continue, as previously, to be limited to at most 75 per cent. of their costs.

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of new furniture for his private office during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of new furniture for the Secretary of State's private office was £911·88.

  Work Experience Schemes
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of participants in(a) North Norfolk Action, (b) job clubs, (c) workstart and

  693
  (d) Government-organised or funded work experience schemes found subsequent employment as a result of joining the scheme, after the first six months of the scheme starting.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows: North Norfolk Action 12·8 per cent. from the work experience element and 2·3 per cent. from attendance at a series of caseload interviews; job clubs 63 per cent.

  Figures for workstart are as yet unavailable; the scheme, which began in July 1993, provides subsidies for 12 months to employers who recruit eligible long-term people. Figures are also unavailable for community action, through which work experience is currently provided. This scheme also began in July 1993, and information on the number of leavers who obtain jobs is collected Ihree months after the date of leaving.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the proportion of the United Kingdom work force which is employed under terms and conditions which do not fulfil the terms of the European Community social chapter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The draft social chapter proposed at Maastricht did not set out any terms and conditions of employment.

  Aerospace Apprenticeships
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many engineering apprenticeships in the aerospace industry there were in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Data on apprentices have been collected on a consistent basis through the labour force survey since 1984. However, the sample size does not allow reliable estimates at this level of industrial detail.

  Labour Flexibility
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assumption the Government make about the cost of their policy of labour flexibility for those affected: if he will list the evidence available to him about the relative costs and benefits; and if he will publish his estimate of the losses and gains and those who have lost and those who have gained.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A more flexible and efficient labour market leads overall to more jobs and less unemployment. It is not possible to disentangle the effect of flexibility on individuals.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the objective of the Government policy of labour flexibility; and what benchmarks the Government used for judging its success;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 March, Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, by what means he assesses the effectiveness of the Government's policy of labour flexibility.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The objective of labour flexibility is to support economic growth, create jobs and reduce unemployment. Increased labour flexibility has contributed to unemployment falling earlier in the cycle 694
  than previously—a fall of 220,000 since December 1992, and to a relatively early upturn in the work force in employment—an increase of 136,000 in the nine months to December 1993.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of the measures which the Government include under the heading of labour flexibility; and which of these were commended to the Group of Seven.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Flexibility requires measures to improve the efficient working of the labour market, to increase the ability of unemployed people to get jobs and compete effectively, and to encourage investment in skills by individuals and their employers. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State commended each of these to the G7 jobs conference, which agreed that flexible labour markets support economic growth and deliver higher employment and lower unemployment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the policy of labour flexibility on full-time adult male employment since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such assessment has been made. Labour market flexibility should support economic growth, reduce unemployment and increase all types of jobs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the minimum rate of unemployed required to sustain the Government's policy of labour flexibility.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no minimum rate required to sustain labour market flexibility. The aim of labour market flexibility is to support economic growth, create jobs and reduce unemployment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's policy of labour flexibility on the distribution of income; and whether it was intended to have that effect.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The distribution of income is determined by a variety of factors including the extent of unemployment. A flexible labour market should reduce unemployment and therefore help those at the lower end of the income distribution.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what account the Government have taken of the extra cost to the social services in assessing the results of their policy on labour flexibility;

  (2) what account the Government have taken in judging, the results of their policy of labour flexibility, of the extra cost, to law and order;

  (3) what account the Government have taken of the extra cost to the health service in assessing the results of their policy on labour flexibility.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Labour market flexibility supports economic growth, creates jobs and reduces unemployment. It does not involve extra costs to the social services, law and order or the health service.
  695

  Productivity (Rewards)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, what effect the increase in part-time working in the service sector has had on output per person employed; and if he will restate the published figures to show the estimated increase.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statistics on the component of output attributable to part-time workers in the service sector are not compiled. As a result it is not possible to estimate reliably the effect on productivity of an increase in part-time working in the service sector.

  Productivity
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, if he will give the data per person-hour in the sectors requested.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The data on output per person-hour in the sectors requested are not available.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 861, on the number of hours worked, if he will provide comparable information for the whole economy less manufacturing.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures given in my reply to the hon. Member on 3 March 1994,Official Report, column 861 were based upon the index of total weekly hours worked by all operatives in manufacturing. There are no comparable figures for the rest of the economy.

  However, the labour force survey provides estimates of the total number of hours worked in each industry sector on the basis of information provided by individuals responding to the survey. These estimates are not seasonally adjusted and so comparable figures must relate to the same time period for each year. Thus, most recent comparable estimates from the LFS between spring 1989 and spring 1993, show that the total number of hours worked by employees and self-employed in Great Britain fell by 19 per cent. for those in manufacturing industries, and by 13 per cent. for those in other sectors of the economy.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for those in full-time training and also included in the count of the work force in employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In Great Britain, in December 1993, there were 428,000 participants on Government training programmes who were included in the count of the work force in employment. This figure comprises those people whose training has an element of work experience, including those with a contract of employment.
  696

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the correlation between the rate of economic growth since 1964 and the numbers employed in manufacturing in the United Kingdom and other industrial countries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Industrial employment has fallen in a majority of the G7 countries since 1964. Output, on the other hand, has risen—in most cases substantially.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a list of his duties and the amount of his working week allocated to each activity.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A list of my duties and those of my Ministers is set out in the Departmental Report (Cm 2505), a copy of which is available in the Library. The amount of time spent on any one aspect will vary from week to week.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Allerton Road Jobcentre

  Allerton Road Jobcentre
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the Allerton Road jobcentre, Liverpool.

  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. Fogden to Mr. David Alton, dated 29 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question in which you ask about the future of Allerton Road Jobcentre (JC), Liverpool.Allerton JC will be closed on or about 10 June 1994 as part of the Employment Service (ES) programme to integrate its services and rationalise its estate. The Allerton premises are located in a small three storey shop unit which cannot be converted to provide the full range of ES services; the lease expires in February 1995. We are therefore bringing together all our job seeking and benefit payment services at our nearby newly refurbished office at Wavertree. We hope this will provide an improved standard of service to our clients locally as everything will now be available under one roof.Wavertree ES JC is approximately two miles from Allerton and there is a regular bus service between them.I hope this is helpful.

  Thorne Jobcentre
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what wards in the Doncaster, North constituency are covered by the Thorne jobcentre.

  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.
  697
  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 29 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking which wards in the Doncaster North Constituency are covered by Thorne Jobcentre.It may be helpful if I explain that Jobcentre boundaries are not defined in ward terms. However, it is possible to match frozen April 1991 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) wards to Jobcentre areas on a best-fit basis.There are four wards in the Doncaster North Constituency. On a best-fit basis, two wards, Thorne and Hatfield, are fully within the Thome Jobcentre catchment area as is the northern half of the Stainforth ward. The fourth ward in the constituency, Askern, falls in the neighbouring Doncaster Jobcentre area.I hope you find this helpful.

  Earnings
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on comparisons between pay increases in the public and private sectors in Britain in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the earnings of employees in the public and private sectors is published, each year, in table 1 of part A of the new earnings survey. The latest available information, published in September 1993, relates to April 1993. Copies of the latest report are available in the Library. The monthly average earnings index, published by the Department, does not distinguish between private sector and public sector earnings.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement concerning his plans to create new-style apprenticeships; in what industries he expects the new apprenticeships to be created; and what estimates he has of the number of new apprenticeships he expects to be created.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A wide range of modern apprenticeships will be offered to 16 and 17-year-old school leavers from September 1995, with some prototypes starting later this year. Fourteen sectors are involved in prototype arrangements and these are linked to 42 training and enterprise councils. These are:

  Agriculture

  Somerset, South and East Cheshire, Northumberland, Humberside

  Business Administration

  Gloucestershire, Norfolk and Waveney, Northamptonshire

  Chemicals

  Wakefield, CEWTEC/NorMidTEC

  Childcare

  North West London, Stockport/High Peak

  Electrical Installation

  Essex, Suffolk, South Derbyshire, MetroTEC

  Engineering Manufacturing

  Devon and Cornwall, Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire, London East TEC, Walsall, Barnsley and Doncaster, Merseyside, Hertfordshire, Birmingham (in conjunction with Coventry and CENTEC)

  Engineering Construction

  Bolton/Bury, Durham

  698

  Information Technology

  Leeds, West London, Teesside

  Marine Engineering

  Cumbria

  Merchant Navy

  Tyneside

  Polymers

  Shropshire

  Retail

  AZTEC, Lincoln, HAWTEC

  Steel

  Sandwell, Sheffield (Steel Training)

  Travel Services

  North London, Dorset, Surrey

  Up to 2,000 young people will be catered for this year, with up to 150,000 in training at any one time when the initiative is fully developed.

  European Structural Funds
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government will apply for objective 4 grants under the European structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on 25 January 1994, at column 233.

  Part-time Work
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what action the Government will take to implement the ruling given by the House of Lords on part-time workers;

  (2) to what extent retrospective compensation claims from part-time workers will be possible following the House of Lords ruling.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes to current employment legislation he is considering following the recent House of Lords ruling that part-time employees have the same rights as full-time employees with regard to unfair dismissal and redundancy; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are carefully considering this judgment to ascertain its full implications and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Child Care
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department spends on child care provision for the under-fives and out-of-school provision for children aged over five either directly, excluding provision for departmental staff, or indirectly through resources made available to local authorities or other organisations; what form of provision is thereby provided; how many places are thereby provided; and if he will make a statement on child care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: We have committed £45 million to the out-of-school child care grant initiative, with the aim of creating up to 50,000

  699
  new after-school and holiday places for the over-fives throughout Great Britain. Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies also have the flexibility to use their budgets to provide child care assistance for trainees.

  In addition, over 90 per cent. of three to four-year-olds attend either education or group day care. It is not, however, possible to say what proportion of these places will have benefited from Government support—for example, through TECs and LECs.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current average cost of administration of an unemployment benefit payment.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest expenditure figures are contained in the DSS departmental report, Cm 2513. The total administration cost of unemployment benefit in 1992–93 was £269 million. The total number of payments was 23,847,000 giving an average of £11.28. This includes allowance for the cost of administering national insurance credits for

  Scottish New Town development corporations—numbers of industrial units (a) tenanted and (b) vacant as at 23 March 1994

  Cumbernauld

  East Kilbride

  Glenrothes

  Irvine

  Livingston

  Less than 10,000 ft2

  Occupied

  54

  117

  46

  78

  138

  Vacant

  41

  54

  49

  24

  42

  10,001–20,000 ft2

  Occupied

  13

  17

  14

  0

  35

  Vacant

  9

  8

  9

  0

  0

  20,001–30,000 ft2

  Occupied

  8

  3

  6

  0

  16

  Vacant

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  30,001–40,000 ft2

  Occupied

  2

  2

  1

  0

  5

  Vacant

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  40,001–50,000 ft2

  Occupied

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50,001–100,000 ft2

  Occupied

  3

  2

  0

  0

  7

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100,001–200,000 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Above 200,001 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish new town development corporations numbers of commercial properties (a) tenanted and (b) vacant at 23 March 1994

  Cumbernauld

  East Kilbride

  Glenrothes

  Irvine

  Livingston

  Less than 10,000 ft2

  Occupied

  51

  258

  87

  135

  140

  Vacant

  5

  14

  1

  34

  14

  10,001–20,000 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  2

  1

  12

  5

  Vacant

  0

  1

  0

  8

  0

  20,001–30,000 ft2

  Occupied

  1

  1

  0

  4

  2

  Vacant

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  700
  clients who do not receive any social security benefit and part of the cost of Employment Service advisers who check benefit eligibility.

SCOTLAND

  Development Corporation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tenancies controlled by the(a) Cumbernauld, (b) East Kilbride, (c) Glenrothes, (d) Irvine and (e) Livingston development corporations occupying (i) less than 10,000 sq ft, (ii) between 10,000 and 20,000 sq ft, (iii) between 20,000 and 30,000 sq ft, (iv) between 30,000 and 40,000 sq ft, (v) between 40,000 and 50,000 sq ft, (vi) between 50,000 and 100,000 sq ft, (vii) between 100,000 and 200,000 sq ft and (viii) over 200,000 sq ft are (1) currently vacant and (2) occupied.

  Mr. Stewart
  The tables show the numbers of industrial and commercial units currently owned by the development corporations and whether tenanted or vacant:
  701

  Cumbernauld

  East Kilbride

  Glenrothes

  Irvine

  Livingston

  30,001–40,000 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  1

  0

  3

  4

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  40,001–50,000 ft2

  Occupied

  1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50,001–100,000 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  100,001–200,000 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Above 200,001 ft2

  Occupied

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Vacant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much each of Scotland's development corporations has spent during each of the last five years on advertising.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on advertising costs is not available centrally. Expenditure on publicity and marketing is set out in schedule 2 of the annual accounts of each new town development corporation. The annual reports, including the accounts, are available in the Library of the House.

  National Health Service Helpline
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 54, what action has been taken by each of Scotland's health boards to publicise the operation of the NHS helpline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since the NHS helpline came into operation in October 1992 expenditure on administration of the service totals £227,566 and expenditure on publicity totals £98,748.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 54, what assessment he has made of the calls to the NHS helpline; what procedure was adopted by his office in establishing its helpline; how many people are employed to deal with the calls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The NHS in Scotland management executive receives monthly monitoring reports and quarterly customer satisfaction survey reports from Network Scotland which operates the NHS helpline on a contractual basis. These give details of the number and subjects of the calls received and an indication of customer satisfaction with the service.

  Tenders were invited for the setting up and running of the service from a number of organisations and the contract was awarded to Network Scotland. A project supervisor and up to four part-time operators are employed by Network Scotland in work relating to the NHS helpline.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official
  702
  Report, column 54, how much his office has spent (a) administering and (b) publicising the operation of its NHS helpline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  All health boards in Scotland, and their provider units, publicise the NHS helpline telephone number and information about the service provided in a variety of ways. These include the provision of information in health board literature, local health charters, patient information leaflets, notice board information in public areas of health board premises and distribution of the NHS helpline poster.

  Redundant Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many redundant NHS hospitals have been disposed of since 1987 without the benefit of planning permission.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Advice on the planning aspects of disposals is contained in current guidance on the handling of NHS property transactions.

  National Continence Week
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what projects his Department instigated in respect of National Continence Week.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office provided funding for the expansion of a telephone helpline facility at the continence resource centre, Southern General Hospital NHS Trust, Glasgow to secure additional staff and equipment, for a four-week period including National Continence Week. Leaflets, posters and stickers advertising the helpline and encouraging sufferers to seek help were distributed widely, advertisements were placed in public transport buses throughout Scotland and in national newspapers, and a briefing note was circulated to all media outlets. In addition a number of events were organised across the country by local health service professionals, including continence advisers.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dairy farmers there were in Scotland in each year since 1985.
  703
  Sir Hector Monro
  No information on the number of dairy farmers is collected. The Scottish agricultural census identifies specialist dairy and general dairy farm types.

  The number of such farms was:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  2,949

  1986

  2,873

  1987

  2,789

  1988

  2,690

  1989

  2,622

  1990

  2,562

  1991

  2,515

  1992

  2,460

  1993

  1,8851

  1 A new system of farm typology was introduced in 1993. On the same basis there were 1,899 dairy farms in 1992.

  Agriculture (Incomes)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show the average income of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, using 1985 as a constant, in each year since 1980 showing these incomes as a percentage of the average wage.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Estimates of the earnings of full-time hired agricultural workers in Scotland are derived from the control test inspection sample survey carried out under the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949. Those figures are given in the table.

  None of the estimates of average farm income is comparable with the average wage. The table presents estimates of cash income to farm businesses in Scotland for 1986–87 onwards. Estimates for previous years are not available on a consistent basis.

  Earnings of Hired Full-time Agricultural Workers in Scotland

  Year

  Estimated annual cash income1 all types of Farm

  Current terms2 (£/Week)

  Real terms at 1985 prices2 3 week)

  Percentage of average wage4

  (£ '000s per farm)

  (£ per week)

  (£ per week)

  1980

  —

  81·63

  115·53

  78·5

  1981

  —

  89·44

  113·15

  78·5

  1982

  —

  98·08

  114·24

  78·8

  1983

  —

  107·41

  119·62

  80·9

  1984

  —

  114·36

  121·32

  80·0

  1985

  —

  122·17

  122·17

  79·8

  1986

  16·9

  129·33

  125·07

  79·2

  1987

  21·1

  134·56

  124·92

  77·6

  1988

  20·5

  142·91

  126·47

  76·3

  1989

  22·6

  154·79

  127·11

  76·2

  1990

  27·2

  171·51

  128·67

  77·5

  1991

  26·3

  189·06

  133·97

  80·0

  1992

  28·6

  195·57

  133·58

  78·0

  61993

  5—

  204·50

  137·50

  79·7

  1 Accounting years end, on average, in February of the following year. Cash income represents the total receipts less the total expenditure (excluding net investment expenditure) of the farm business. Source: Farm Accounts Survey.

  2 Includes payments for basic, overtime and holiday hours, plus the value of annual bonus, perquisites and other payments. It also includes the value of the employer's contribution to the employees' rates, community charge and council tax where the value is known.

  3 Deflated by the all items RPI (1985 = 100)

  4 Average earnings of full-time manual employees on adult rates (compiled on a basis of men aged 21+ and women aged 18+ prior to 1983) in all industries and services in Great Britain whose pay was not affected
  704
  by absence for the survey period. Source: New Earnings Survey.

  5Not available

  6Provisional

  Farm Workers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will list the total number of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers in Scotland in each year since 1980.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures are from the June agricultural census of main holdings.

  Occupiers

  Spouses

  All other farmworkers

  1980

  23,061

  7,872

  40,602

  1981

  22,984

  7,724

  37,756

  1982

  23,452

  8,045

  37,301

  1983

  23,375

  8,352

  36,177

  1984

  23,369

  8,265

  34,538

  1985

  23,672

  8,536

  33,964

  1986

  23,386

  8,633

  31,798

  1987

  23,122

  8,678

  30,311

  1988

  23.783

  8,740

  29,503

  1989

  24,366

  8,861

  28,420

  1990

  23,820

  10,238

  28,592

  1991

  23,398

  10,393

  27,313

  1992

  22,839

  10,485

  26,823

  1993

  22,770

  10,717

  26,299

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his current plans for city technology colleges in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No proposals for establishing a city technology college in Scotland are currently under consideration. Any firm proposals which come forward will be carefully considered.

  Court of Session Fees
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the extension of the principle that the litigant should contribute to the recovery of the full judicial costs applicable to civil business; and when he intends to lay the statutory instrument order on Court of Session fees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on Thursday 24 February, column 442.

  An order will be laid later this year.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the extra nursery school places since 1979 have been provided through the urban programme; and what percentage the urban programme places are of the increase in places since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No central records are maintained of the number of places which have been created through the urban programme and continue to form part of the total provision of nursery school places in Scotland. Such information could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.
  705

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland if he will instruct Scottish Enterprise that it should be able to provide answers to questions about the specific skills being learnt on Government training schemes.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to instruct Scottish Enterprise on this matter.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the annual capital expenditure on schools since 1979 in real and constant price terms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested, which is given in the table, has been compiled from local authority financial returns. The fall in expenditure in real terms during the period reflects a substantial and progressive decline in school pupil numbers which has reduced the requirement for new school building.

  Capital expenditure by local authorities on schools

  At out-turn prices

  At 1992–93 prices

  £ million

  1979–80

  47·598

  113·307

  1980–81

  52·391

  105·404

  1981–82

  60·404

  110·807

  1982–83

  52·378

  89·694

  1983–84

  45·416

  74·326

  1984–85

  45·945

  71·594

  1985–86

  51·194

  75·581

  1986–87

  46·694

  66·976

  1987–88

  47·742

  65·015

  1988–89

  59·392

  75·792

  1989–90

  66·884

  79·803

  1990–91

  67·305

  74·314

  1991–92

  72·572

  75·358

  1992–93

  89·679

  89·679

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people, of all ages, are on training schemes in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The numbers of Government training programmes in Scotland at the end of December were as follows:

  Number

  Youth training

  32,453

  Training for work

  14,065

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many training establishments he visits each year.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I and other ministerial colleagues have in recent years visited a number of employers, chambers of commerce, training providers and educational establishments which provide vocational and non-vocational training.
  706

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the 20 independent schools which currently have the highest proportions of their school rolls made up by pupils covered by the assisted places scheme; and if he will give the percentage of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme and the size of the school rolls.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, for autumn term 1993–94, is as follows:

  School

  School roll

  Per cent, of pupils supported by assisted place scheme

  Kilquhanity House School, Castle Douglas

  40

  50

  Keil School, Dumbarton

  225

  28

  Morrison's Academy, Crieff

  642

  24

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  252

  23

  The Park School, Glasgow

  320

  21

  Kilgraston School, Bridge of Earn

  263

  19

  Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh

  365

  18

  George Heriot's School, Edinburgh

  1,480

  17

  High School of Dundee

  1,132

  17

  St. Denis and Cranley School, Edinburgh

  173

  17

  Laurel Bank School, Glasgow

  374

  16

  St. Aloysius College, Glasgow

  1,078

  15

  Wellington School, Ayr

  363

  15

  Glenalmond College, Perth

  255

  15

  Kelvinside Academy, Glasgow

  585

  15

  Rannoch School, Perthshire

  278

  13

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville College and The Mary Erskine School, Edinburgh

  2,514

  12

  George Watson's College, Edinburgh

  2,025

  12

  Crawfordton House School, Thornhill, Dumfries

  45

  11

  Lomond School, Helensburgh

  514

  11

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what follow-up is undertaken to assess the usefulness of training schemes in finding jobs.

  Mr. Stewart
  Responsibility for the follow-up survey of leavers from the employment training and youth training programmes was transferred from the Training Agency to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on 1 April 1991. The Department of Employment delivered the service on their behalf under contract until 1 April 1993 when the enterprise bodies introduced their own follow-up systems.

  I have asked the chairmen of the enterprise bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of trainees between the ages of 40 and 50 years find work on completion of a training course.
  707
  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not collected in the form requested.

  Motorists (Culpable Homicide Charges)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations he takes into account when determining whether charges of culpable homicide should be proceeded with in relation to drivers of motor vehicles.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Crown counsel will charge a motorist with culpable homicide where, on the evidence available to them, the driver's conduct showed gross or wicked criminal negligence amounting to a criminal indifference to the consequences of his driving.

  DNase
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had with health boards relating to the use of the drug DNase; and if he has recommended its use to health boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: There has been no discussions between the Scottish Office Home and Health Department and health boards about the drug DNase; and no recommendations have been made as regards its use. The prescribing of DNase is a matter for clinical judgment.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals there have been against council tax valuations since the council tax was introduced in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: By 30 November 1993, 95,966 proposals to change the valuation list were lodged with assessors' departments in Scotland.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average waiting time for appeals against valuation to be heard since the introduction of the council tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: For proposals to change the valuation list and consequential appeals settled by 30 November 1993, the average time from lodging the proposal to settlement was four months.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against council tax valuations are still waiting to be heard in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: At 30 November 1993, the latest date for which information is available centrally, 66,329 proposals to change the valuation list and appeals were still to be dealt with.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against valuation have resulted in a change in the banding of a property since the introduction of the council tax.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: Information is not collected centrally on the number of proposals to change the valuation list which have resulted in a change in the banding of a property. The table shows the recorded outcomes of the 29,637 proposals settled up to 30 November 1993.
  708

  Number

  Settled before citation by the Valuation Appeals Committee:

  Withdrawn by appellant

  6,995

  List adjusted by assessor

  21,699

  Settled after citation and prior to Valuation Appeals Committee hearing:

  Withdrawn by appellant

  415

  List adjusted by assessor

  496

  Decisions by the Valuation Appeal Committee:

  Number dismissed

  29

  Number allowed

  3

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total cost of the valuation exercise in Scotland, including the appeals process, since the introduction of the council tax.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: No information is held centrally relating to the cost of the appeals process or to costs of valuation work other than the initial preparation of valuation lists. The additional costs incurred by valuation authorities on the initial valuation exercise, which are reimbursed by my Department through the council tax valuation grant, amount to an estimated £9 million. Not all final claims have yet been received in respect of work in 1992–93.

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital staff were lost from each health board in 1993; and of these totals how many were nurses.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: The information requested is not available centrally for all staff groups. The readily available data on qualified nurses joining and leaving each board are shown in the table.

  Qualified nurses (excluding those in training): net movement analysis by health board for year beginning 30 September 1992 (Headcount).

  1Leavers

  2Joiners

  Scotland

  3,631

  3,676

  Argyll and Clyde

  182

  180

  Ayrshire and Arran

  182

  179

  Borders

  61

  82

  Dumfries and Galloway

  97

  112

  Fife

  165

  252

  Forth Valley

  250

  223

  Grampian

  539

  347

  Greater Glasgow

  713

  764

  Highland

  161

  131

  Lanarkshire

  268

  223

  Lothian

  526

  744

  Orkney

  9

  17

  Shetland

  14

  15

  Tayside

  402

  324

  Western Isles

  15

  67

  State Hospital

  47

  16

  1No longer employed as a qualified hospital nurse by 30 September 1993.

  2 Became employed as a qualified hospital nurse by 30 September 1993.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those members of bodies to which he makes appointments who can be identified as having estate-owning interests.
  709
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Appointments are made on the basis of aptitude, merit and the qualifications of the person for the post to which they are appointed. No central record is kept of the land ownership of those appointed to public bodies.

  Football Grounds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much Greenock Morton football club will benefit in terms of the formula valuation following the changes contained in the Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 March 1994]: The Football Grounds (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994 falls to be implemented by the local assessor. I cannot, therefore, provide a definitive figure for its effect on any particular club. From the latest figures available to my Department, however, I estimate that the club's rateable value will be reduced from £17,000 to £11,600.

  Specialists (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people, not on waiting lists for treatment, were waiting to see a specialist in the national health service for each quarter in the last two years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment is set out in the "NHS Patient Treatment and Waiting Time Bulletin". Copies of the bulletin, which is published quarterly, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female, (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The number of staff in post in the Scottish Office, its executive agencies and associated Departments as at 1 April 1993 are shown by grade equivalent, full-time or part-time status and gender in the table.

  Number of staff at 1 April 1993, by grade equivalent, full-time/part-time status and gender

  (a) Scottish Office core and agencies (excluding SPS)plus associated departments ofGRO(S) and SRO

  Scottish Office core

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade equivalent

  male

  female

  male

  female

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  20

  3

  0

  1

  Grade 4

  14

  3

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  108

  10

  2

  7

  Grade 6

  149

  35

  1

  2

  Grade 7

  332

  57

  2

  11

  Senior Executive Officer

  329

  35

  0

  4

  Higher Executive Officer

  524

  209

  2

  36

  Executive Officer

  479

  375

  1

  32

  Administrative Officer

  296

  646

  1

  84

  Administrative Assistant

  359

  659

  0

  89

  Industrial grades

  122

  5

  2

  11

  Totals

  2,742

  2,037

  11

  277

  710

  Agencies (Excl SPS)

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  12

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  44

  5

  0

  3

  Senior executive officer

  65

  7

  0

  1

  Higher executive officer

  120

  20

  0

  0

  Executive officer

  122

  59

  0

  4

  Administrative officer

  121

  113

  3

  24

  Administrative assistant

  45

  64

  3

  2

  Industrial grades

  351

  2

  0

  0

  Totals

  885

  270

  6

  34

  General register office

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Senior executive officer

  10

  1

  0

  0

  Higher executive officer

  27

  7

  0

  1

  Executive officer

  32

  21

  0

  3

  Administrative officer

  28

  44

  0

  12

  Administrative assistant

  31

  51

  0

  5

  Industrial grades

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  137

  124

  0

  21

  Grade Equivalent

  Scottish Records Office

  Full time

  Part-time

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  4

  4

  0

  0

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  3

  0

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  4

  0

  0

  Executive Officer

  7

  5

  0

  0

  Administrative Officer

  17

  13

  0

  0

  Administrative Assistant

  25

  9

  0

  9

  Industrial grades

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Totals

  71

  39

  0

  9

  Grade Equivalent

  Total Staff

  Full time

  Part-time

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  20

  3

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  15

  3

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  115

  10

  2

  7

  Grade 6

  162

  35

  1

  2

  Grade 7

  387

  66

  2

  14

  Senior Executive Officer

  408

  46

  0

  5

  Higher Executive Officer

  681

  240

  2

  37

  711

  Grade Equivalent

  Total Staff

  Full time

  Part-time

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Executive Officer

  640

  460

  1

  39

  Administrative Officer

  462

  816

  4

  120

  Administrative Assistant

  460

  783

  3

  105

  Industrial grades

  475

  8

  2

  11

  TOTALS

  3,835

  2,470

  17

  341

  (b) Scottish Prison Service

  Scottish Prison Service

  Full time

  Part-time

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  All Staff

  4,182

  414

  30

  28

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) at what stage the unit general manager at Glasgow royal infirmary became aware that Greater Glasgow health board had awarded cleaning and portering contracts to Executive Healthcare; and whether his advice was sought on that company's suitability to be invited to tender;

  (2) if he will investigate the contract evaluation methods carried out by Greater Glasgow health board, to determine whether they meet ministerial guidelines;

  (3) if he will conduct an investigation into the practices of the commercial section of Greater Glasgow health board;

  (4) on what criteria firms were chosen to be invited to tender for cleaning and portering services at the Glasgow royal infirmary.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The unit general manager was a member of the evaluation panel for the tenders and was involved in the advice to Greater Glasgow health board in reaching its decision to award the contract.

  My noble and learned Friend has been assured by the health board that the evaluation was carried out in accordance with the central guidance issued and the board's standing instructions. It is for the board's auditors to investigate any non-compliance with procedures and standing instructions.

  In line with EC procurement regulations, advertisements were placed in the national press and European Journal. Technical and financial checks were undertaken on the companies that responded to the advertisements.
  712
  The checks included the taking up of bank and trade references. Only those companies that satisfied the checks were placed on the tender list.

  Scottish New Town Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made for the maintenance of pension funds for staff employed by the Scottish New Town development corporation following the wind-up of those bodies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: New towns staff are in general members of either the new towns pension fund or local government superannuation schemes. Discussions are taking place at present towards safeguarding staff pension rights, following the wind-up of the development corporations.

  Mearnskirk Hospital
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much surplus land within the grounds of Mearnskirk hospital is for sale; what price was negotiated with Dickie Ambion Bryant; how many other firms were invited to submit bids for the purchase of this land; and how many bids were received.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Thirty-six hectares of land at Meamskirk hospital has been declared surplus to requirements and offered for sale by Greater Glasgow health board. Extensive marketing included a mailshot of the top 500 housing developers. By the closing date seven formal offers and one expression of interest were received, and the offer from Dickie Ambion Bryant was recently approved by the board. As missives of sale have not yet been concluded, it would be inappropriate to reveal price details.

  East End Leisure Centre, Shettleston
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial contribution the Glasgow Development Agency is making to the proposed Fast End leisure centre in Shettleston constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: It is for the local enterprise company to decide what, if any, contribution it wishes to make towards a particular project. I understand Glasgow Development Agency has, at present, no plans to make any financial contribution towards the East End leisure centre.
  713

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library documents from 1989 onwards relating to the agreed redundancy arrangements applying to staff employed by East Kilbride development corporation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]:It is not normal practice for copies of correspondence between the Secretary of State or his officials and third parties to be made public.

  Specialist Medical Examinations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time which elapses between a general practitioner's recommendation for specialist

  Average lengths of wait (days)1 for first consultant outpatient appointment, by specialty and health board of residence: quarter ending 30 September 19932

  Specialty

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayr and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Adolescent psychiatry

  32

  60

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  21

  Anaesthetics

  84

  86

  52

  ..

  ..

  127

  62

  32

  Cardiology

  50

  52

  52

  35

  ..

  48

  36

  57

  Child psychiatry

  62

  75

  26

  27

  ..

  ..

  24

  54

  Clinical genetic

  36

  ..

  42

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  26

  Communicable diseases

  16

  ..

  13

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Dermatology

  55

  52

  53

  48

  47

  59

  73

  60

  ENT surgery

  58

  61

  51

  60

  60

  73

  44

  57

  Gastroenterology

  51

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  34

  ..

  57

  General medicine

  38

  46

  52

  28

  35

  49

  45

  37

  General surgery

  38

  31

  40

  45

  38

  54

  33

  39

  Geriatric assessment

  15

  11

  40

  ..

  11

  21

  27

  11

  Gynaecology

  43

  35

  50

  29

  69

  46

  54

  46

  Haematology

  16

  18

  14

  ..

  ..

  23

  11

  11

  Homeopathy

  144

  162

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Medical oncology

  11

  ..

  ..

  —

  —

  ..

  ..

  15

  Medical paediatrics

  44

  28

  56

  29

  41

  56

  35

  52

  Mental handicap

  20

  ..

  ..

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Mental illness

  29

  27

  43

  16

  8

  35

  36

  21

  Metabolic disease

  38

  35

  ..

  ..

  —

  39

  ..

  44

  Nephrology

  45

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  18

  Neurology

  63

  53

  62

  68

  42

  78

  55

  50

  Neurosurgery

  48

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  43

  ..

  25

  Obstetrics—specialist antena

  23

  20

  13

  30

  33

  18

  20

  27

  Obstetrics—specialist postna

  ..

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ..

  Ophthalmology

  57

  45

  72

  84

  37

  56

  52

  51

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  42

  43

  80

  101

  133

  65

  51

  79

  Orthodontics and paediatric dent

  92

  127

  91

  66

  122

  108

  49

  117

  Orthopaedic surgery

  46

  58

  36

  30

  87

  50

  38

  65

  Specialty

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Adolescent psychiatry

  ..

  —

  —

  30

  —

  —

  ..

  —

  Anaesthetics

  96

  ..

  72

  ..

  —

  —

  122

  ..

  Cardiology

  51

  ..

  62

  34

  —

  —

  92

  ..

  Child psychiatry

  70

  —

  134

  —

  ..

  ..

  72

  —

  Clinical genetic

  46

  ..

  34

  46

  —

  ..

  —

  ..

  Communicable diseases

  18

  ..

  18

  14

  —

  —

  ..

  —

  Dermatology

  55

  58

  49

  59

  ..

  31

  46

  64

  ENT surgery

  59

  46

  67

  56

  25

  28

  51

  27

  Gastroenterology

  77

  —

  72

  30

  —

  —

  32

  —

  General medicine

  34

  36

  39

  23

  16

  40

  32

  24

  General surgery

  38

  45

  35

  39

  9

  22

  32

  13

  Geriatric assessment

  14

  23

  14

  11

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Gynaecology

  55

  41

  45

  34

  27

  40

  25

  29

  Haematology

  20

  ..

  20

  11

  —

  ..

  22

  —

  Homeopathy

  131

  ..

  146

  ..

  —

  —

  ..

  —

  Medical oncology

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  —

  —

  ..

  —

  Medical paediatrics

  53

  51

  47

  27

  ..

  ..

  48

  ..

  Mental handicap

  —

  ..

  ..

  ..

  —

  —

  25

  —

  714
  investigation and the effecting of such consultations in each health board or health trust area in Scotland, in each specialty.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Information on the average waiting time for first corporation. out-patient consultations in the main specialties following GP referrals is set out in the "NHS Patient Treatment and Waiting Time Bulletin". Copies of the bulletin, which is published quarterly, may be found in the Library of the House.

  The following table sets out the average waiting time for each specialty:
  715

  Specially

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Mental illness

  45

  18

  28

  20

  ..

  ..

  17

  ..

  Metabolic disease

  39

  58

  46

  29

  —

  ..

  24

  —

  Nephrology

  56

  ..

  ..

  ..

  —

  —

  ..

  —

  Neurology

  59

  ..

  79

  64

  ..

  ..

  92

  ..

  Neurosurgery

  74

  33

  81

  41

  —

  —

  62

  ..

  Obstetrics—specialist antena

  24

  20

  18

  28

  ..

  ..

  21

  39

  Obstetrics—specialist postna

  ..

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ophthalmology

  73

  80

  47

  70

  26

  60

  31

  35

  Oral surgery and oral medicine

  27

  84

  29

  42

  ..

  ..

  18

  ..

  Orthodontics and paediatric dent

  73

  100

  107

  87

  ..

  ..

  37

  ..

  Orthopaedic surgery

  43

  64

  44

  39

  20

  52

  47

  52

  Sporting Rates
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he received from Scottish Natural Heritage on the abolition of sporting rates in Scotland; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: None.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost, by local authority area, of abolishing sporting rates in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: There will be no cost to local authorities due to the loss of non-domestic rate income following the abolition of sporting rates in Scotland. Through the aggregate external finance mechanism any NDRI forgone will be compensated by an increase in revenue support grant.

TRANSPORT

  West London Railway Line
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ask Railtrack to undertake studies into alternative routes to the west London railway line for freight traffic to and from the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am asking Railtrack to carry out a study of the proposal to route international freight trains via the North Downs route when it takes over responsibility for the infrastructure in April 1994.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1993–94.

  Mr. Macgregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on Thursday 24 February 1994,Official Report, column 324.

  London, Tilbury and Southend Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the ministerial statement of March concerning closure of Fenchurch Street station for seven weeks in the summer,Official Report, column 1220, what alternative services, or what recommended means, will be
  716
  available to passengers wishing (a) to use the London, Tilbury and Southend line to and from Limehouse station and (b) to interchange at that station to and from stations on the docklands light railway.

  Mr. Freeman
  Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations on the London, Tilbury and Southend line will be closed from 22 July to 12 September. I understand that, during the closure, LT and S passengers wishing to travel from Limehouse into the City of London will be able to do so using the docklands light railway. Passengers wishing to transfer to the docklands light railway will be able to change to the London Underground District line at Barking and then to the docklands light railway at Bow Road—Bow Church. LT and S services terminating at Liverpool Street will call at Stratford where there is also an interchange with the docklands light railway.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the ministerial statement of 17 March concerning the seven week closure of Fenchurch Street station this summer,Official Report, column 1220, over what period of time the re-signalling and track re-laying programme, costing £83 million, could be accomplished on the basis of withdrawal of all trains between Barking and Fenchurch Street on weekends only from 21.00 hours on Friday until 06.00 hours on Monday; and what withdrawal of services, other than those already announced, he expects east of Barking in this respect during the remainder of 1994 and in 1995.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is impossible to undertake the required resignalling work between Fenchurch Street and Barking at weekends and at night in a safe manner. It involves the complete removal of the tracks into Fenchurch Street.

  The full scheme will involve a programme of works in 1995 both east and west of Barking. LT and S management cannot predict at present what further changes to the service may be necessary before the resignalling scheme is complete.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the ministerial statement of 17 March concerning closure of Fenchurch Street station for seven weeks this summer,Official Report, column 1220, how many passengers travel (a) to Fenchurch Street from Barking via West Ham on the London, Tilbury line between 07.00 hours and 10.00 hours on a normal weekday morning and (b) westbound on the District line to central London via West Ham on that line between 07.00 hours and 10.00 hours on a weekday morning in August; how many in (a) above are expected, during closure of the line

  717
  from Barking to Fenchurch Street, to add to those travelling as in (b) above; how many are expected to travel by trains direct from Barking to Liverpool Street; what is the planned capacity provided over those times; how many additional passengers are expected on services on the Great Eastern line between Southend and Stratford; and what is his estimate on the reduction in demand in (a) above from 22 July to 9 September this year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Approximately 3,000 passengers join trains at Barking for Fenchurch Street station on the London, Tilbury and Southend line—LT and S—between 07.00 and 10.00 hours on a weekday morning in August. Many of these have changed from the District line.

  This information is not available in the form requested. London Underground says that, in spring 1990, the latest period for which figures are available, 30,500 people each weekday travelled westbound on the District and Hammersmith and City lines between Plaistow and West Ham during the morning peak.

  During the closure of Fenchurch Street station, several alternative travel options for LT and S passengers will be available: to change at Barking on to the London Underground District line, to travel to Liverpool Street on the London, Tilbury and Southend line or to travel to Liverpool Street on the Great Eastern line. It is not possible to predict precisely which options passengers will choose. However, extensive research is being undertaken to forecast traffic flows and the likely level of passengers who will transfer at Barking. London, Tilbury and Southend management will consult the Southend Rail Travellers Association before publishing a temporary timetable at the end of April.

  Planned capacity is as follows:
  There will be approximately 960 seats every 12 minutes from the Southend Borough West, Benfleet, Pitsea and Basildon to Liverpool Street. There will be 620 seats every 12 minutes from Southend Borough calling at all stations to Balking. There will be 620 seats every 12 minutes from Pitsea to Barking via Tilbury.

  There is usually a 13 per cent. seasonal reduction in passenger numbers in July and August, but owing to the closure it is expected that this will increase to 20 or 30 percent.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the ministerial statement of 17 March concerning the closure of Fenchurch Street station for seven weeks this summer,Official Report, column 1220, how many additional trains will be run by London Underground between Upminster or Barking and central London during weekday mornings and evening peak hours—between 07.00 hours and 10.00 hours and 16.00 hours and 19.00—during those weeks; and what number and proportion of timetabled trains outside those periods on those days, and on Saturdays and Sundays, respectively, will be run direct from Barking into and out of Liverpool Street station.

  Mr. Norris
  The eastern section of London Underground's District line already operates at full capacity during the peak periods, leaving no possibility of additional services during the seven weeks' closure of Fenchurch Street station. The frequency of peak hour services from Barking on the Hammersmith and City line 718
  will double from four to eight trains per hour, when London Underground Ltd. introduces new timetables in May. LUL has no plans to run Hammersmith and City line services to or from Barking outside peak hours.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the additional bus services planned by the management of the London, Tilbury and Southend line and management between stations on that line and Great Eastern stations; and how many additional trains will be run at peak hours during that period from either Southend or Shenfield into Liverpool Street station.

  Mr. Freeman
  Fenchurch Street station will be closed for seven weeks during the summer. London, Tilbury and Southend line management are working closely with local user groups to determine the best use of bus services between LT and S stations and nearby alternatives on the Great Eastern line. They are examining routes between Laindon and Billericay, Basildon and Wickford and the Leigh area to Rayleigh. LT and S management believe that many passengers will make their way to Southend Victoria, Prittlewell and Rayleigh where they will be able to travel to Liverpool Street on the Great Eastern line.

  Two trains an hour from Southend Victoria via Shenfield will be strengthened from eight to 12 cars to provide additional capacity. Colchester trains will call additionally at Romford where a short branch line connects the Great Eastern with the LT and S at Upminster.

  Owing to limited track and platform capacity it will not be possible to run additional trains into Liverpool Street.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions relating to(a) issuing and inspection of tickets, (b) passenger services, (c) signalling and safety and (d) platform allocation will be taken by (i) private commercial management of mainline London railway stations, (ii) the franchisees or (iii) Railtrack.

  Mr. Freeman
  Station operators will normally be responsible for(a). Franchisees and open access operators will be responsible for (b). Railtrack will have overall responsibility for (c) although all operators will be required to conform with its safety case. Station access agreements will cover (d).

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what activities he will open to the London mainline railway stations under private commercial management that could not have been activated by the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Freeman
  Private sector management of mainline stations in London and elsewhere will ensure that the commercial potential of such stations is more fully developed than under public sector ownership and management. Private sector management will also help to provide a more attractive environment for passengers and greater responsiveness to customer requirements at such stations.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to whether passenger transport authorities making payments to Railtrack from 1 April will have sufficient information about the basis of the charges to meet the statutory criteria required by their auditors; and if he will make a statement.
  719
  Mr. Freeman
  Passenger transport authorities, through the passenger transport executives, will not be making payments direct to Railtrack for the access charges attributable to their rail services, but will be paying the subsidy required by BR to run the trains. BR, in turn, will pay access charges to Railtrack.

  I understand Railtrack has been discussing with the passenger transport authorities the composition of the access charges for their services. I have no reason to believe that the passenger transport authorities will have insufficient information to meet the statutory criteria required by their auditors.

  Donaldson Inquiry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to make public the findings of the Donaldson inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend expects to publish the report of Lord Donaldson's inquiry during May.

  Sleeper Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the franchising director to include sleeper services on the Night West Countryman and the Night Riviera in the contract with train operating companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  The sleeper services on the Night West Countryman and the Night Riviera are included in the existing timetable. The objectives, instructions and guidance issued to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising on 22 March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State included an instruction to the effect that, for the initial letting of franchises, the specification of minimum service levels for railway passenger services is to be based on that being provided by British Rail immediately prior to franchising, taking into account the existence of, and justification for, seasonal variations in service schedules.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of published research into the role of road construction in stimulating economic regeneration in the areas concerned.

  Mr. Key
  The conclusion to be drawn from published research is that in general there is no clear evidence for specific regeneration effects. The main likely reasons for this are that local or regional economic problems are varied and seldom specifically related to lack of adequate access by road, that road improvements help traffic in both directions, and therefore can help importers to a region as much as exporters from it, and that labour employed on road improvements does not necessarily come from the immediate area. However, road schemes taken forward by the Department of Transport or by local authorities with Department of Transport assistance show healthy economic benefits, principally from time and cost savings to local and through traffic. Their planning takes into account any appropriate regeneration or economic development measures that are proposed for the areas affected.
  720

  Second Tamar Bridge
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for a second Tamar bridge which also crosses the Tavy; when he expects to make an announcement about these proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The consultants who undertook a study of the feasibility of a new Tamar crossing advised that a new crossing is likely to be needed by the turn of the century. Their report was published in June 1993 and comments were invited on the four possible routes which had been identified. One of these, the purple route, would cross both the River Tamar and the River Tavy.

  I am considering the responses to the consultation before deciding if, when and how the proposal for a new Tamar crossing should be taken forward.

  Signposting
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review legislation on the size and display of public and private signs.

  Mr. Key
  We will shortly be placing before Parliament updated traffic signs regulations and general directions. These will offer a much wider range of signs than before—and of circumstances in which they can be used—and so reduce the need for traffic authorities to seek special authorisations from my Department, thereby substantially reducing bureaucracy. As a separate exercise we recently invited the views of a wide range of organisations on the procedures currently in place for approving the use of white-on-brown tourist signs. I am now considering how the procedures might be changed in the light of the responses to this consultation.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and upaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Norris
  Names of candidates for appointments are obtained from the public appointments unit and from a wide range of other sources such as those described in section 4 of the Cabinet Office guide on public appointments procedures, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Information on which bodies have been invited to submit names for particular appointments is not held centrally and could be assembled in respect of all appointments made by my right hon. Friend only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons;
  721
  (2) what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend does not seek information on involvement in political activities when considering candidates for public appointments, and no such information is held centrally within the Department. Where the rules on political activities referred to in paragraph 7.2 and annexe 7A of the Cabinet Office guide on public appointments procedures apply, they are drawn to the candidate's attention when the appointment is offered. It is then for the individual to decide whether to accept the appointment on these terms.

  London Buses (Privatisation)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received from London regional Transport, London Buses Ltd or any other organisation on the expected change in bus mileage in the capital following privatisation of London Buses Ltd.

  Mr. Norris
  After privatisation of London Buses Ltd., London Transport will continue to be responsible for the general level of provision of bus services. It has no plans to make significant changes to its bus network. However, it intends to give bus operators the opportunity to increase service frequencies, if they wish, to make their services more responsive to the needs of their passengers.

  Continental Time
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evidence his Department has as to the extra costs imposed upon United Kingdom(a) airlines, (b) ferry operators and (c) train operators by the one hour time difference between the United Kingdom and continental Europe;

  (2) what representations he has received from United Kingdom airlines, ferry operators and train operators regarding the one-hour time difference between the United Kingdom and continental Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  We have received representations from British Rail and British Airways on this issue. Both organisations have drawn attention to the reduced costs and other benefits which would result from harmonisation of United Kingdom and continental European time. I believe that the chamber of shipping takes a similar view.

  The Council of Ministers has recently adopted a common position on a Commission proposal to harmonise the end-date of summertime throughout the Community from 1996. The case for a move to single-double summertime in the United Kingdom is currently under consideration and I expect a conclusion to be reached shortly.

  Vocational Drivers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 102, if he will list the reasons why certain offences will no longer be categorised as requiring disciplinary hearings after reorganisation.

  Mr. Key
  There has never been any requirement for drivers who have been convicted of offences by the courts 722
  to be called in addition to public inquiry by a traffic commissioner; offences involving more than six penalty points have, however, hitherto been referred routinely to the traffic commissioners, who have had discretion to call drivers to inquiry and, especially in cases involving disqualification, often did so. Under the new guidelines, traffic commissioners are recommended not to call to inquiry drivers who have received first-time disqualifications of 12 months or less, but to deal with such cases by warning letter. In addition, drivers who have received only very short disqualifications or penalty points short of a disqualification will no longer be routinely referred to the traffic commissioners for possible action unless the penalty points result from alcohol or drug-related offences.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 102, if he will list the categories of offences of the driver disciplinary hearings held in the last 12 months, giving details.

  Mr. Key
  During the last 12 months there have been approximately 9,000 individual disciplinary hearings for vocational drivers. Information on the category of offences on each of these hearings could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Railway Staff Redundancies
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the statutory requirements on the railway industry of operating with due regard to economy, efficiency and safety continue to be fulfilled in the light of redundancies and early retirements which have taken place since January 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am satisfied that the railway industry will continue to fulfil all its statutory requirements in line with the objectives I have set and will continue to set.

  Motor Cyclists (Leg Protectors)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned on leg protectors for motorcyclists.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 March to a question from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)Official Report, column 107.

  Barkby and Beeby Bypass
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any route has been approved by his Department for a new eastern bypass near the Leicestershire villages of Barkby and Beeby.

  Mr. Key
  No. The work done so far has just identified the broad corridor through which the proposed Leicester eastern bypass would be likely to run.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the status of the plans to build a new Leicestershire eastern bypass near the villages of Barkby and Beeby.

  Mr. Key
  Along with all trunk road schemes in the national roads programme, the future of the Leicester eastern bypass is under review. The outcome of the review should be known shortly but until then it is not possible to comment on the status of any individual scheme.
  723

  Accidents (Young People)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish tables covering the last three years showing the number of accidents to 17 and 18-year-olds who had passed their driving test within one and two years before an accident.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Civil Servants
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department the number of(a) male and (b) female, (i) full-time and (ii) part-time employees.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: I am placing copies of the information requested in the Library.

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether he has discharged his responsibilities under section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of a Woolwich constituent, Department of Transport, Ref. N/PSO/21676/93; what progress he can report subsequent to his letter to the hon. Member for Woolwich of 24 November 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The Secretary of State has considered his responsibilities under section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of the hon. Member's constituent and he is satisfied they have been discharged. Agreement has been reached with the hon. Member's constituent for all the outstanding mortgages to be discharged. Officials will shortly seek agreement with the mortgagees of the hon. Member's constituent to complete this process.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the administrative cost of disallowing income support for one day in the case of applicants who absent themselves from the United Kingdom for one day.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate as such costs are wholly dependent on the circumstances of each individual case.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single people with no dependants who work between 16 and 24 hours a week are now excluded from entitlement to income support.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the maximum number of taught hours an unemployed adult can undertake without affecting his entitlement to family income support;
  724
  (2) what assessment he has made of the move of the Further Education Funding Council to mode 3 learning; to what extent the concept of full-time or part-time course or student still applies; and if he will make it his policy that that concept should not be used by his Department in determining eligibility for benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  People aged 19 or over but under pension age who are attending a full-time course at an educational establishment are not entitled to income support other than in a limited number of circumstances.

  People attending a part-time course may under certain circumstances continue to receive IS but only if the course is not more than 21 hours.

  The Further Education Funding Council's new funding methodology is concerned solely with the distribution of recurrent funding to colleges in the FE sector. It will not affect entitlement to social security benefits.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Hague
  For those executive and advisory bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1993", 4 per cent. of new appointments last year were from an ethnic minority. Ethnic origin details are given in confidence and names cannot be divulged.

  The information requested is not readily available for the independent tribunal service and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Disablement Benefit
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a medical question in respect of a claim for industrial disablement benefit should be determined by more than one adjudicating medical practitioner; what standing instructions there are to officers acting on his behalf on when and how to apply regulation 29(1)(d) of the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1986; and if he will place a copy of those instructions in the Library.

  Mr. Scott
  Medical questions must be referred to, and determined by, more than one adjudicating medical practitioner in the case of:

  (a) any question arising on an application for the review of a decision on the grounds that:

  (i) the decision was given in ignorance of, or based on a mistake as to, a material fact; or

  (ii)there has been an error of law;

  (b) any other case which, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should be determined by more than one adjudicating medical practitioner.

  There are no standing instructions on the application of regulation 29(1)(d), but guidance is issued to adjudicating medical authorities.

  Industrial Injuries
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of administrative costs for the industrial injuries scheme as a proportion of all benefit paid under the scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost is estimated as 9·6 per cent.
  725

  Disability Working Allowance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 782, if he will publish the reasons for the low level of take-up of the disability working allowance before the completion of the research, commissioned by his Department, in October 1996.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Benefit Tourism
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the countries whose Governments have made representations concerning his proposals to tackle benefit tourism.

  Mr. Hague
  The Republic of Ireland.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each year since 1988 for which inforrnation is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Pensioners (Benefit Loss)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from what date the benefit loss to a pensioner was set at £1 per £250 of savings.

  Mr. Hague
  The formula applied for taking account of capital above £3,000 in the income-related benefits was introduced in April 1988. In housing benefit and council tax benefit, however, the effect of the tapers which apply to those benefits means that housing benefit is reduced by only 65p and council tax benefit by only 20p for each £1 above a set level.

  Residence Test
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received expressing concern at the Government's new residence test; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the points raised by the Irish in Britain's representation group concerning the economic effects of the new residence test proposals on immigrant Irish youth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Proposals for the introduction of a habitual residence test into income support, housing benefit and the council tax benefit are before the Social Security Advisory Committee. Representations are currently being considered by the committee, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will receive their report in due course.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the way in which assumed amounts of national insurance contributions are calculated in determining the net amount of estimated earnings and bonus and commission payments in the assessment of family credit and disability working allowance entitlement.
  726
  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before Parliament on 10 March 1994 amendments to the family credit and disability working allowance regulations on the calculation of these assumed amounts. Because of the difficulty of ascertaining the actual rate of contribution for which the person would be liable, it has been the practice to make all the calculations at the rate applicable to a person who is not contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. This was considered to be within the terms of regulations 20, 20A and 26 of the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987, and regulations 22, 23 and 29 of the Disability Working Allowance (General) Regulations 1991, but recent legal advice is that they do not permit this. In consequence, overpayments have occurred since the introduction of the schemes, in April 1988 and April 1992 respectively, amounting to a total of about £725,000. The cost of the administrative arrangements which would be required to prevent the overpayments would be well in excess of the amounts overpaid. The regulations are therefore being amended urgently to regularise the situation and, in the meantime, the additional payments are continuing to be made on an ex-gratia basis. A note will be included in the relevant appropriation account.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there were against invalidity benefit being removed in the Doncaster area in the last 12 months; and what was the figure for the previous 12 months.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about appeals against removal of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) in Doncaster.The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because Benefit Agency District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries. Part of the Doncaster postal area falls within that covered by the Mexborough Branch Office of the Agency's Rother and Deame District.The Agency's Doncaster District, comprising Doncaster West District Office and Doncaster East Branch Office deals with the remainder of the Doncaster postal area.Statistics are maintained to show the number of appeals received at each office. Within these figures it is possible to identify the number of appeals against removal of IVB.
  The number of appeals received at each office against removal of IVB received for people in the Doncaster area were as follows:

  Number

  Doncaster West District Office from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  34

  Doncaster East Branch Office from 1 August 1992 to 31 March 1993

  41

  Mexborough Branch Office from 23 March 1992 to 22 March 1993

  24

  Information is required to be kept for 18 months and is not available for Doncaster East Branch Office between 1 April 1992 and 31 July 1992.
  727

  Number

  Doncaster West District Office from 1 April 1993 to 22 March 1994

  172

  Doncaster East Branch Office from 1 April 1993 to 22 March 1994

  167

  Mexborough Branch Office from 23 March 1993 to 22 March 1994

  68

  The information for Mexborough only includes those people resident in the Doncaster postal district.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Prosecutions
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions were instigated by his Department in the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 by nature of offence, the number of convictions, the number of custodial sentences and the financial penalties levied.

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 March 1994, columns 167–68]: The totals shown in the table should read as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  8,336

  1991–92

  4,618

  1992–93

  5,902

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were(a) the start-up costs, (b) the running costs and (c) the moneys recovered from absent parents in the first year of the Child Support Agency; and what was the target sum for (c).

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Frank Field, dated 28 March 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the costs of the Child Support Agency and the money recovered by the Agency.The total cost of setting up the Agency was around £146 million. This figure includes the 1992–93 cost of liable relative work, transferred in April 1992 from the Benefits Agency to the Child Support Unit, as the shadow Agency was known before its launch in April 1993. The running costs for the Agency in 1993–94 are estimated at £97·8 million.The Agency was set a target to recover £530 million in benefit savings in the financial year 1993–94. To 31 January 1994, £250 million had been recorded as recovered. This does not represent the total amount of savings during the period as some will be scored restrospectively.I hope this is helpful.
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Child Support Agency was introduced to ensure that parents meet their responsibility for the financial maintenance of their children where they can afford to do so. It replaced an inconsistent, often unreliable system which resulted in a drastic decline in maintenance payments over the past decade.
  728
  There is already the right of appeal to an independent tribunal against a decision of a child support officer on the basis of an incorrect application of the formula.

DEFENCE

  RAF Personnel Management Centre
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 394, what was the cost of refurbishment to the personal residence of the air officer commanding the RAF personnel management centre, Innsworth.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current air officer commanding the personnel management centre at RAF Innsworth vacated his official residence, Haymes Garth, in May 1992. That was to allow it to be refurbished for the air officer commander in chief of the new RAF personnel and training command. Since May 1992, the existing air officer commanding has been living in his own private residence. The value of the work being carried out at Haymes Garth is estimated at around £260,000 and includes substantial expenditure on repairs to the roof, on rewiring and re-plumbing.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Hanley
  No Asians or black people were appointed to MOD non-departmental public bodies during 1993.

  David Hart
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role and status David Hart has in his Department; what are his terms and conditions of employment; and when he was appointed.

  Mr. Hanley'
  Mr. Hart is not an employee of the Ministry of Defence. He is one of a number of people who provide unpaid advice to my right hon. and learned Friend from time to time. He has carried out this role since July 1993.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 752, if he will now give the same information for south Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I did not visit south Yorkshire on that date.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been carried out on the possible cumulative effect of low flying sorties on the hearing of young infants; and if he will make a statement on their findings.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has not carried out specific research into the cumulative effect of low flying
  729
  sorties on the hearing of young infants. In 1990, however, we commissioned a study to review the available information on any possible relationship between aircraft noise and hearing loss. The review included consideration of research reports of possible hearing loss in children due to aircraft noise. A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House—university of Southampton institute of sound and vibration research, "Risk to Hearing from Overflight Noise of Military Aircraft".

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying sorties have been conducted over mainland Britain for every year since 1979(a) above 250 ft, (b) between 100 and 250 ft and (c) below 100 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total numbers of sorties booked in the United Kingdom low flying system—UKLFS—for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  1108,860

  1980

  1122,851

  1981

  1131,841

  1982

  1130,313

  1983

  1127,683

  1984

  133,519

  1985

  141,762

  1986

  151,164

  1987

  147,661

  1988

  151,291

  1989

  144,323

  1990

  141,390

  1991

  127,400

  1992

  131,464

  1993

  119,410

  1 Before 1984 sorties were not recorded, but have been estimated from the number of movements into individual low flying areas.

  Central records are not maintained of the heights at which low flying sorties are flown. Information is, however, available on operational low flying—OLF—which is flying by fixed-wing military aircraft below 250 ft and down to 100 ft and which may only take place in three tactical training areas—TTAs—in central Wales, northern Scotland and the borders. Details of OLF sorties are not available, but the total numbers of movements authorized into the TTAs in each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  787

  1980

  797

  1981

  660

  1982

  240

  1983

  1,922

  1984

  1,007

  1985

  476

  1986

  1,200

  1987

  1,386

  1988

  2,115

  1989

  2,694

  1990

  6,027

  1991

  1,814

  1992

  3,220

  1993

  3,049

  The figures from 1988 onwards reflect the division of the borders TTA into east and west sectors. Movements for the two sectors were counted separately so that sorties which crossed the border between the two sectors
  730
  generated additional movements; this led to an overstatement of the amount of activity in comparison with earlier years. The division between the two sectors was removed in October 1993. Analysis of the figures which show OLF movements on the basis of treating the borders TTA as a single area give revised figures from 1991 onwards as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  1,050

  1992

  2,026

  1993

  1,874

  Note: Revised figures for 1988–90 are not available.

  OLF may be authorised down to a minimum level of 100 ft but records do not distinguish between movements flown below 250 ft and at 100 ft.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the total number and type of low flying exercises that have been conducted over Britain since 1979; if he will account for each significant change since 1990; and if he will describe future plans during 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central records of all low flying exercises in the United Kingdom are not held. There have been no significant changes in the broad pattern of exercise activity in the United Kingdom since 1990, and none are anticipated during 1994.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid out in compensation to farmers in Wales for loss of livestock, abortion and loss of production caused by low flying aircraft during each year since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1990 the Ministry of Defence has paid out the following amounts in compensation to farmers in Wales to cover livestock-related losses caused by low flying military aircraft:

  Year

  £

  1990

  47,953

  1991

  59,159

  1992

  33,152

  1993

  29,999

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the geographical area included in the central Wales tactical training area.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Welsh tactical training area comprises the south-west portion of Montgomery, the north-west corner of Brecon and Radnor, the north-east corner of Carmarthen and north Pembroke. The area, which is designated low flying area 7T, is shown on the copy of the map of the day low flying system which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total number of low flying sorties that have crossed the terrain of the Carmarthen constituency (1) on average per year from 1979 to 1991, (2) during 1992 and (3) during 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although records are maintained of the total number of sorties flown in the United Kingdom low flying system, it is not possible to estimate the number of sorties flown over particular locations.
  731
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations have been received by his Department against low flying aircraft during each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of inquiries and complaints received by my Department about low flying in each year since 1979 are as allows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  4,004

  1980

  3,365

  1981

  4,502

  1982

  3,304

  1983

  5,164

  1984

  5,609

  1985

  4,206

  1986

  5,304

  1987

  5,695

  1988

  5,763

  1989

  8,057

  1990

  7,130

  1991

  4,846

  1992

  6,295

  1993

  5,738

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what form of warning is given to farmers and residents of mid and west Wales prior to Royal Air Force test flights scheduled to fly in their area at altitudes below 250 ft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  All low flying below 250 ft and down to 100 ft in Wales by fixed wing military aircraft takes place in the Welsh tactical training area—TTA. Each month my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence notifies hon. Members in the areas affected of the planned usage of the TTA.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height at which low flying takes place(a) in the central Wales tactical training area, (b) in the rest of Wales and (c) in the rest of Britain.

  Mr. Hanley
  Fixed-wing military aircraft, except light propeller-driven aircraft, are permitted to fly to a minimum height of 100 ft in the tactical training areas in central Wales, northern Scotland and the borders. Elsewhere in the United Kingdom low flying system the minimum height is 250 ft.

  Light propeller-driven aircraft are permitted to fly to a minimum height of 50 ft. There is no minimum height restriction for helicopters.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's officials are involved in the selling of British arms to other European NATO countries outside the Western European Union.

  Mr. Aitken
  Taking into account associate membership of the WEU, there are no European NATO countries outside the WEU.

  Pregnant Personnel
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current employment policies when female personnel in the armed forces become pregnant.
  732
  Mr. Hanley
  Service women who become pregnant can choose either to take a period of up to 48 weeks maternity leave and return to duty, or if they prefer, to leave the armed forces. Those who choose to leave can apply to re-enter subsequently if they wish.

  Child Care
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent child care facilities are made available to personnel in the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 January,Official Report, column 940.

  Female Personnel
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the percentage of female personnel in each of the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Service

  Percentage of Female Personnel (as at 1 January 1994)

  Royal Navy

  7·6

  Army

  5·7

  Royal Air Force

  8·5

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, columns 392–93, what were the cash outturns at 1992–93 prices for the chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down for each financial year between 1969 and 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the Chief Executive of the CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 29 March 1994:
  Parliamentary Question 3, Order Paper 24 March 1994
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to the answer of 10 March, Official Report, columns 392–3 what were the cash outturns at 1992–93 prices for this Establishment for each financial year between 1969 and 1979 has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The cash outturns for 1975–76 to 1978–79 at 1992–93 price levels are as follows:

  Outturn at 1992–93 Price Levels

  Year

  £ million

  1975–76

  18·7

  1976–77

  17·0

  1977–78

  15·8

  1978–79

  13·5

  I regret that the cash outturns for 1969–70 to 1974–75 are not readily available.
  733

  Air Cadets
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the representations he has received about the future of the Air Cadets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 3 March,Official Report, column 871.

EDUCATION

  Examination League Tables
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has concerning the publication of examination league tables this year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the responses to consultation on the content and format of the 1994 school and college performance tables. He intends to build on the considerable success of previous years' tables and is minded, as in 1993, to publish in November two sets of booklets, covering secondary schools and institutions catering for students aged 16 to 18. He has also proposed that the secondary school tables should, for the first time, include data on authorised absence as well as on unauthorised absence from school, and information on the length of the taught week.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the funding of teacher salary increases within local management of school budgets.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received comments on the funding of teacher salary increases for 1994–95 from the teacher unions, local authority associations and others who were invited to comment on his proposals for implementing the recommendations of the school teachers' review body. A further 70 letters have been received from individual LEAs, head teachers and governors.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the Gulbenkian Foundation survey of discretionary awards will be published.

  Mr. Boswell
  Although publication is not in the Government's hands, I understand that, in order to avoid publication at the beginning of the Easter break, the survey's steering committee has now decided to publish the report on 8 April.

  Direct Grant Schools
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what applications for capital spending he has received from direct grant schools on Merseyside for the year up to 1 April; and what allowance has been made by his Department to those schools during the same period.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to capital bids by self-governing—grant-maintained—schools for 1993–94. One such school on 734
  Merseyside received a named project allocation totalling £750,000. Emergency grants totalling £188,000 have also been made to schools on Merseyside in the same period.

  Nursery Education
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to expand nursery provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the provision of private sector nursery education and its relationship to state nursery education provisions.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to extend nursery education to all four and five-year-olds whose parents want it.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recommendations he has for nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Over 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds already receive some form of pre-school provision, whether in maintained nursery and primary schools or in playgroups or elsewhere in the private sector. Our policy is to promote diversity, choice, quality and cost-effectiveness. We are currently reviewing possible ways of extending opportunities still further for the under fives, as resources allow. We will announce our conclusions when we are ready.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate his Department has made of the educational and social benefits of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 17 February at columns 934–35.

  School Places (Portsmouth)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from Hampshire local education authority concerning school places in Portsmouth.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Public Examinations (Course Work)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the role of course work in GCSE.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend is clear that the proportion of course work assessment must be appropriate to the type of qualification and to the knowledge, skills and understanding that are being tested. He recognises that some aspects of achievement are better assessed through course work than through terminal examination.

  Medical Students (Financial Support)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to special provision of further financial support for medical students and others on four and five-year degree courses; and if he will make a statement.
  735
  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 30 November 1993 that the total support available to students through the mandatory maintenance grant and the student loan would rise by 4 per cent. in 1994–95. The same annual rates of grant and loans apply to all students irrespective of their course length. We have no plans to change that arrangement.

  Truancy
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the principal findings of the tables on truancy published last year by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The tables published in November 1993 found that significant amounts of valuable learning time are being lost due to unauthorised absence; 12 per cent. of all pupils in primary and in secondary schools had been absent without authority in the period covered by the tables. An average of 12 half-days were lost by every absent primary school pupil and 24 half-days were lost by every absent secondary pupil. Rates of unauthorised absence varied widely between individual LEAs and schools.

  Grade

  Number of women

  Percentage women

  Number of ethnics

  Percentage ethnics

  Number of disabled

  Percentage disabled

  Grade 1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 3

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 4

  1

  25·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 5

  12

  26·1

  0

  0·0

  1

  2·2

  Grade 6

  2

  13·3

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 7

  44

  28·8

  4

  2·6

  1

  0·7

  TOTAL IN DFE

  1,309

  58·4

  164

  7·3

  63

  2·9

  There were other staff in the Department with disabilities who chose not to register and are not therefore included in the figures.

  These figures include 376 staff in post in the Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  Parental Appeals
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give figures, in total and for each local education authority, on the number and percentage of parental appeals on school admission which are(a) rejected, (b) withdrawn, (c) settled and (d) upheld; and if he will give these figures for both the earliest and latest years for which they are available since 1964.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Data on the number of parents securing their first choice of secondary school are not collected centrally. However, the most recent evidence—from surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and The Times in 1993—shows that some 90 per cent. of parents gain a place at their first choice of school.
  736

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils are now being educated in self-governing grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We estimate that over 530,000 pupils are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools. As more schools join the sector next month this total will rise to over 580,000.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the future of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government remain fully committed to this excellent scheme. We expect to achieve our target—namely, 35,000 available places in England and Wales, by 1995.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Boswell
  The figures are as follows:

  Forensic Medicine
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines he has on the training of medical students in forensic medicine.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for individual universities to determine the content and organisation of their medical curriculum taking account of guidelines issued by the General Medical Council.

  Teachers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 134, when the information about the number of people who graduated or qualified or failed in teacher training in 1993 will be available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is expected to become available for statistical use during the summer. The required information will then be placed in the Library.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the
  737
  appointment, showing for each appointment (a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information has been placed in the Library. Ministerial responsibility for approval rests ultimately with my right hon. Friend.

  Charing Cross Medical School
  Mr. Vat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the future of the Charing Cross medical school.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government accepted Sir Bernard Tomlinson's recommendation that Charing Cross medical school should merge with St. Mary's medical school within Imperial college. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is taking forward discussions on the merger with the institutions themselves.

  Secondary Schools
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 532, which four local authority secondary schools in London he visited in the last 12 months; and how many he plans to visit during 1994.

  Mr. Patten
  The four local authority schools that I have visited in London during the last 12 months are: Bishop Thomas Grant secondary school, Lambeth; The Hague primary school, Tower Hamlets; Mulberry school for girls, Tower Hamlets; and Hasmonean school, Barnet.

  During the same period I have visited Archbishop Tennison school and Bexley and Erith technical high school for boys which are both self-governing, grant-maintained, schools; my plans for further visits this year are under consideration.

  Music Teachers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest assessment of the shortage of teachers of music.

  School

  Bid £

  Description

  Allocation £

  Greenwood Dale

  550,206

  Roof/cladding/boiler repairs

  Nil

  144,225

  Refurbishment of five science laboratories

  120,000

  George Spencer

  119,606

  Roof works and asbestos removal

  100,000

  715,117

  Science/technology provision

  250,000

  Ravensdale middle

  129,250

  Refurbishment of science laboratory and administration area

  Nil

  22,372

  Renewal of defective felt roofing

  20,000

  Iraqi Students
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Iraqi students were studying in the United Kingdom at the latest available date; and what were the numbers five years ago.

  Mr. Boswell
  The latest available information relates to the 1991–92 academic year, when there were 174 Iraqi students enrolled as full-time students at universities,
  738
  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is currently no significant shortage of teachers of music. In January 1993 only 0·7 per cent. of music posts were vacant—some 30 posts. Recruitment to initial teacher training in music in 1993 rose by 9 per cent. from the previous year. Applications for entry to initial teacher training in autumn 1994 are higher than this time last year.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools and schools operating under local management of schools in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary and tertiary sectors had a budget (i) surplus and (ii) deficit last year; how much money was involved in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested on local education authority schools could be collated only at disproportionate cost. No grant-maintained school was in cash deficit at the end of the financial year 1992–93. In the interests of effective management of public funds, schools operating under local management of schools are able to carry forward balances from one year to another, as are grant-maintained schools within limits set by the Department.

  Schools (Capital Projects)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what named capital projects the Greenwood Dale GM school, the George Spencer comprehensive school and the Ravensdale middle school bid in 1994–95; what was the total amount of each bid; and how much finance was allocated to each school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following are details of the named capital project bids made by the schools for funding in 1994–95:

  polytechnics, Scottish central institutions and other colleges maintained or assisted by local authorities or grant-aided by education departments in the United Kingdom. This compares to 1,300 in the 1987–88 academic year.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the powers of maintained schools to exclude pupils.
  739
  Mr. Forth
  The Department has received a wide range of responses to the draft circular on exclusions, which was issued for consultation in January as part of the "Pupils with Problems" package. Those responses are currently 740
  being analysed. From time to time the Department also receives representations from parents or other interested parties about individual exclusion cases.

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

Legal Aid: Fees
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the levels of fees claimed by counsel in legally-aided cases are justified.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, claims in legal aid cases which are not subject to standard fees are discretionary. Some claims are more reasonable than others. The system of taxation of costs is designed to allow reasonable remuneration for work actually and reasonably done.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, does the noble and learned Lord consider that it is now time for the Bar Council to take a grip of the matter and ensure that the taxpayer, and the general public, do receive value for money from leading and junior counsel who are representing clients on legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Bar Council does take seriously matters that relate to unduly inflated claims. Indeed, we have had some discussion with the council on that matter. So far as concerns the amounts actually allowed, as I explained, they are subject to a system of taxation, which is designed to secure that the amount paid by the taxpayer is reasonable, having regard to the work actually and reasonably done.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, did I hear my noble and learned friend correctly in saying, in accordance with what I believe to be the case, that all costs in legal aid which are not otherwise standardised are the subject of taxation by a judicial officer? Is that not part of the independence of the judiciary and an assurance that only proper sums will be paid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend heard me correctly; I mentioned the system of taxation, which, ultimately, is under the control of the judiciary. Of course, there are different levels of taxation. The regulations that the Lord Chancellor is authorised to make in respect of England and Wales have a part to play in that taxation. However, the amounts actually awarded are ultimately decided, where contested, by the taxing authorities.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not curious that, in Scotland, the amount paid per civil legal aid case is about half that in England? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us why that is so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hear a suggested answer from a friend of the noble Lord that that is as one would expect. However, perhaps it is not right for me to take that particular line. Each case must be determined in the light of what the procedures, and so on, require. It is generally true that there is a difference in level for corresponding work between Scotland and England and Wales. There are many factors that contribute to the situation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the vast majority of cases conducted in the Crown court are on standard fees directly set by the Government, and that those fees have now been frozen for the second year running—that is, since 1992?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is true that a high proportion of the work carried out in the Crown court by counsel is subject to standard fees. The amount of money which is paid otherwise than by standard fees is a larger amount than the proportion of cases which are subject to standard fees might suggest. That is because the larger sums are those otherwise dealt with through taxation. As for standard fees, it is true that they have been the same for the past two years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord believe that it is a good use of public money through the legal aid scheme to give such aid to Gerry Adams? He seemed quite capable of paying a lot of expenses in order to travel to the United States and run down this country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for the law and policy in relation to legal aid. However, the decision in any particular case is for the Legal Aid Board, which is subject to statutory rules and regulations made under statute. For obvious reasons, the Lord Chancellor is precluded from intervening in particular cases. Therefore, it was for the legal aid authorities to determine the claim of Gerry Adams. I have no reason to believe that they did not apply properly the statutory criteria to that claim. Everyone is entitled to justice in this country; indeed, it is part of our very wise and, I believe, proud tradition.

Unemployment: Government Assumptions
2.42 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they estimate the level of unemployment will be at the end of the century if economic growth continues at the rate they presently estimate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government do not publish forecasts of unemployment. Government policies are directed at achieving sustained economic growth, low levels of unemployment and low inflation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I did not ask for a forecast: I asked for an estimate, which the Government have given in the Red Book to the year 1999. In the final three years of that period the Government have assumed an annual rate of growth of 3 per cent. Does the noble Lord agree that that rate of growth would not substantially reduce the level of unemployment below 2 million? In those circumstances, does not he think it right that the Government should go for higher levels of growth so that those sadly high levels of unemployment do not persist?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows perfectly well from his own previous experience that we do not give forecasts, nor do we give estimates. We give assumptions. Those are stylised unemployment assumptions purely for planning purposes and as the noble Lord knows—and as he quite rightly told us—they are set at 2.75 million. That follows the long established convention of setting unemployment assumption flat at around about recent levels.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the increase in small businesses over the past few years has increased the number of people who are employed? The recent budgets that have been introduced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor have given tremendous help to small businesses. That, again, is a good thing for the economy. Does my noble friend further agree that if mandatory interest were charged on late payers, that would give a positive cash flow to small businesses and would enable them to expand more rapidly and increase employment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think my noble friend's second point goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. As regards his first point, he is of course absolutely correct. There has been a major change in the types of employment that different people engage in, and particularly in self-employment. The growth in self-employment has certainly replaced some of the jobs that have been lost.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that probably the most important component of the expansion of our economy historically has been manufacturing industry? That ought to be the case now; but is the Minister aware that in January of this year manufacturing industry lost 13,000 jobs in one month and if that occurs during the next 12 months more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost that will never be replaced? Does not he agree that however many part-time service industry jobs may be provided by small businesses, they will not be as good for the economy as a return to the manufacturing base? In my opinion, this Government have quite wantonly destroyed the manufacturing base.
Lord Henley: My Lords, overall, unemployment is coming down. It fell by a further 38,000 last month and it has fallen by some 220,000 since December 1992. As regards manufacturing employment, obviously that is important but I think the noble Lord ought to have pointed out to the House that both productivity and
976
overall production are increasing. The important thing is not the number of people who are employed but what they produce.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the report of the London economics survey commissioned by the Home Office last year that if the proposals put by the House of Commons into the Sunday Trading Bill are adopted the employment figures will be at least 5,000 worse than they are now?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that point will probably be better dealt with later on this afternoon.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must say I think that must hold the House of Lords all-comers record for questions wide of that on the Order Paper. To revert to the Question that is on the Order Paper, I agree that the Red Book uses the word "assumptions" but it also uses the word "projections" and indeed goes out of its way to point out that the assumption over the medium term is the average of the projections made by the panel of independent forecasters. One has to ask the Government why they go to some trouble to point that out if they do not want their assumptions to be taken seriously. As all of the fiscal projections are based on these assumptions, with fiscal projections indicating a decline in government borrowing, are we not to take those projections seriously simply because they are based on assumptions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Red Book makes absolutely clear at paragraph 220 that:
"There are inevitably uncertainties about medium term prospects".
It then goes on to give variant PSBR projections based on variant growth projections. Therefore, for that reason we only make assumptions or projections and we only make forecasts for the immediate year.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to bandy words about assumptions and projections. What we want to know—certainly markets want to know—is what the Government actually believe will happen over the next four or five years. That is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Barnett. It would be helpful to everyone to know what the Government think is likely to happen.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have made quite clear that we do not believe any valid purpose would be served by making projections about levels of employment in the future. We refuse to give such projections for exactly the same reason as the Labour Government—I appreciate that this was a long time ago—of which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was such a respected member when he was chief secretary, refused to make projections or predictions of unemployment.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our experience of forward forecasting tells us that whatever the figure may be in 1999 it will be far different from the figures we are talking about in these projections?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. It is very difficult to get these

977
forecasts and predictions right. That is why, for these purposes, and purely for planning purposes in the PSBR, they are merely assumptions.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord correctly when he replied to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, by saying that the number of people employed did not matter? Is that what the party he represents will tell the country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope I can assist the noble Lord. What I actually said was that the number of people in employment did not directly matter—what matters is how much they produce. Both production and productivity have increased. At the same time I said that, overall, unemployment has fallen and is continuing to fall.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the Minister reconsider his word; because he gave an impression that the number of unemployed people is not important? That figure is important to everyone who does not have a job. 'The Minister ought to phrase his reply differently for his own sake.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Viscount, possibly unfairly, has misinterpreted what I said. I would be the first to say that for every unemployed man or woman it represents a tragedy, in particular for those who are long-term unemployed. We are seeing that unemployment is coming down. At the same time long-term unemployment—and that is by far the greater tragedy—is at a far lower level than the remainder of Europe. What is important is that we increase the number of jobs available and get as many people as possible back into work.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the Government constantly claim that the underlying economic position is much improved. If that is the case, why are they not projecting or assuming higher levels of growth in order to bring down those very high levels of unemployment? Is it because of the fear still of inflation and its effect on the balance of payments? Are the Government not then stating that the price is worth paying, even if it means unemployment for more than 2 million people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are not forecasting or predicting. We make certain assumptions. We then give various illustrative projections depending on different rates of growth. The noble Lord has only to look at chapter 2 of the Budget Red Book—I can refer him to the appropriate graph—to see exactly that.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that perhaps the best way of bringing down unemployment was the set of policies suggested in his White Paper by M. Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission? What is the Government's attitude about that programme?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the best way of bringing down unemployment is to continue the policies that the Government are pursuing.

Nuclear Energy: Review
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the timetable for their 1994 review of the role in the United Kingdom of the generation of energy from nuclear sources.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, considerable preparatory work on the review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom has already been done. The Government will make an announcement about the terms of reference and how the review will be conducted as soon as possible. Noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot prejudge the terms of reference.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that decisions are needed soon to prevent British expertise being dispersed or lost to our country? Although nuclear generation involves decommissioning and capital costs, should not the financial benefits of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases also be taken fully into account?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that those are exactly the kind of views that will be taken into account when the Government have decided the exact terms of reference. My noble friend is right: it is a review that we wish to deal with sooner rather than later.
Lord Peston: My Lords, did I hear the Minister aright when he stated that the terms of reference for the review have not yet been determined? Will he then tell us why it has taken the Government so long even to think up the terms of reference? It is not that difficult; I could help him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted to accept the help of the noble Lord. The ultimate result may not be entirely what he has in mind, but I have never spurned his help in the past and I certainly shall not do so in this case.
The noble Lord is right. We have not yet issued the terms of reference. We are still consulting the various interested parties as to what those terms should be. As I said in my original Answer, considerable preparatory work has already been done but we still need to do a little more.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, will the Government confirm that it is their intention not to approve the construction of another nuclear power station until the nuclear review has been completed?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in broad terms, and given the time that it takes to give approval to new nuclear power stations, I think that the noble Lord can take that as read.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has my noble friend registered the fact that the nuclear fuel industry in this country believes that it no longer needs the fossil fuel levy to pay for decommissioning costs? Therefore the

979
price of electricity costs for all of us would come down substantially. Will that factor be included in the terms of reference for the review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if my noble friend can contain his impatience for a little longer, I believe that he will find the answer to that question when we finally announce the terms of reference.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, expressed gratitude for the Minister's Answer. He was asked to give a timetable. Can the Minister come forward with nothing? Can he not give a prognostication of any kind, whatever name he gives to it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord asks for a prognostication. I have given my answer in the best way possible. If that does not give the noble Lord satisfaction, I am very sorry.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend at least give a prognostication on the likely start-up date for the building of the nuclear power station, Sizewell C? Does he agree that if we do not have that power station we shall be largely dependent on coal by 2020 AD?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I regret to say to my noble friend that that point strays somewhat from the Question on the Order Paper. These are issue which will have to be dealt with one way or another in the future when we make an announcement about the review.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the review referred to must necessarily take into consideration the amount of energy produced by the coal industry. Will the Minister confirm, for example, that we shall be lucky to have 10 pits left after the present review? Is it not now obvious that the Government must consider their policy towards the coal industry on the basis, first, of the security of the supply of coal, and, secondly, the fact that coal is now cheaper than nuclear energy and any other forms of energy produced? Is it the Government's intention to consider their policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have reviewed our intentions towards the coal industry. The noble Lord will be delighted to hear that very soon in this House we shall discuss in some detail the future of the coal industry under the terms of the Coal Industry Bill.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, raises the issue of how wide ranging the inquiry will be. Although the Minister cannot tell us in advance the terms of reference, does he at least accept that, unless the review is fairly wide ranging, and not too narrowly related to the nuclear industry, it will serve little purpose?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is those kinds of issues that we are discussing within government before we can come forward with the terms of the review.
Lord Campbell or Croy: My Lords, while renewable sources can make a modest contribution to
980
our supplies of energy and should be encouraged, are they not restricted by factors of aestheticism and environment? For example, there are strong objections to a massive increase in wind farms.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes, it is important to recognise that there are a number of environmental considerations, not simply relating to wind farms but also to the nuclear industry and many other parts of the energy-creating industry of which Government need to be aware.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered a single question about the review in 1994 of energy from nuclear sources. He has said that there are no terms of reference. He has not said what kind of review it will be or what evidence will be taken. Is the noble Lord aware that the Government are committed to that review in 1994? If they are committed, he had better get a move on.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I thought that I had answered all the questions rather well and made the Government's position absolutely plain.

Lorries: Maximum Weight Limits
2.58 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will resist any proposals to increase maximum permitted lorry weights beyond those currently in force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have no plans to increase the current maximum weight limits in the United Kingdom. These are 38 tonnes for the general run of lorries and 44 tonnes for six-axled lorries carrying containers or swapbodies in combined road/rail transport. We have strongly questioned a recent proposal of the EC Commission to allow 44 tonnes for all six-axled lorries throughout the EC.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am very encouraged by that reply. However, is it not a fact that by the end of 1998 the weight limit will rise to 42 tonnes? Is a panel of the European Community now examining the possibility of the introduction of a 48 tonne weight limit for heavy goods vehicles? May I have the noble Lord's assurance that if any such proposals should arise he will resist them and, if they persist, use the veto against them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that in 1999 the limit will rise to 40 tonnes on five-axle lorries, and an 11½ tonnes axle weight limit. Currently we have a derogation back to 38 tonnes and 10½ tonnes axle weight. I can assure the noble Lord that we are sceptical of the case for 44 tonnes in general terms, although we approve of the case for 44 tonnes in joint road-rail transport, provided it is on six axles.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I can see no reason why my noble friend should be, but is he aware that Sub-Committee B of the European Communities Select Committee of this House is more than likely to start an inquiry on exactly this subject and the dimensions of heavy lorries in the near future? That is with a view to producing a report before the Summer Recess.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what I might call long notice of probably a request for my presence to discuss those difficult matters. Perhaps I should get out my calculator and get my weight limit and weight loading correct before I appear before Sub-Committee B.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first I congratulate the Minister on the stand that the Government have taken in that regard. Does he appreciate that it has important implications for the sale of Railfreight, which will certainly be privatised? Any increased loading facilities on road transport might have serious effects on the price that the Government could command for Railfreight.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is exactly why the Government are determined to stand by their decision that the 44 tonnes and six axles should only be permitted in those cases where the lorry leg of the journey is part of a joint road-rail transportation. We are opposed to any decision from the Community to increase the limit to 44 tonnes for all lorries. As the noble Lord said, that would reduce the competitive advantage that the current limit gives to rail.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition to the reasons the Minister has given, which the House supports, will the Government also give consideration to the environmental effects that heavier loads could create? As well as being a danger to ordinary people, they are a danger to our environment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is a complicated subject. While 44 tonnes on its own seems a considerable increase, if the weight is spread over another axle the pressure on the road surface and the damage to the road are not increased. However, the noble Lord is quite right about lorries in general. We are keen to see a shift to rail of at least some of the current goods traffic that goes by road and that is why we have made that proposal.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend referred to axle loads, which are important in regard to weight. However, for my benefit as another member of the sub-committee and for other members, will my noble friend confirm that the Government are concerned about the associated problem of unwieldy lengths of large lorries?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the discussions about 38, 40 or 44 tonnes do not involve increases in the length dimensions of lorries but rather the amount of load the lorries can carry.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken of the Government taking a stand on
982
the matter. Will he indicate to the House what he or the Government will do if they find a qualified majority against the decision in the European Community?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has not let me down; I checked on the question in anticipation that I would receive it from him. The issue needs a qualified majority if the Commission's proposal to move to 44 tonnes for all loads were to find favour. However, I am happy to say that at the moment a number of member states agree with us on the need to keep the lorry limits to what we have and to use the 44-tonne limit as a bait to move transport from road to rail.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I believe I heard my noble friend say that the axle weights are now allowed to increase to 11½ tonnes per axle. I seem to remember that the average bridge in Britain was built to take only 11 tonnes in axle weight. Have we strengthened the bridges? Am I wrong, or is my noble friend right? Are we doing something about it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are both right. The increase from 10½ to 11½ tonnes will come in 1999. We have a derogation to allow for that and the reason is exactly because we need to increase the strength of those bridges which currently would not take 11½ tonnes axle weight.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as a result of the new regulations there will be limited use of 44-tonne lorries. First, is the Minister confident that sufficient resources are to be applied to prevent maverick road hauliers from evading the rules? If so, perhaps he would be kind enough to outline what are the additional resources.
Secondly, does not the whole issue give increasing urgency to the requirement to transfer more and more freight from road to rail in a way that is far more decisive than anything the Government have announced or have intentions of doing so far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the shift from rail to road has continued over many years and during the terms of office of many governments. We believe that some of the proposals that have been made, including the decision on 44 tonnes, should help to alter that. In addition, I hope that a more competitive railway network will, after privatisation, be more robust in marketing the advantages of rail freight operations.
As regards policing the regulations on 44 tonnes, there will be a requirement that the vehicle should carry a document to show that the cargo has either originated from, or is destined for, a rail terminal.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a

983
Statement that is to be made in another place on European Union enlargement: qualified majority voting.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to vehicle excise duty and the registration of vehicles. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 30th March
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cornwallis set down for Wednesday 30th March shall be limited to 5 hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Remedies) Bill
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged. —(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sunday Trading Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee in respect of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee in respect of Clause 1 and Schedule 1.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reform of law relating to Sunday trading]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 5 to 7.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with the Committee's approval I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
984
The aim of today's Committee is to enable the Committee to choose between the options for the reform of Sunday trading law. With the risk of spelling out the obvious—and I shall take that risk—the options are: first, total deregulation; secondly, partial deregulation, which is proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council; and, thirdly, regulation, which is proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform.
I do not intend to advise the Committee about the merits or otherwise of any of these options for reform —and I fancy that if I did, it would not make much difference. As I explained at Second Reading, the Government do not have a preferred solution. We recognise that although there is widespread agreement that the present law should be changed, there is no consensus about how it should be changed. The Government have therefore decided to leave the choice to Parliament. The Committee might find it helpful if I were to try to explain briefly the procedure which we might adopt today. I hope that I shall be acquitted of any charge of providing a "child's guide on voting". The principle of what we have to do is really quite simple, as I shall try to explain.
I prepared a memorandum on the voting procedure as an aidemémoire, and that is available in the Printed Paper Office. One noble Lord—rather ungenerously, I thought—said that he found the memorandum extremely complicated to understand. I replied that if it is complicated, I like to think that it is a good deal less complicated than it was before I put my hand to the tiller and addressed the problem —and the memorandum. But maybe therein lay the trouble. It does show that it is not always very easy to explain simply a simple problem. But, if I may have the Committee's indulgence, I shall try.
The Bill, as it now stands before the Committee, contains only one option; namely, that of partial deregulation, which is supported by the Shopping Hours Reform Council. In brief, this option allows all small shops to open at any time on a Sunday, but it limits large shops to opening for only six hours. This was the option which was chosen by Members of another place.
Members of another place started with all three options in the Bill. They had to remove two of the options, leaving the preferred one in the Bill. We, on the other hand, have the opportunity to remove the option which is in the Bill, namely that of partial deregulation, if we think fit, and to put in its place either regulation or total deregulation.
With agreement through the usual channels, we have grouped all the amendments together for the purposes of this debate. So there will be a single debate on all the options. When the Divisions come therefore I hope that it will be possible for them to take place one after the other without speeches being made on each amendment, as all the arguments will have been displayed in the one debate.
At the end of the debate the first vote will be on whether total deregulation should replace the option that is in the Bill. Those who support this proposition, should vote "Content" to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. If Amendment No. 1 is accepted, then Amendment No. 2

985
should be accepted without a vote as it is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. If Amendment No. 1 is not accepted, then I suggest that we should not divide on Amendment No. 2, which is, as I have said, purely a consequential amendment. If Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are successful, Amendment No. 3 cannot be called.
Once the Committee has decided the fate of the first two amendments, the next question, which might be taken formally, is whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. As your Lordships will appreciate, Clause 1 is a necessary part of the Bill whichever option the Committee chooses.
After Clause 1 stand part has been taken and, if Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are not carried and total deregulation has not been approved then we shall come to Amendment No. 3. This represents the opportunity to replace the option which is in the Bill—namely that of partial deregulation—with the regulatory scheme which is proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. This seeks to prohibit shops from opening at all on Sundays —with exemptions for certain categories of shops. All shops, though, could open on the four Sundays before Christmas. Those of your Lordships who are attracted to this option should vote "Content" to Amendment No. 3.
Once the amendments have been dealt with, we shall complete today's business with the question of whether Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. If Amendment No. 1 has been carried then it would be consistent for the Committee to disagree that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill, because Schedule 1 relates solely to the option which is in the Bill at present.
If the option which is in the Bill at present is removed, then so also should Schedule 1 be removed. However, if Amendment No. 1 has not been accepted, then those who support the option of partial deregulation which is in the Bill should vote Content that Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill. When the question of whether Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill has been answered, the whole Bill will then be recommitted to Committee for the customary line by line scrutiny which noble Lords always give at the Committee stage of a Bill. It will then be possible to consider whether any fine tuning is needed. I hope that this is all abundantly clear.
Lord Elton: Can my noble friend clarify a point for me? He has described a process whereby one schedule has been removed from the Bill and another has replaced it, and has said that after that noble Lords who favour that option should not wish to keep the schedule in the Bill. Surely, if the amendment places a new schedule in the Bill, that schedule must still stand part. Can my noble friend help me in my difficulty?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is not correct, in that if the Committee decides to accept an amendment which replaces the schedule, that schedule then forms part of the Bill by virtue of it having been by way of an amendment inserted into the Bill.
This matter affects noble Lords in a variety of different ways, and of course, there is a free vote on this subject. The Government are not asking those who normally support the Government to vote in favour of
986
any one of the options. Indeed, it would not make any difference if we did. Your Lordships would do—as your Lordships frequently do do—exactly as your Lordships like.
For my part, for what it is worth, I shall vote against all three amendments and for the option which is in the Bill, for a very simple reason. It is not because I do not want Sunday to be a special day. I think that Sunday is a special day and that it ought to remain so. But the fact is that the present state of the law is a complete shambles, and must be changed. Another place has come to a conclusion. It has taken 44 years and 29 Bills to enable it to come to a conclusion—any conclusion —and I see little advantage, and some considerable disadvantage, in asking Members there to think again. And, if we did, I think that there is very little likelihood of them coming to a different conclusion, arid choosing an option which they have already considered and have already rejected. I think that most honourable and right honourable Members are sick and tired of the whole subject and that they want it solved once and for all.
However, that is just my view. Others may hold a totally different one, both within government and on the Back-Benches. And Members of the Committee need take no notice of my views, and they should certainly not be interpreted in any way as "guidance" for those Members—if there are any—who may be in a dither as to which way to vote. Your Lordships will vote in the way in which your Lordships decide to vote.
The issue crosses all party lines, and it crosses all lines within parties. I fancy that, whichever Lobby Members decide to enter today, they may well find themselves in unusual company. I suggest that that is nothing to worry about. It is a simple process attaching to the passage of this Bill. I hope that this explanation has been of some help. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take it that this will be a short and non-contentious debate. Members of the Committee who wish to express views on this matter have already had the opportunity to do so at Second Reading. Some 30 to 40 noble Lords did so and all but one of those speakers identified in their speeches the option for which they proposed to vote. Therefore I do not see why any of those arguments should be repeated and we should be able to proceed fairly rapidly to a vote. This will be a rational debate. Anyone who felt that discussion was being stifled had an opportunity to speak at Second Reading.
I join in the debate because some of my noble friends who support more restrictionist options than I do want to have something to attack. The conclusion that we reach at the end of this afternoon ought to be logical, fair and enforceable. I venture to suggest that the options of extreme restriction and half-way restriction would be difficult to describe as logical, fair or enforceable.
First, there is the Keep Sunday Special option. It proposes to discriminate between different types of shops, so that on Sunday toys could be bought from a newsagent but not from a toyshop, books could be bought from a newsagent but not from a bookshop and meat and bread could be bought from a small supermarket but not from either a butcher or a baker. Is

987
that rational and enforceable? The option seeks to distinguish between different types of goods. So on Sunday a small convenience store could not sell groceries unless it also sold household cleaning materials; and on Sunday a chemist's shop could not sell nappies but a DIY store could.
The option seeks to distinguish between different sizes of shop, so that on Sunday a large DIY store could sell things which are necessary for the repair or maintenance of the structure of a dwelling but presumably not goods for use on other parts of the dwelling. Paint could be sold for painting a windowsill but not for painting an interior cupboard, and an electric plug could be sold for a drill but not for use on a toaster. I suggest that it is not a very rational distinction.
Finally, there is the distinction in the Keep Sunday Special option on the location of the shop and there are exemptions for those involved in sports or games. Does that mean, for example, that walking equipment could be bought anywhere in the Lake District or boating or surfing equipment bought anywhere in a seaside resort? The opportunities for confusion and injustice with that option are enormous.
The Shopping Hours Reform Council option is a good deal better, although the main argument put forward for it is that the total deregulation option is not politically acceptable. It is not that deregulation is wrong but it is not felt that the argument could be won. However, there are still the problems of defining the size of shop; the distinction between 270 square metres and 290 square metres still escapes me. There is also the proposal that many shops which now open for up to 12 hours a day would be able to open for only half that time.
Those options tell other people what to do. I suggest that, unless there is some positive evil or some positive nuisance to be overcome, we should not attempt to tell other people what to do. We should not attempt to follow public opinion from a distance. It is a fact that people in this country want to shop on Sunday. They do shop on Sunday, even though it is against the law. It is a fact that many people want to work on Sunday. I wonder how many Members of the Committee know that 20 per cent. of the workforce works on Sundays. They work in transport, the utilities and communications—all those services which we consider necessary. After all, we read newspapers on Mondays and expect people—indeed we allow their contracts of employment to require them—to work on Sundays. That is not the case under the Sunday Trading Bill because there is very firm, clear exemption for those workers who do not wish to work on Sunday.
The religious objection must be taken seriously. However, without saying in any way that we are in danger of becoming a theocracy, as we would were we in Iran or some orthodox parts of Israel, I suggest that it is a pathetic state of affairs when people are told what to do not because of their beliefs but because of their failure to comply with the forms of other people's beliefs.
988
Those who wish to keep Sunday special should do so and may do so for themselves. The role of Parliament is not to attempt to enforce a particular form of observance on any part of our citizenship.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: I should like to begin by thanking the Government, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the care and fairness with which they have facilitated the consideration of the Bill as a non-partisan measure. I welcome the opportunity that we all have this afternoon to discuss and vote on three different options for change. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his views and assure him that I do not want to tell people what to do. However, I want to state some of the implications.
I am reminded of the story of the Bishop who was a keen golfer but lived in a part of the country which took its Sunday seriously. One Sunday he sneaked off and had a quick round with a close friend. To his surprise and joy, for the first time in his life he managed a hole in one. However, his enthusiasm turned to dismay when he realised that he could not possibly tell anybody.
I have never been a great legalistic sabbatarian in these matters. I certainly do not want to turn back the clock to the days when nothing but religion was on offer on Sunday. Moreover, my concern is not that the Churches themselves could not cope if Sunday trading were deregulated. They have the flexibility and commitment to serve people, if necessary, at new times and in new ways, as many already do. That is not why the Bishops' Benches are full today. We are always glad to see the bishops in the Chamber on other occasions too. The main issue is the long-term interest of the community as a whole on a day of the week that is special and different from other days. It is a matter of conscience with far reaching, long-term implications. If we in this Chamber believe that the Bill before us does not represent the best choice for our country's future, it is surely our responsibility to ask those in another place to think again.
I gladly acknowledge that there are deeply committed Christians and other conscientious people on all sides of the argument. There are no devils and angels here. The option before the Chamber that has the greatest element of regulation is itself a compromise, allowing a substantial volume of trading to take place. However, the key question for me is: Do we allow market forces and consumer choice to determine the character of our Sunday, with little or no regulation; or do we believe that regulation should secure a real compromise between those forces and other wider considerations in the public interest?
Contrary to the popular habit of running down this country, we should be proud of Sunday as we know it and should treasure it. As leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, I have met many people from abroad who speak wistfully and enviously of the English Sunday. It is a time of relative peace and calm. It is a family day. It is a day for visiting friends and relatives. It is a time when millions of people take to the countryside, parks and open spaces to refresh body and soul. Despite the many people who already work on Sunday—in addition to the clergy—Sunday remains for

989
the community as a whole a distinct day, which brings unique opportunities and pleasures. For millions, it is still a special day for worship and meditation. For millions more, it is a day when dimensions of life can be nurtured which otherwise might be crowded out. These are values of which noble Lords have been doughty champions over the years, not least in recent debates in this Chamber. I hope that that tradition will continue today.
Many people look to the Churches to give a lead on moral and spiritual matters. Indeed, some want us to promote some of the Ten Commandments very strongly, while conveniently forgetting the one about keeping the sabbath holy. But I should like to remind the House that the leaders of all the Christian denominations, as well as successive Chief Rabbis, believe that further damage to the character of our Sunday would be contrary to our Maker's instructions. It would be a move away from a pattern of living in which we believe we are most likely to fulfil our nature and God's purpose for us. It would also signal a further retreat from the Christian character of our nation.
I believe that market forces are excellent servants but bad masters. Freedom of choice is a great blessing but only up to the point where people make mutually conflicting choices. At that point arbitration is required. The consequences of today's vote are serious. It will affect the character of our first day of the week: people cannot choose to enjoy peace and quiet where others choose to be noisy. It will affect family life: people cannot choose to be with their families if half the family is at work. People will not in reality be able to choose not to work on Sunday if it gradually becomes the norm to do so. It will have complicated effects on different shops and businesses: big ones cannot choose to remain closed if commercial competition is unleashed which forces them to open. And some small ones cannot choose to stay open if they are driven out of business. Above all, individuals cannot choose to keep the overall character of Sunday special any more than they can choose to keep the national parks and green belts special. They need the support of legislation to arbitrate between incompatible individual choices in the wider public interest.
It has been argued that we can have our cake and eat it; that we can largely or completely scrap regulation and yet keep our distinctive Sunday as well. I cannot believe that that is true in the long term. Substantial deregulation would be irrevocable as changed habits, expectations and conventions take hold of successive generations and are reinforced by economic pressures. We create a momentum of which the logical outcome is a homogeneous day like all the rest. It would not happen everywhere evenly arid at the same speed, but in my view that is where ever-intensifying competitive commercial pressures will push us.
I suggest that we decide not to be pushed. I believe that this House is in a good position to think long term, partly because so many of us have been around for a long time! In this matter, as in so many others where your Lordships have exercised a benign influence, such as our approach to the environment or medical ethics, we have to think of the long-term consequences on our
990
grandchildren's grandchildren. I suggest and make this plea that for their sake we should not throw away the underpinnings of Sunday as a distinct day in the life of our people. A free-for-all is not always the same thing as the common good, especially in the long term. I hope that your Lordships will decide to recommend a measure of continuing restraint sufficient to safeguard the special opportunities and blessings of a different day of the week.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: I was in the South Atlantic attending to what I nearly called my operational or military duties—they were actually parliamentary duties—when your Lordships gave this Bill a Second Reading, and therefore this is the first opportunity I have had to make a contribution to your Lordships' deliberations. I wish to make only three points and I shall be brief.
First, when Sunday trading was considered in another place, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill allowing shops to open without prescription from Monday to Saturday had not been published. It is for your Lordships to decide in this matter, but it seems to me that if shops can open at one minute past midnight on a Monday morning and remain open till one minute before midnight on a Saturday evening, continuously, it may be felt that there is little requirement for shops to open also on Sundays. However, that is for your Lordships to decide.
It is worth noting also that in America, where there is no regulation, 36 per cent. of the shops never close; that is to say, they are open on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and so forth. I need not go on. That is the pattern and that is the fact. Therefore, whatever retailers say today in this country it is possible —dare I say likely?—that they will be open continuously after the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is on the statute book.
Secondly, I am concerned that the Bill contains inadequate employment protection safeguards. For instance, it does not prevent a new employee being offered a contract requiring work on Sunday. Thirdly, it disturbs me to see that each of the options being offered by the Government to Parliament is contrary to the fourth commandment. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the fourth commandment reads:
"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord Your God; in it you shall not do any work… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it".
In the circumstances I find myself in something of a dilemma. But on balance I recommend that your Lordships support the least offensive and the most restrictive option; namely, to keep Sunday special and retain the Shops Act reform proposal.
In conclusion, from every point of view one day set apart for rest and worship is best for man physically, mentally and spiritually. The Creator God, who made man in His own image, certainly had man's welfare at heart when, from the beginning of creation, he instituted

991
the weekly sabbath. The fourth commandment underlines its importance. We ignore the sabbath at our peril. We keep it to our inestimable benefit. The verse of Sir Matthew Hale, a former Lord Chief Justice, remains even more true today than when first written. He said:
"A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content
And health for the toils of tomorrow;
But a Sabbath profaned, whate'er may be gained,
Is a certain forerunner of sorrow".
Viscount Ullswater: It may be for the convenience of the Committee that we take the Statement now. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Union: Qualified Majority Voting
3.37 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on enlargement, qualified majority voting. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a Statement on proposals to adjust qualified majority voting in the context of the European Union's enlargement negotiations. In these negotiations, the Government had two principal objectives:
"First, we wished to see the negotiations succeed, so long as the terms were acceptable. We have been strong and consistent supporters of enlargement. We look forward to welcoming Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden at the beginning of 1995, should their peoples and their parliaments so decide.
"On enlargement, it is necessary to amend Article 148 of the Treaty. Without a change the blocking minority would automatically rise to 37 votes. Our second objective was to safeguard the rights of minorities in the period between enlargement and the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference; and to seek a fundamental review of qualified majority voting at that conference.
"We believed that there should not be an unqualified, mathematical extension of the blocking minority to 27. We were concerned that successive, unqualified extensions had weakened the democratic legitimacy of the Community.
"A large part of our concern stemmed from the handling by the European Commission of social measures. Article 118A of the treaty, which provides for health and safety at work, had been used as a vehicle for the adoption by qualified majority voting of measures affecting social affairs and employment. In addition, a proposal had recently been made to count the employees of multi-national companies in the United Kingdom towards the threshold of the Works Council Directive—although this measure had been brought forward under the Social Chapter, to which the United Kingdom is not a party.
992
"My right honourable friend said yesterday that we were pursuing our concerns about the social affairs measures. I can now inform the House that we have received assurances from the Commission that it will not bring forward any further proposals under the health and safety articles under its term of office except for measures directly and demonstrably relevant to health and safety at work. This means that we shall not face a repetition from this Commission of our experience over the Working Time Directive, which we are challenging in the European Court of Justice; or over the Young Persons Directive, which is in dispute between the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission has also agreed now that proposals under the Social Chapter will not embrace people or organisations in the United Kingdom. For the purposes of the Social Chapter, the United Kingdom will be entirely excluded from legislation. This meets a particular concern we had with the works council proposal which the other 11 member states are pursuing.
"The proposal on qualified majority voting negotiated by my right honourable friend at the weekend meets many, though not all, of the Government's concerns. We have secured agreement that the review of qualified majority voting at the next inter-governmental conference will now include the question of thresholds. These will be reopened and re-examined—as will the number of votes attributed to each member country. This means, as my right honourable friend said yesterday, that there will be a root and branch review of the system. This will have to take a fundamental look at the democratic legitimacy of decision-making. At the request of the United Kingdom and Spain, the transitional arrangements from accession until 1996 will no longer provide for unqualified extension of the blocking minority to 27. The Council is under a legal and binding obligation to seek agreement on the basis of a minority of at least 23 votes. My right honourable friend ensured that there would be no time limit for the fulfilment of this obligation. The Commission and the Presidency are required to take "any initiative necessary" to reach a solution adopted by at least 68 votes—that is, with no more than 22 votes against.
"This obligation is justiciable in the European Court of Justice. We expect it to be upheld scrupulously. Should there be any question of a breach of the obligation, we would reserve the right to take whatever action was necessary; and a number of avenues would be open to us. The first would be a legal challenge; and the second would be use of the Luxembourg Compromise.
"The binding nature of the obligation is clearly understood by our partners, and stems from the form of the Council's decision. For example, Germany has said today that it regards the obligation as binding on the Council and has no doubt that other member states of the Union will also fully respect these procedures.
"On this basis, the Cabinet has concluded that our objectives on enlargement and on qualified majority

993
voting have been sufficiently achieved. We are informing the Presidency that, provided the concessions made to the United Kingdom and Spain are accepted without qualification by all other member states, the United Kingdom can accept the proposal.
"Enlargement will bring into the Union countries which share Britain's open trading instincts; and which will be net contributors to the Budget. It will be another large step towards the wider, less centralised, open trading Europe for which we are working."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am obliged to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.
Let us be clear about where we are in this whole affair. The position now is that the blocking mechanism—the minority between now and 1996—will at the end of the day be 27, not 23. But everyone, particularly the Commission and the Council, will try to seek agreement on the basis of 23. If they cannot get it, they will adjourn for a reasonable time to see whether they can. I make one observation only on that. Anyone who has been involved with the affairs of the Commission and the Council of Ministers will know that the Commission and the Council will strive very hard indeed to avoid taking a decision other than by unanimity. For the Government now to dress up this rather neat proposal that people will try to get agreement on 23, as if it were a great victory is, frankly, a distortion of language.
Yesterday I described this affair as a sorry mess, and so it is. I shall not reiterate what I said yesterday but I note again that the Government are once more trying to mislead people about the effect of what they have negotiated or have received from the Commission. Even at this stage they are not prepared to accept their full responsibility.
In the Financial Times this morning there was reference to a written commitment from M. Delors, the President of the Commission. I do not believe that there has been such a written commitment. If there has been, I should be grateful if the leader of the House could tell us where the letter is. There is not one. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, need not look too hard because I spoke to the Commission shortly before the House sat this afternoon. There is no such letter.
The Government apparently asked for three commitments from the Commission; each, frankly, more illusory than the last. On health and safety and the use of Article 118A, they were told to look at the work programme. If your Lordships will allow me to translate from the French—it may not be entirely accurate but I think I can get the gist of it:
"In the course of their contacts with the representatives of the British Government the President of the Commission and the commissioner responsible for social affairs have stated orally that the propositions under Article 118A which figure at the moment in the Commission's work programme for 1994 concern only health and safety".
994
In other words, the Government were told to look at the work programme. There is no new assurance in that, my Lords.
Secondly, the Government asked for an assurance on the coverage of the social protocol. They were told:
"The Commission considers that from the legal point of view the social protocol applies according to the principle of territoriality".
There is nothing new in that. It has been there ever since the treaty was negotiated.
Thirdly, they raised—and the Prime Minister did riot even see fit to mention this one—a somewhat more esoteric point on objectives 3 and 4 of the social fund concerning the UK's ability to decide the percentage allocation between those two objectives. There is nothing new in that.
Nothing new has come from the Commission in the past 24 hours which entitles the Government now to say that they should be taking a different view from the one they could have taken a week or 10 days ago. None of this is anything to do with enlargement or anything to do with majority voting. So what do we have in reality? This has been an absurd, damaging and humiliating episode. I do not mind if it damages the Government alone. They have shot themselves in the foot so often that it now almost amounts to knee-capping. But I do mind when it damages the country; and I do mind when it damages relations with our partners and the standing of this country in the world. Frankly, they have made us a laughing stock in Europe. And I do mind about that.
The Government started this unnecessary and divisive row. No one else started it. They persisted in it against the advice of the Foreign Office arid, it now seems, the Foreign Secretary himself. Last week they talked it up as if the issue were the most fundamental of all British interests; and today when, as was inevitable, they had to retreat, they seek to claim that it is all right anyway because we have fresh assurances from the Commission, which on my information is totally false.
Why have we gone through all this? It has nothing to do with Europe or with the enlargement of the Community, but to try to preserve a semblance of unity in the ranks of the party opposite. The Daily Telegraph summed it up rather well this morning. It is not an organ which I normally quote. It said:
"Derision seems the only possible response to a David who announces an engagement with Goliath, marches armed to the encounter, and then returns with unbloodied sling to explain that after a quiet word Goliath agreed to behave more reasonably in future".
What a judgment on the way in which this Government are conducting the nation's affairs! It has been a sorely damaging episode. The Government should stop pretending and at least show some regret at the folly of their actions.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, this morning's decision by the Cabinet is a great deal better than the reverse. The Government's performance over the past three weeks remains incomprehensible. But I shall not dwell on that for a second day running. I make only three relatively brief points. I beg the Government not to try to present the defeat as a triumph. The submissive acceptance of retreat is sometimes necessary, although sympathy is less if the battle itself

995
was totally uncalled for. But it is the waving of a piece of paper after defeat which sticks in the gullet. I pray for the Government not to do that.
I also beg the Government not to pretend that we have secured a blocking majority of 23. We have got 27 with a little cosmetic patch. To pretend otherwise yesterday even strained the great respect in which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is held in this House. I was much struck yesterday by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, when he said that we should look to the future and not to the past. But to do that effectively the British Government must try to learn something from this fiasco, for that it most certainly is.
The most important fact is that whether the blocking minority be 23 or 27, it is of no value to us unless we have allies in Europe who wish to be allied with us. Our own vote is 10. Let the blocking minority be what it is, that figure can never be achieved alone. What we have done is to ensure that people are deeply suspicious of being allied with us. The Spaniards have been waiting to jump ship for the past two weeks and they did so. Why are we so unsuccessful in getting allies in Europe? It is perfectly true, as it is sometimes argued, that other countries can sometimes play a national, even a selfish, hand, but they manage to do so in a way which secures for them more support. That is the central question. Out of this fiasco I beg the Government to try to learn something for the future, otherwise there can be no Statement more hollow than that of the noble Baroness yesterday, and that as a result we shall approach the 1996 renegotiations from a more favourable threshold. We shall do the reverse unless we learn the lessons of these terrible three weeks.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, first I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that I am not in the least bit surprised to find that he seeks to belittle the achievement of the Government, because the Labour Party would have signed up for a higher minority vote without securing any safeguards whatsoever. That they should therefore try to run down the safeguards that we have achieved does not surprise me in the slightest. It is clear from the Statement that the safeguards are not as good as we wanted originally, but they are still very substantial indeed.
Of course the blocking minority will increase to 27, but the process before that figure can be used is very substantial indeed. It will apply until the treaty amendments following the 1996 IGC enter into force. Where there is a minority of 23 or up to 26 votes opposing a decision, it will be binding. That means that it will be legally binding and there will be an obligation on the presidency, with the assistance of the Commission, to take the initiative to facilitate a wider basis of agreement within the Council. The Council will do all within its means to reach a satisfactory solution within a reasonable time which can be adopted with at least 68 votes with a blocking minority of 23. What is a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances, but it will be a reasonable time in order to discharge the
996
obligation to facilitate a wider basis of agreement within the Council. I believe that that is a significant and important safeguard.
Some noble Lords seem to be confused about the figure of 37 which I used in the Statement. I shall try to explain. The qualified majority in the present treaty—that is to say, for the present 12 member states, is 54. If there were no decision on the qualified majority after enlargement the figure of 54 would remain unchanged, but the total number of votes after enlargement would rise from 76 for the present 12 to 90 for the 16. So the blocking minority would be 90 minus 54. For those who cannot do mental arithmetic, that is 37.
Noble Lords: It is 36!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, one of the first pieces of advice which I was given many years ago when I was a chartered accountant was never to do mental arithmetic in the witness box. Noble Lords are quite right; it is 36 plus 1. But that is how the figure of 37 arises and it is a real figure.
The noble Lord cast some doubt on the announcements which we made about the social legislation. That is separate but very much related to the issue of qualified majority negotiations. The United Kingdom has been concerned by the Commission's attempts to undermine the opt out from the Social Chapter obtained at Maastricht. I can understand again why the noble Lord does not believe that that is a great advantage because he was in favour of signing up to that legislation. But we on this side of the House and the Government believe that that would have been a very bad step for us to have agreed to.
Assurances have now been obtained from the Commission which are very reassuring. Only two new items of legislation planned under the national health and safety provisions supported by the United Kingdom on mine and equipment safety will be pursued. The noble Lord also said that the Council always tried for unanimity and therefore qualified majority voting is not important and that we cannot claim a victory. That is not true.
Qualified majority voting is increasingly used in the Council in the annual budget and under the health and safety regulations under Article 118A. So I believe that this agreement is a very good one in the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that it was a great deal better than the reverse. But I have to say to him that the Liberal Party would seek to abolish the national veto, as I understand it. So the Liberal Party would seek to remove the protection of the blocking minority also, and we would have majority voting on all issues in the Community. In these negotiations, I believe that the Government have substantially achieved their objectives. Those objectives were, first, to achieve a successful enlargement. That has been achieved. The second objective was to provide adequate protection for minorities. We believe that we have achieved that.
4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that very few Members of your Lordships' House will regard what he has said as an unqualified

997
victory for the Government? Many of us feel that that would be stretching the truth much too far. Is the noble Lord aware that some 50 years ago many of us in this House were assembling on this side of the Channel with our American colleagues to liberate the various countries of Europe which are now part of the 12? Is the noble Lord further aware that very few of us at that time ever thought that we in this country would be presented with an ultimatum expiring in 48 hours and that we would come out of it waving a white flag?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition felt that that contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, which is characteristic of him and of the views that he holds very sincerely, was also in line with the policy of his party, which, of course, it is not. I believe that the agreement was a very important agreement, enabling not only progress to a stronger European Union, but also to an open market trading organisation by the accession of those countries. I believe that to be correct. Many of us—certainly on this side of the House—have believed that the main justification for stronger links in Western Europe has been to avoid the sort of disasters to which the noble Lord referred, which have occurred twice in the lifetime of a number of Members of your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even to those of us who have indulged in a slight, but possibly frequent, kicking over of the traces, his announcement has done the authority of the present Administration no good whatever? In effect, it said that it is in the essential national interest that the blocking minority should stay at 27. That may or may not be the case, but, in effect, the announcement said that the essential blocking minority can now be reduced to 23. The announcement has produced a legalistic figleaf the size of a microdot to cover its nakedness. It makes it extremely difficult for those of us who really wish Her Majesty's advisers well not to be very depressed by what we have just heard—least of all because it makes former commissioners of the European Community extremely smug, arid that is very irritating.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I share the less than 100 per cent. enthusiasm for the last part of my noble friend's contribution. Indeed, I do not accept the basis of his question at all. The Government's first objective was to achieve enlargement. I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House believe that to be the right policy. The second objective was, at the same time as achieving enlargement, to protect minority opinion within the Community. If the straight proposal on a numbers basis had happened as in the previous enlargement, the blocking minority would have been a straight 27. We have agreed with our Community partners a very significant improvement on that situation which is of benefit not only to us, but also to other countries within the Community because we believe that, as the Community grows, so the democratic problems will require better arrangements for minorities. That will be even more so in the IGC in 1996. There
998
is recognition throughout the Community that those negotiations will be extremely important because the. arrangements for a Community of 12 are not appropriate: for a Community of 16—and certainly not for a Community of 20.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us have some sympathy with him in that this afternoon he has had to come to the. Dispatch Box to defend the indefensible? I do not intend to attack the Government this afternoon because I want answers to three questions. First, are we going to have the assurances from the Commission in writing, because it is clear from what my noble friend said from the Front: Bench that we have not yet received those assurances in writing? Can the noble Lord assure me that we will have those assurances in writing in due course? Secondly, the noble Lord referred to "this Commission". Does that mean that the assurances are only short term and temporary and will be set aside by a future Commission? Thirdly, please could the noble Lord try to tell us what our position will be in future negotiations when our partners know perfectly well that when we take a position at the beginning, a few threats and some bullying from them will make us change our mind within a few days and certainly in no less a period than a fortnight?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me three questions. I have no information as to whether or not the undertakings that were given by M. Delors were in writing, will be writing or were given over the telephone. However, I find very surprising any suggestion that M. Delors will not stick to an agreement that he has entered into, especially when it comes from a fellow Socialist. I have no doubt whatever that received assurances from M. Delors on this particular point are perfectly satisfactory. I think that they are right. M. Delors' undertaking was for the lifetime of this Commission. A new Commission will have to consider these matters afresh. However, I have every reason to believe that the undertakings that have been entered into by this Commission will be taken seriously by a new one. As far as our partners are concerned, I think that what has emerged from these discussions is that, as I said earlier, it is now accepted by all member countries of the European Union that we cannot move from a Community of 12 to a Community of 20 without considering the safeguards of minorities. I do not know what will be the outcome of negotiations which will not even start until 1996, but I have every reason to think that the basis upon which they will start will be satisfactory. I believe that I spoke earlier about "successful enlargement". I meant "successful negotiations". The enlargement is subject to ratification by the peoples and parliaments of all the countries concerned.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I take the same view as my noble friend Lord Richard in his condemnation of the way in which the Government have handled this matter. I should like to put one specific question. In the Statement which the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, read yesterday, which was repeated by the noble Lord when making his presentation today,

999
appeared the phrase, "This is a legally binding decision of the Council", as if somehow or other it was different from any other decision of the Council. Like many other noble Lords, I have taken the opportunity of reading the text of the declaration of the 12 present member states of the European Union which was made in their statement yesterday. I can find nothing that implies that there will be some new legally binding document, which I suppose must mean a new treaty. Will the Leader of the House explain what that term really means? I fear that it is just a piece of gobbledegook.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked for an explanation. The explanation is blindingly simple. The member states have agreed that this decision will be legally binding, which means that if any nation is aggrieved by it, these matters can be taken to the European Court of Justice and are justiciable in that sense.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us feel that a great advance has been effected by securing the four additional members of the Community? All four are admirably run countries which will undoubtedly exercise a very good influence on the operation of the Community as a whole. Is he further aware that to have achieved that with minimal reduction in the safeguards looked for appears to many of us like a very considerable achievement on which the Prime Minister should be congratulated?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He puts it better than I can.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord three questions. First, is it not true that the number is not 27 but 30 per cent. of the total votes, because if one of the countries was not to join, the number of votes necessary for a blocking minority would be adjusted to 30 per cent? The principle of 30 per cent. has been accepted and retained. There is no change in that. Secondly, perhaps I may ask him about the delay that a blocking minority of 23 can win. Is it not true that another country may, at any time, reopen the issue, and by a simple majority overrule whatever is going on? So a blocking minority of 23 cannot indefinitely stop something from going through. It is just a variable delay depending upon how many enemies one has created. Lastly, has any one of the four new partners who are about to join asked for derogation from the Social Chapter?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not informed on the last question. I do not know; but I shall find out and write to the noble Lord. To my own embarrassment and expense, I have already bandied numbers about earlier in this exchange. As I understand it, the 30 per cent. is nowhere in the legislation. The minority blocking vote has been around 30 per cent., but in the legislation it has always been expressed as the number of votes necessary to achieve a majority. That is what it is. It was 54. It will now increase so that the blocking minority will be 27, but with the procedures that have been agreed.
1000
The noble Lord asked what would happen if some country decided to seek to change those arrangements. Of course I believe that it would be possible to change these procedures by a simple majority, although I am not an expert in that particular matter. What is clear is that in those circumstances the Luxembourg Compromise, which exists in the background, is still available to us and can be used. Of course no one wants to use the Luxembourg Compromise unless it is necessary. That has not been changed. Indeed, its authority has been enhanced as a result of the negotiations, because Spain has also indicated that in certain circumstances it too would not hesitate to use the Luxembourg Compromise.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Commissioner in charge of health and safety in Brussels has already said on the wireless that he is not going to take the blindest bit of notice of any undertaking not to link hours of work with health and safety?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have not had my noble friend's advantage of listening to the Commissioner on the radio. All I know is that M. Delors has indicated that this Commission has no proposals to pursue any health and safety matters other than the two items that we have indicated that we approve of relating to mine safety and equipment safety. I have now been informed that none of the applicants has asked for a derogation from the Social Chapter.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord the Leader of the House did not deal adequately with an important point raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead when he suggested that in the future, instead of becoming involved once again in these arcane and complex matters of numbers and voting, we should concentrate on building up allies within the Community, and that we should work to try to persuade people that our views, which we happen to feel are in our own interests, would also be in their interests, so that when this matter arises again we should have a much stronger following than we had apparently on this occasion.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we should seek to build up allies and strengthen our position within the Community. I believe that in the past few years we have made a significant improvement in those relationships. I do not believe, for example, that we could have had a successful negotiation at Maastricht had it not been for the warm and constructive way in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister conducted those negotiations which I believe were very much to Britain's benefit.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, how was it then that we found ourselves in a minority of one in the recent negotiations?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the answer to that is that we were not in a minority of one; we were in a minority of two—and two very important countries. That comes ill from the Liberals who would give up all national vetos in these matters.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would it not have been easier to have won friends after Maastricht if, instead of coming out of the negotiations shouting, "Game, set and match", the Prime Minister had come out saying how understanding his friends had been in the other countries of Europe?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to say how understanding everyone, including the British Government, has been in this matter.

Sunday Trading Bill
4.16 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1 and Schedule 1.
Viscount Tonypandy: This is a major occasion in the life of this place. We are not deciding a small matter today, but one of considerable importance. When I listened to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking on behalf of the Church of this land, I was deeply moved because the question of having one day set apart from all the rest does, as the most reverend Primate indicated, go right back to the Ten Commandments. Throughout history, in each land, people have sought a day upon which to respect their faith. The Moslems, how seriously they take their faith and how they honour it. We respect those who honour their faith. So this applies to other faiths.
This is a Christian land. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and he reduced this major issue to trivia: whether one could buy nappies on a Sunday. We are considering how this country will go in the future. These are days when iconoclasts are busy tearing down values that our fathers have respected. I know that the world is always changing; but at present we are in danger of digging up the very foundations upon which we have established the type of society that we have in this land. Inconsistencies about Sunday! Of course there are inconsistencies; but similar inconsistencies arise out of almost every piece of legislation that comes through this place.
I listened with deep gratitude to the clear way in which the Minister outlined the options before us; but he did not make a recommendation on behalf of the Government. I want to say only that everyone who loves this country must be anxious about falling standards. Everyone who is proud to belong to these islands must feel uneasy about events and developments that are taking place. Sunday is a symbol that we have a faith. It is one of the remaining symbols that we are a people with obligations to God Almighty.
I know that there have been 29 debates in another place and here. I have taken part in every one of them. The noble Lord warned us not to repeat ourselves. I hope that he will not mind me saying in his presence that it was a bit neat of him to tell us not to repeat what we have said previously and then to proceed to do that very thing himself. However, that is by the way. Having listened to him, I realise how hostile he is to the whole idea of us keeping Sunday special as a different day.
Are we in this House to give a signal to the rest of the nation that what we believe does not matter any more?
1002
What we believe makes us what we are. Our faith is a measurement of the kind of people we are arid the values, that guide our society. If we support the present proposal, which amounts to total deregulation—.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No, no.
Viscount Tonypandy: Yes, it does. The: people who have been breaking the law for ages will be allowed to open for six hours. Now we are to reward them by making their illegal conduct legal. If we give a signal to the nation that Sunday does not count any more, we shall make it all the harder for those who are struggling to train our young to have the right values.
I hear a noble Lord speaking; as a rule I am not put off but perhaps it is my age. I too have received many letters. I grew up in a believing home and that made all the difference to me. I do not hide from the Committee the fact that we were a poor family. We did not have money but we had love and values. That all sprang from the New Testament and from the Christian belief of my mother. Therefore, when I receive letters from people outside begging me to vote today to protect Sunday, of course I am moved.
One of our major London retailers, who has kept his shop closed on Sundays, has written to me. His concluding paragraph reads:
"It must be remembered that this matter was brought to the fore by the activities of those companies who in the last couple of years have committed criminal offences week after week by opening on Sundays".
There is no great public demand. It is no good Members of the Committee saying that there is a public uprising to have shops open on Sundays. It is not true. I am as much in touch with public opinion, at least in the part of the world where I live, and I move around a fair amount. People are not clamouring to change the situation; in fact, they enjoy the weekends. It is an occasion for the family, whether or not they go to worship. People like the chance of a day for fellowship and they like it to be different from every other day.
I resume my seat with these words, which I repeat from a previous debate. It was not the Second Reading because I was in the sunshine on that day. I remember saying previously in this Chamber that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, with a Government who are proposing to deregulate hours, the shops can be open until all hours. Why should we spoil the one big remaining symbol of the faith in which we have put our trust?
I support the Keep Sunday Special Campaign. I did not need the noble Lord's advice; I shall keep Sunday special. I have been nurtured that way arid so have more than 5 million people who every Sunday make their way to the churches of this land. This House has an opportunity to ask another place to think again—that is all—and to send the Bill back. The provision was passed with a narrow majority—just 18 votes—and it will change everything. The Minister said, "We want to come to a decision". We have come to a decision 29 times. Of course, the final decision will be when shops are open every day and after that Ministers will consider

1003
the matter closed. I hope and pray that the Committee will make it 30 times and will hold on to what our fathers gave to us.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may make a slightly different point from that which we have heard. I keep Sunday special and I shall continue to keep Sunday special. I am a Christian and I shall remain a Christian whatever the result of the debate. I was a little surprised to hear the most reverend Primate say that it was our English Sunday of which he was so proud.
I receive letters as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I have received a letter about this matter from someone in Glasgow. It was written by a pious Christian who asked what I thought about the desecration of the Lord's day and whether he could quote me. I said, "I think two things. The first is that it does not apply to Scotland. The second is that if I were asked which was the most sabbatarian country in Europe I should certainly say that it was Scotland". I draw from that the conclusion that the keeping of Sunday special has more to do with conscience and popular culture than with the secular law of this land. We in England, to whom the Bill alone applies, ought to have a little respect for our companions across the Border, who have no effective sabbatarian legislation but who keep Sunday a great deal more special than we do.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I understand the arguments of those who seek total deregulation; for instance, my noble friend Lord McIntosh. However, I find it difficult to understand that, in the name of consumer choice, which has been bandied about in this debate, a small group of superstores—which, if one looks at the shopping centre in my small town, have done more than anyone to wreck consumer choice—are seeking to elevate the debate to a level of moral imperative and to persuade us to go down their particular road.
I am less interested in considering consumer choice as in reflecting on the position of minority groups which will be affected by the decision. I refer to those who live near shops and whose life will be made hideous on this seventh day of the week, those who try to run small shops and churchgoers who seek to keep churches open so that those who never go to church can do so when they want their babies baptised, to be married or to be buried. Of course, shopkeepers are still a minority group.
I wish to address my remarks particularly to the question of shopworkers. We are told that it will be all right and that we should not bother because they will be well protected by the legislation. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has announced that the Shopping Hours Reform Council employers are prepared to go even further. The Bill provides certain protections for existing shopworkers and for those who become employed by that industry.
As no doubt most noble Lords have done, I have had a look at the provisions of the Bill and the undertakings. My advice to shopworkers is that they should think very
1004
carefully and look that particular horse closely in the mouth. I agree with Dr. Deakin, fellow of Peterhouse, at the University of Cambridge, and Professor Ewing, Professor of Public Law at the University of London, that any employee who relies on the provisions of the Bill is likely to be very disappointed. They point out that there is no obligation whatever on an employer to consult the staff or their union about whether or not to open or close on a Sunday, and that employers can pay opting-out employees on a differentially lower basis, if they wish to do so. They point out that the sanctions available to a victimised employee are inadequate in terms of the complexity of putting a case before an industrial tribunal and the onus being upon an employee to prove that the reason for his dismissal or detrimental treatment was his refusal to work on a Sunday.
It does not stop there. An employer can get rid of his obligations by buying out the employee. That is quite legal under the Bill. There are many ways in which an unscrupulous employer—of which this industry is full —can evade the provisions of the Bill. He can just sack the employee and take the consequences. Even if the employee goes to a tribunal and wins the case, he will receive minimal compensation. His chances of reinstatement are one in a hundred. Who would want to be reinstated in a shop owned by such an employer? Meanwhile, the rest of the staff will have seen what happens, and at minimal cost the employer will have created apprehension among his staff. If anyone doubts that scenario let him consider the case of Mr. Phillips, a supervisor in the Byrite chain. Last year he was given one hour to sign a contract that made Sunday a normal working day. Mr. Phillips was advised that he should reconsider his future in retailing if he refused to sign.
It is worth emphasising that the Bill and its so-called protections apply only to shopworkers and not to all the other groups of workers who will inevitably be affected by shops opening on Sundays. I refer to the police, refuse collectors, traffic wardens and maintenance workers. The list is inexhaustible.
It is not surprising that USDAW has been disappointed by the failure of the House of Commons to adopt amendments to improve the Bill. But they tell us that they have received certain undertakings from a group of employers about the continuation of premium rates of pay to Sunday employees, undertakings about the requirement on employees to give only one month's notice to opt out and undertakings in relation to the treatment of employees who exercise their right to opt out of working on Sundays.
I ask noble Lords to look at the limited nature of those undertakings. First, this is not a signed agreement with the union but a unilateral declaration of intent by a group of employers. Secondly, the undertakings do not embody the guaranteed double time that USDAW has demanded. There is no guarantee of the continued payment of premium rates. The employers say that they
"will only deviate from this"—
i.e., the payment of premium rates—
"if there is a significant change in the circumstances in which retail work is rewarded".
That gives the employers a unilateral right to terminate premium payments. They will do it merely "after

1005
appropriate consultation", not by agreement with the union. Thirdly, if an employee exercises his or her right to opt out after giving notice the employer will,
"use his/her best endeavour to reschedule the employee's lost working hours elsewhere, subject to the needs of the business".
The expressions "best endeavour" and "subject to the needs of the business" are hardly copper-bottomed undertakings; they are more like a colander. Fourthly, these undertakings relate only to a minority of employees—those who work in shops—and not at all to employees in related occupations outside retailing. As far as I can gather, they do not even apply to supervisors or managers who work in shops.
I have no doubt whatever that those employers are honourable men. Indeed, they have very honestly put their reservations on the face of the declaration. Equally, I have no doubt that the deputy general secretary of USDAW is an honourable man who has done the best for his members in obtaining those undertakings. In his public statements he has put the best possible gloss on them that he can, and I do not criticise him for that. Many of us have had to do the same, even when the best that we can achieve is not terribly good. I am sure that the undertakings are better than nothing but I do not believe that they go very far. Certainly, they do not go further than the minority of employers who make up the Shopping Hours Reform Council. Less scrupulous employers in the industry will be laughing. Say's law will work here like everywhere else. The bad currency drives out the good. I used to think of that as Sainsbury's law in the days when Sainsbury's, under the leadership of the noble Lord Lord Sainsbury, was in the lead in the defence of wages councils. Where were the other members of the Shopping Hours Reform Council then? What will be the status of these undertakings when the heat is put on them by unscrupulous employers in the industry? One union of all the unions has secured this declaration of intent. However, other unions and their members will most certainly be affected.
I conclude by reminding those of your Lordships who may he considering attaching more importance to these undertakings than they warrant that one of the main purposes of the 1950 Act—and the main concerns of your Lordships when the last Bill was thrown out—was the protection of employees in the industry. That is not the only reason, or perhaps not the main reason, for resisting the proposals that have been put forward by the handful of major shopping chains represented on the Shopping Hours Reform Council. But the interests of shopworkers and other workers can best be protected by rejecting this essay in deregulation and voting to keep Sunday still special.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may ask a question of my noble friend before he sits down. Does he agree with me that, although USDAW has rightly been unhappy with some of the provisions for the protection of shopworkers made in another place, and they and, I hope, he and I will support amendments in this House to strengthen shopworker protection, nonetheless that union has recommended to Members of your Lordships' House that they vote for the six-hour option as it stands?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: What my noble friend says is absolutely true. On the other hand, UNISON—the second biggest union in the country, which is concerned about the knock-on effect on its members —firmly recommends that your Lordships support keeping Sunday special.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, always with unwillingness and diffidence. As Members of the Committee heard, he is not only a most eloquent speaker but, if he will allow me to say so to his face, he is also a very good man and one who is an example to us all. However, with respect, in the course of his very eloquent speech he really exaggerated the issue a great deal. The noble Viscount seemed to suggest that to allow Sunday opening of shops would be to go back on some of the major elements in the Christian faith. Speaking also as a Christian—and, indeed, in a much humbler way as a churchwarden—I really cannot accept that that is so.
As Members of the Committee know, shops are in an all but unique position. Almost every other activity is permitted on Sunday. It is virtually only in the retail trade where it is a criminal offence to open a shop except: with certain statutory and rather complicated exceptions. For the rest, you can, for example, open an office and there are people who work in continuous process industries. In passing, I should point out that I was one-time chairman of a cement making firm which is a continuous process industry. The only problem I had was with workers who were aggrieved that they were not nominated for Sunday work (which was paid at 50 per cent. above the week-day rate) and who sometimes demanded of the chairman that he should see to it that the foreman did not victimise them by depriving them of Sunday work.
If noble Lords look around them they will see a great many activities taking place on Sundays; for example, as regards transport and government services. Indeed, many millions of people now work regularly on Sundays. If the noble Viscount is right and the opening of some shops on Sunday would really be a departure from the principles of the Christian faith I can only say to him that we have already travelled a long way from that position.
We are concerned with the not unimportant but much more limited issue as to whether or not it should be lawful to open a shop on Sunday. The noble Lord opposite dealt with very important issues on trade union representation and relations. If Sunday shopping is established, it is obviously right that proper agreements should be made in respect of those called upon to work in those shops. But, again, that is only a comparatively small section of a society in which many millions of people already work on Sundays. Moreover, many millions also enjoy the opportunity to shop on Sundays.
As anyone can see in the shopping centres of our towns, it is increasingly the practice—especially in these days when married women work a great deal—that Sunday is the day when married couples like to go out and shop together. Unfortunately, from one point of view, they have been able to do so for quite a time as one of the sad things about the present state of the law is that

1007
it is not observed. I am sure that Members of the Committee will feel that for practices which are unlawful to be continued simply because no one thinks it right to enforce the law is very bad in itself but a very good argument for tidying up the legal position.
The choice before us for tidying up the whole matter is a clear one. One can adopt the view taken by the other place and go for a large measure of deregulation and the rather curious six-hour opening rule for large stores, or one can go the whole way and deregulate entirely. The strong argument against the partial deregulation approved by another place is that it imposes a very considerable burden upon local authorities which will then be expected to enforce a highly complicated law. Moreover, according to the Bill, it will involve an expenditure of about £3 million a year for enforcement and a further £600,000 to cover other aspects involved in so doing.
What is the purpose of the restriction? The only purpose that I have heard supported is that it would help the small shops, which would be allowed to open, as against the big shops, which would be restricted to six hours. In a way, that is an attractive argument because most of us have a great regard for the smaller shops which serve an extremely useful public purpose. But is it really acceptable in this day and age that, in order to benefit one economic activity, we make another economic activity a criminal offence and expect local authorities to enforce the law in that respect? I believe that that is only going half way and that the other place has only gone part of the way towards clearing up a wholly unsatisfactory position.
Several Members of the Committee referred to Scotland where the position has been wholly satisfactory for many years. As one noble Lord observed, the Scots are rather more Sabbatarian than the rest of us. Yet they carry on very happily with complete freedom to open shops. I believe that only about 21 per cent. or 22 per cent. of shops actually open. If we do away with the idea that opening a shop on Sunday is a criminal offence that shows that all shops will not automatically open; they will only open if it seems to be in their interests to do so. Rather than use the criminal law to help one section of the shopping industry as against another, I suggest that it would be sensible to clear up the matter once and for all.
The real practical problem involved is the reaction of the other place. If Members of the Committee go—as I hope they will—for total deregulation, it is quite possible that the other place may not accept that decision and may persist in its present attitude of supporting partial deregulation. Indeed, it is within the legal rights of Members of the other place so to do. However, it is surely the function of this Chamber sometimes to give Members of another place the chance to think again. No one can be sure how they would use such an opportunity. But if Members of the Committee were to accept that version of the Bill which provides for total deregulation, then at least the other place would have to face up to that judgment. They would also have to confront the question which is one that those concerned might find difficult to resolve; namely,
1008
whether it makes sense in this day and age to secure a certain amount of closing of shops by the use of criminal penalties and the hard work of local authorities in order either to preserve a small trace of Sabbatarianism or, perhaps, the interests of the smaller shops.
We have before us a real opportunity to put the law right; indeed, we have a real opportunity to clear up what has been a scandal. Moreover, we have the splendid example of Scotland. Speaking as one who once served in a Scottish regiment, I believe that it is a very good idea to follow the Scots.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend sits down, I have one point to make. My noble friend sought to reassure Members of the Committee that only 22 per cent. of the shops in Scotland open under free Sunday trading. However, is he aware that in England and Wales 38 per cent. of shops already open and that if we deregulate it is estimated that the figure will rise to 65 per cent?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am well aware of the fact that it is said that 38 per cent. do open on Sunday. Perhaps my noble friend will therefore realise that if his object is to prevent shops opening on Sundays, maintaining this legislation seems to me the worst possible way of doing it.
Lord Howell: I hope I shall not detain the Committee long but the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has advanced an extraordinary proposition; namely, that if large numbers of people fail to observe the law, and indeed deliberately break the law, Parliament should then change the law to meet such illegality. That is an astonishing proposition which would take us into deep water if ever it were applied as a general principle to a whole range of social matters. I refer to drugs and other areas where large numbers of people would like us to pursue consideration of changing the law.
I am obliged to the most reverend Primate, to my noble friend Lord Tonypandy and others for drawing our attention to what this debate is really about; namely, the essential character of Sunday irrespective of whether one is Christian. Sunday has an essential characteristic in that on Sunday we must provide for the renewal of people. Those of us who are Christian in part or in whole must have an opportunity to renew our spiritual life; but we must also provide opportunities for renewal for those who are not Christian. I suggest that we should provide opportunities for renewal for the latter in the form of recreation. That is of great importance. I have not always agreed with my noble friend Lord Tonypandy regarding what opportunities we should provide for people to view sport or the arts on Sundays. However, I am glad to say that we are both playing on the same side on this occasion. It is important to retain that special feature of Sunday. As there are no absolutes in this life, we must balance what we wish to achieve with some provision to meet people's essential needs. That is why I think it is reasonable to open small shops on Sundays. There are other reasons for that which I shall discuss in a moment.

1009
I wish to say a few words about shopping—I suspect in advance of the speeches that will be made by some of my noble friends who are sitting behind me who have told me privately how important it is for them to be able to shop on Sunday. Their case has been totally destroyed by the introduction by this Government of Clause 17 in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—the deregulation clause—which will allow shops to be open 24 hours a day, six days a week. I cannot believe there is any housewife in the country who cannot find the opportunity to do her main shopping in that six day period.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that women should be expected to go shopping 24 hours a day? Is he suggesting that after having done a full day at work, they should have the opportunity to visit the shops at midnight if they so wish?
Lord Howell: I am saying that the Government—presumably with the support of my honourable friends—will allow shops to be open from midnight on Sunday/Monday until midnight on Saturday/Sunday. Surely, in the whole of that time—the period we used to call the working week—most housewives will find an hour or two to do their shopping.
Lord Howie of Troon: My noble friend will recall that public houses can now be open if not for 24 hours a day, at least for a great part of the day. That is a good thing. Is he going to suggest that they should be shut on Sunday?
Lord Howell: I will not give way again as in the interests of the Committee I must move on. I make the point that we cannot discuss this Bill in isolation from what the Government are proposing to do under Clause 17 of the deregulation Bill, whatever view we may take of this matter. We cannot divorce those two provisions and that fact lessens for many people the attractiveness of the proposition put by another place.
I now turn to the matter of unrestricted shopping on Sundays. We should have no doubt that that will wipe out the small shopkeeper. That is another matter of anxiety to me. For many years when I was a Member of Parliament in another place I was concerned by the effect of large scale multi-purpose shopping. One only has to go to places such as Dudley to see the effect that mammoth shopping centres have on a town. The centre of Dudley has been obliterated. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment is now becoming increasingly worried about the effect of multi-purpose super stores. He is concerned about their general effect on the environment and about their effect on small shopkeepers who provide a service for a community.
I ask Members of the Committee to be careful before they vote for the proposal from another place lest they do a great deal of damage to small shopkeepers who in my judgment have an important role to play in our society. If we restrict the times when large shops can open on Sundays, that will have an important economic effect on small shopkeepers. As another speaker has already mentioned, the businessmen who control large
1010
stores often support by donations those who stand for election on a law and order ticket; but they then totally ignore the law in their own case.
I had intended to deal with workers' rights, but my noble friend Lord Murray has dealt with that adequately. He has quite rightly pointed out that several unions, including some large ones, have expressed opposition to these proposals. Do we really wish to permit shopping every hour that God sends? I do not believe that is right. Former constituents of mine who lived close to large shopping centres used to complain to me that they were constantly disturbed by the passage of juggernauts full of goods. They were also disturbed by the noise of hundreds of cars and thousands of people six days a week. They asked me whether they were entitled to a bit of peace and quiet on a Sunday and whether they would have to accept disturbance on seven days a week. Therefore I object to the Government's proposal for strong environmental reasons in addition to wishing to preserve the essential nature of the English sabbath. Amendment No. 3 which seeks to keep the sabbath special is, I believe, the essential, civilised and sensible amendment which this Committee ought to adopt. I hope it does so.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I, too, wish to express gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the clear and concise way in which he introduced this debate. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at the moment because I wanted to sympathise with him. Perhaps one of his noble friends will convey that to him. He told us how he intended to vote. He is being admirably loyal to his Prime Minister and Members of the Cabinet. However, he will find himself in a conflict of loyalty following the advice given by his own bishop. Perhaps he could be reminded that we are still in the season of repentance but also of forgiveness.
The town of Beaconsfield, where I was once rector, has links with two great parliamentarians. However, Benjamin Disraeli never lived there. He passed through the town of Beaconsfield and I believe he changed horses there. He fancied the name of the town and took its title when he entered this Chamber. The most famous resident who is commemorated modestly with a little brass plaque underneath a pew is Edmund Burke, who was perhaps Beaconsfield's greatest son. I cannot recall his precise words, but I believe he said that the destruction of ancient or well established institutions is fraught with unpredictable peril. He said that society is a complex mass of relationships which time and usage have lubricated. An attack on these relationships in the name of a social theory which may hold some ephemeral currency, or in the name of financial efficiency which later turns out to have been mostly illusion, may have appalling consequences for other social relationships outside the imaginative grasp of radical reformers.
The principle of sabbath rest is deep in the traditions of the Jewish, Christian and Moslem religions. Much is made in the media these days of divisions between religions—divisions among Christians. On this issue, we speak with one voice, representing millions of our fellow citizens.

1011
This is not an issue about rationalising illogical or inconvenient legislation. It is about changing the society in which we live. I do not believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, exaggerated. The dispute is not between different sets of legislation. Let there be no doubt. It is a dispute between two, not three, sets of legislation. The option for which another place voted is deregulation by another name.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the proposal is not government policy—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate states that it is deregulation by another name, why is there—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Onslow: Why is there—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that it is the will of the House that the Lord Bishop continues.
The Earl of Onslow: It is a question of clarification.
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, perhaps we may have a private conversation on the subject a little later. I shall gladly justify the statement.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the proposal is not Government policy; and that is strictly true. Nevertheless, the voting by members of the Cabinet, in particular after the very early lead given by the Prime Minister, indicates that that option is strongly held opinion in government circles. The Government seem to show little awareness of the extent of the social change involved. With due deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to quote the example of Scotland is not strictly relevant. Scotland is not England. You are not comparing like with like. When Church leaders express support for the Keep Sunday Special proposals, narrow religious interests are furthest from our minds. For example, we are not in the least anxious about church attendance. We are concerned with precisely the same issues which concern the Government: the wellbeing and health of society. Some politicians, not necessarily in this House, naively assume that the churches' interest in such matters is always to do with their own attendance figures. Opinion polls are not an obsession with Church leaders—though it is an interesting fact that in the two years since Sunday trading has, quite illegally, become common, church attendance has risen.
The point is this. We want to help the Government do their job. Most of us have no interest whatever in party issues. If the Labour Party were in power, it would find us just as critical as the Conservatives have done. Incidentally, I find extraordinary the credulity of trade unions and some Members of the Labour Party in believing that sufficient protection to shopworkers can possibly be given. The proposals for worker protection will almost certainly prove to be unworkable. Can noble Lords imagine that there will not be discrimination
1012
when two people are interviewed for the same job and the question is asked, "Are you willing to work on a Sunday?" What of the young man or woman executive who is against Sunday working on principle? Is it realistic to believe that their career prospects will not be affected?
For most of the time most of us on these Benches, in this Chamber and in the world at large, keep silent on political issues. But when there is virtual unanimity, not just among the Bench of Bishops but between all the Church leaders of England, and between all the main religions represented in our country, the Government and those who support them would be wise to listen carefully. The present Government have chosen to adopt a high moral tone. That is all right. But moralising is not a matter of words and slogans; it is a matter of hard thinking based on the experience of making moral decisions. In that area, the Government have at hand a huge body of expertise of which they seem to make scant use. No wonder when we feel that the Government have their moral thinking askew, some of us step in and say so. On the issue of Sunday trading, I believe that the Government, and those who support the proposals, have seriously underestimated the moral and social significance of the issue.
In recent weeks, the wisdom of this House has been powerfully expressed and effective in assisting the Government to bring forward legislation which is realistic and protective of a wide variety of interests. It is to be hoped that the Committee will offer similarly realistic advice on this fundamental matter which concerns the wellbeing of our society.
5 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I rise with a little trepidation as one of the newer Peers, with a contribution which will be in opposition to some of my fellow Peers on this side of the Chamber, a number of whom worked, as I did, as trade unionists.
I shall support the Shopping Hours Reform Council changes which were endorsed in another place. It has been suggested that no one knew about the deregulation Bill when the vote was taken in another place. The facts do not bear that out. The deregulation Bill was published on 19th January. On the Second Reading vote in another place, the majority was 75. The Third Reading vote was taken on 23rd February. The majority increased from 75 to 93. That suggestion is something of red herring.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Howell, that it is also a red herring to refer to "housewives". Seventy per cent. of working women in Britain are married. They would resent being called housewives. They are workers equal with other people and have to contribute to the family income.
I live in an inner city. I feel that I live in the middle of a large shopping area. I know when I prefer to shop. I prefer to shop on a bright, sunny Sunday rather than on a dark night in a badly lit area in an inner city—an area in which many women are afraid to walk about, never mind having to carry shopping home at night after working late.

1013
The deregulation proposals were also trailed last July in the White Paper on Sunday trading. There has been reference to the United States. Many of us have visited the United States either on holiday or to see families, and have spent some time there. Sunday is still special in the United States. Indeed, I am sure that the Church will confirm that proportionately more people go to church in the States than in Britain. I am sure that I am wrong in detecting this view which seems to creep into the debate. It is the implication that, if one is a Christian, and believes in Christian values, one will not vote for reform of Sunday trading. I am a Christian. I may not be a very good Christian but I try to follow the values and teachings of Christianity. I shall be voting for the Shopping Hours Reform Council proposals voted for in another place. I hope it will be accepted that doing so makes me no less of a Christian.
I have spent the whole of my life in the trade union movement and I am proud of it. I have great difficulty in being urged to vote for a proposal which, if applied, would overnight put out of employment something like 170,000 people, the majority of whom would be women. That is what the Keep Sunday Special proposal would do. That could be the implication of closing on a Sunday. It is not just because of consumer choice; as my noble friend Lord Tonypandy said, something like 16 million people shop on a Sunday. I confess that I did last Sunday; I had to, I had no time to do my shopping.
It is not just the consumers. The people who work on a Sunday were asked whether they wanted the work and the extra income taken from them and they said, no, they did not want to lose the work and, understandably, they did not want to lose the extra income. However, I am not saying that the employment protection measures for Sunday workers are anywhere near adequate. I look forward to debating that in the House and to the support of colleagues and noble Lords. Of course, workers in Britain are not just afraid of being exploited on a Sunday. The changes in employment legislation and the way in which protections have been eroded mean that many thousands of workers in Britain are exploited seven days a week. The protections also need improving.
Recent surveys have shown that something like 73 per cent. of trade unionists welcome and want a reform of Sunday trading. That is not surprising: they are the very people who have to work difficult shifts. I was proud to represent people who had to work on seven-day cover in continuous operations like paper mills and printing. People would not get their newspapers on Monday morning if other people did not work on Sunday night. So I represented those who had to work seven days a week. To opt for the Keep Sunday Special proposal would put many of those people out of work.
Employment protection is absolutely crucial. In this debate, the name of the trade unions has been used on a number of occasions. I should like to defend USDAW. I wish to because I believe that it needs defence. It has been said that USDAW opposes changes time after time. That is true. It has been said that USDAW does not have the support of its members in signing the agreement. USDAW has signed the agreement covering extra payment for Sundays. As any trade union general
1014
secretary knows—and I have only recently given up being general secretary—although there are conference decisions, if the situation changes after conference we have an executive council to deal with it in consultation with the members whom we represent. I was also taught many years ago that a trade union officer's job is to represent the will of the members. In signing the agreement, USDAW has consulted its members who work on Sunday and, after taking their views, has signed the agreements which exist.
Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will cease criticising an organisation which tries its best to represent members in a difficult world today. It is a deregulated world where the worker has very little power, a world where many thousands already work in shops on Sunday. Those are the people who will be affected if the proposal of the Shopping Hours Reform Council is not carried. I shall support that reform from my practical experience and involvement, knowing not only that it is the wish of the people who work on Sunday and the consumer but also that the law at the moment is a mess.
5.15 p.m.
Several noble Lords: Young!
Noble Lords: Howe!
Earl Ferrers: I am sure that there will be time for both my noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friend Lady Young. However, it may be appropriate for the noble and learned Lord to speak next, followed by the noble Baroness.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: I was just on the point of yielding to the noble Baroness but of course I bow to the superior authority of my noble friend.
Perhaps I may begin by—remarkably—expressing agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, on one point. We both agree that those who have suggested that the legislation affects merely England present an incomplete picture. It affects England and Wales. At that point, however, I part company with the noble Viscount and emphasise what follows from that. He said that the proposed legislation threatened to uproot the foundations of our way of life and he used other dramatic and elegant phrases. I simply cannot believe that that kind of rhetoric is applicable to a proposition for which there is no equivalent whatever in Scotland. Arguments can be made about it, but to suggest that Scotland, without any intervention of the law, should not give guidance and be taken as an example seems to me to be misleading oneself.
Secondly, the legislation requiring shops to close on Sunday is not part of the antique foundations of our legislative system. Sunday closing of shops started with a Private Member's Bill enacted in 1936. If our foundations are as slender and non-antique as that, then I am not impressed by them. Of course, I admire and respect the proposition that Sunday should be kept special, but my desire is that it should not be kept special on the basis of an inadequate and increasingly disrespected structure of law.

1015
The noble Viscount also said that he had not noticed people clamouring to change the law. I agree. The law has been falling into disrepute and desuetude as a result of its totally unusable condition. If there were any clamour about it at all, it would be a clamour to move towards making an honest woman of the law.
When the Gowers Committee considered the matter back in 1947, when it was already seen that the law was a nonsense, the committee made one simple proposition:
"Legislation that affects the daily lives of so many people should be simple and intelligible".
Nothing could be further from that aspiration than the law as it now is. As long ago as 1959, the Conservative Party said in response in its manifesto:
"We shall revise some of our social laws … which are at present full of anomalies and lead to abuse".
That is exactly what is happening now, rather belatedly. I hesitate to cross swords with the most reverend Primate on the matter, and I have much respect for his speech. He said that he was not posing as a legalistic sabbatarian, but that is precisely what the legislation would do if we were to adopt the proposals of the Keep Sunday Special proposition.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I favour complete deregulation, but I do not believe it to be a realistic proposition. I therefore think we have to go for a sensible, practical halfway step towards it. If one looks at the structure of the law as it would emerge from the Keep Sunday Special schedule, I quote from the opinion circulated by five distinguished Queen's Counsel, not because I want to cite their opinion but because it happens to be true. It says this about the Keep Sunday Special schedule:
"this proposal potentially extends to every retail trading activity in England and Wales. … there are exemptions and exceptions, which in themselves present almost insuperable difficulties of comprehension and application, including the fundamental question of what is or is not a shop within the meaning of the Bill … past experience of having a ban which is subject to exemptions is that it perpetuates problems for those who enforce the law … the compliance and enforcement problems which would arise [under the Keep Sunday Special schedule] would be far greater than ever was the case under the Shops Act 1950".
That is undoubtedly true. If we look at the schedule produced by the SHRC lobby, it sets out 57 different questions that would need to be answered; 57 new anomalies arising if we were to follow that way of dealing with the law. It was said by one judge of the original 1950 Shops Act provisions that,
"There is almost no nonsensical proposition which may not be seriously put forward as a result of looking at these innumerable exceptions".
If that is true under the legislation today, then it will become increasingly true if we adopt the provisions set out in the Keep Sunday Special schedule.
I take one other phrase from the most reverend Primate. He said that we should be proud of Sunday as we know it. Speaking not so much as a lawyer but as a citizen of this country, I am ashamed that our attempt to preserve the specialness of Sunday, which I respect, has reduced the law to its present condition of being so widely disrespected. I suggest that there is almost no aspect of the law that does more to bring it into disrepute than the existing provisions. I do not believe that that
1016
situation would be changed by enacting the schedule commended by the Keep Sunday Special lobby. We should be jumping from a frying-pan into a fire of incomprehension and a fire of unenforceability. The relatively simple compromise suggested by the SHRC alternative which is now in the legislation as it has reached this House is the option that we should support.
I confess that, were Ito have my own way, I should march boldly into the Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who wishes us to give the other place the chance to think again.
In 1961 I wrote in a journal called Crossbow, which still flourishes today and which I then edited, an article under the title Set the Shopper Free. In it I quoted from a publication from the Institute of Economic Affairs —represented by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who is sitting beside me. That is what we ought to be doing if we are to make real sense of this matter. I do not believe that even the rhetoric of the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and myself, taken together, would persuade the other place to think again since it rejected that proposition by a majority of 404 votes to 174. I am a modest man. I shall not try to tackle that decision. I urge the Committee to support the sensible conclusion that was arrived at by the other place.
Baroness Young: There is a great danger as this debate proceeds that those who are in favour of either the SHRC option, for which the Commons voted, or total deregulation are arguing a case which grossly over-simplifies the effects of what will happen if this measure comes into effect.
I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and to a certain extent my noble friend Lord Howe, about the comparison with Scotland. That comparison is easy to make. But it is completely incorrect. There are two reports which have investigated the situation: the Auld Committee report of 1984 and the London economics report of April 1993 (slightly less than a year ago). Both confirmed that Scotland is not a good model for understanding the effect of deregulation in England and Wales. Shopping patterns are different in Scotland because of lower population density and car ownership; higher transport and energy costs for shops; and an insignificant presence of large food multiples. All those factors have acted as a disincentive to Sunday shopping in Scotland. That will of course change once the multiples are there in large numbers. There is already evidence that small shops are starting to close. But to delude ourselves into thinking that what happens in Scotland is a good parallel to what would happen in England and Wales is simply not true.
My second point is that we should not forget that the Commons voted for the SHRC option by 18 votes. So many figures have been bandied about, but that is the fact. The most serious thing that will come about—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I hesitate to intervene, but I know that the noble Baroness is very keen that the facts in her contribution should be correct. Is it not the

1017
case that the other place voted against the Keep Sunday Special option by 18 votes, and voted for the Shopping Hours Reform Council option by a majority of 75?
Baroness Young: I quite accept that the whole point is that the Keep Sunday Special option was lost by 18 votes. That is the point that I am making.
One point has been forgotten in this important debate. I have talked to many noble Lords over the past weeks, and it is quite clear that everybody is very worried about the effect on small shops. There is no doubt at all that, were either the SHRC option or the option of deregulation to come into effect, the decline of small shops would be accelerated. All the evidence shows that. It would have a significant effect on village communities—on the old, the disabled and anybody who does not have a car. It has also been forgotten that the change will have a devastating effect on city centres. My friends in government are always talking about doing something about city centres. Of course it will put pressure on the small shops. The big shops will get their extra business only by squeezing out the small shops. They have already started to do that, and they will continue. That is a fact. Things will change in a very dramatic way. We shall wring our hands and say, "Isn't it sad that the city centre is derelict?" and we shall have contributed towards that dereliction.
I find it astonishing that so many of my noble friends who sit with me on these Benches, and my noble friends who are in government and who I always thought supported small businesses, should vote for a measure which will extinguish thousands of them overnight. Even in the last Budget my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced measures to help small businesses. Five minutes later my colleagues here decide to abolish thousands of them. I find that absolutely incredible. Nevertheless, that is what they are doing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, talked about job losses. The research that has been done into job losses, in the London economic survey conducted for the Home Office, indicates that total deregulation would lead to 19,100 job losses and the SHRC option to 5,300 job losses; while our proposal would lead to 12,900 to 21,000 job gains. That is a point in its favour.
People far more eloquent than myself have spoken about Sunday as a special day. I believe that it is special. There is much to be said, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said, for it being a British institution. Many people have said that to me as I have travelled around the world. I do not believe that the argument rests on whether one can go to Church on Sunday. I like to think that I am a Christian and that if I wanted to I could go to church three times on a Sunday (possibly four) and go shopping as well. I hope that I would think of going to church on other days of the week and carrying out my principles.
That is not the issue. It is that for many people Sunday is a very special day. Again, I find it absolutely ironic that in the International Year of the Family we should decide as a Parliament to agree to a measure which is as anti-family as this one is. We have heard about the effect on shopworkers. I thought that the noble
1018
Lord, Lord Murray, was very clear on that point. What is written in the Bill is not worth the paper that it is printed on. Other people will come to suffer very much from this measure.
Nor do I believe that the analogy of the cement works that was made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is true. Of course everybody would want to work if they were to be paid double. But who will be paid double under this scheme? It is a very different proposition.
I speak as somebody who has brought up a family and feels very deeply about the role of the family. I feel strongly that in this country we are going clown a very slippery slope in relation to all sorts of issues. I shall not say again what I said when we had a debate on the matter in this House only a few weeks ago. But there are occasions in life when it is possible to stand up for a very great principle which affects us all. Those of us who believe in it should stand up and say so. I hope that all those who really care for the good health of the fabric of society will vote this evening for the KSS/RSAR option.
Lord Harris of High Cross: It is impossible to utter more than half a sentence without the risk of offending someone whom we either greatly respect or have some affection for. I must separate myself from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, whom I would normally follow through fire and worse. I am very unhappy to find myself in head-on confrontation with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whom I greatly respect.
There was a time when the Tory Party had a slogan — it was more than a slogan; it was a principle of policy — under the banner: "Change is our ally". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to the earlier days of his Bow Group past. In 1964, under the Government of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he then was, it was the then Mr. Heath as President of the Board of Trade who abolished retail price maintenance.
At that time we heard speeches which were precisely the same as the one that we heard from the noble Baroness and have heard from many others, to the effect that this was the end of the world as we had known it. It was said that we were abolishing a time hallowed system of uniform pricing and whether we went to shop in Harrods or the Outer Hebrides we would find the same price for branded products, and so on. The decision was a very close-run thing. I recall that the Government carried one amendment by a single vote. A year or two later no one would conceivably have thought of going back to resale price maintenance.
The abolition of resale price maintenance in 1964 opened the way for a revolution in retailing. Quite a different pattern of provision of shops and shopping habits gradually began to assert itself. The most reverend Primate said that market forces were a good servant but a bad master. Market forces are people doing what they like to do without harming others and dealing and trading with people who wish to trade with them. In fact market forces represent a democratic process of free movement and trade. To raise them up as a tyrant or master is absurd.
I want to fasten on one issue. It is the reason that we are having this debate and have this great opportunity

1019
for radical reform. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and others said, the Shops Act 1950 has fallen into disrepute and non-effect. De jure we now have a system of deregulation. The moment that we return to regulation—this Bill as it now stands is not a deregulation Bill but a Bill for regulating on a different basis the opening and closing of shops—a line has to be drawn between permitted and forbidden activities. There have to be systems of inspection, enforcement and penalties. We will find that in this Bill lines are already drawn which have within them the seeds of future absurdities and inequities, let alone changes which will take place in the future and which we cannot anticipate.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked why the measurement was set at 280 square metres. What is "the relevant floor area"? Those questions could be debated. Who wants paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 2? They require a new tribe of inspectors with power to enter any premises "with or without a constable" to take measurements and photographs, to collect records and ascertain personal responsibility for suspected violations. All that seems to me to be invidious and mischievous.
For my money, however, the worst feature of the Bill is the religious discrimination in Part III of Schedule 2 where there is to be a public register of what are called "persons of the Jewish religion", as certified by someone in turn authorised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews—if it is a company or partnership, it must be a majority of the partners or directors. They would be authorised to have their names listed in some public place as permitted to open on a Sunday. That is a new "Schindler's List". It is a list of people who will be reprieved from prosecution if they open on Sunday, provided that they have gone through the formalities and given their names to the local authority to be listed for public view and display and so long as they close their shops on Saturday. It is a facility which I understand is not open to members of other religions.
Being an economist, I have to consider how economic affairs and future developments may affect these matters. The most reverend Primate said in a very appealing way that he was trying to think long term because he had been around for a long time. The problem is that most of us have been around for a long time; but it is a long time in the past and if we are to think long term, we must think of a long time into the future. My abiding belief over the whole of my working life has been that Britain's long drawn out, relative economic decline has been hastened by a natural conservative tendency—especially marked on the Labour Benches—to put caution before risk-taking, restriction before flexibility and security before progress.
A wonderful world of change opens up in the future. We do not know how it will come to us. The future comes a day at a time. There will be things of which we approve and others of which we tend to disapprove. That is what living in a free society entails. We now have a chance to put the past decently behind us and embrace the future. In this Chamber in 1982 the noble
1020
Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave a radical lead for freedom for shops through outright repeal. I suggest that, since we have been proved right in this matter 12 years later, we should now once again blow her trumpet for deregulation, bearing in mind that if the amendment should fail, we can always fall back on the compromise and sink our principles.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What has struck me about the whole business is that there is no great public demand for deregulation or partial deregulation. I have not received one letter from an individual demanding that shops should be open seven days a week. That is unusual. I have not seen marches on Parliament or great Lobbies asking for Sunday opening. I have not seen great marches demanding deregulation or partial deregulation.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend and ask him whether he saw the demonstration in favour of Sunday trading. The demonstration was composed mainly of women who wanted to be able to shop on a Sunday.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I shall come back to women in a moment. I saw the hyped up affair which descended on Parliament, but it was not the kind of demonstration which we are used to in the trade union movement. It was all got up for commercial purposes.
I repeat, the fact of the matter is that I have seen no great demand for deregulation and certainly have not had any letter or telephone call from any individual demanding it. Indeed, I believe that the whole issue has been hyped up by a number of large stores. It has not been done to suit shoppers but to suit the stores' own convenience and their desire to grab market share at the expense of others, including the small shopkeeper about whom we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Incidentally, many of them will be forced out of business, and are being forced out of business already at the rate of 1,000 a week. That trend will accelerate if we have deregulation or partial deregulation. We have already seen the dereliction of town centres as a result of the activities of out-of-town trading, and deregulation will merely increase that trend.
National opinion polls have shown that people do not have a burning desire to go shopping on seven days a week. Indeed, the last national opinion poll that I saw showed that 80 per cent. of women are satisfied with the KSS/RSAR option. Those figures accord with a newspaper poll carried out last November by the Reading Chronicle—I live in Reading—which covers the very representative area of the Thames Valley. The poll found that the percentage of people in favour of total deregulation was 22 per cent. and 7 per cent. wanted partial deregulation. The KSS/RSAR option was favoured by 66 per cent.—two-thirds. That is a significant vote for the KSS option. And 4 per cent. voted for opening Christmas only. That was the result of a local poll which confirms other polls taken nationally.
The large retail organisations have attained their goal by law breaking. Let us make no mistake about it, when

1021
they opened on Sunday they defied the law. Let us not be namby pamby about it, they broke the law. They prosecute little people who shop lift—I support them in that—but so rich, big and powerful are these boys that when they break the law they expect to be rewarded by a change in the law to satisfy their demands. That is what will happen if this Committee votes for partial or total deregulation; they will have attained their objectives by flagrantly breaking the law.
We are told that seven-day shopping will benefit working women. I doubt that. Women are already six-day slaves. What do we want? Do we want to make them seven-day slaves? I am surprised that some of my noble friends appear to want to do just that.
Then there is the environment to consider. We should say a lot more about the environment. What happens to the people who live near shops? They will be extremely disadvantaged by noise, fumes, dirt, disturbance and inconvenience for seven days a week in future instead of six. Are we not concerned for them? Are not they entitled to be considered when we decide on seven-day shopping? Of course they are. We in this Chamber at least should consider them, because if the Bill goes through nobody else will. There may be provision in the Bill for people around a shopping area to be consulted. But there is no provision which will allow them to stop it and therefore, before we vote, we should consider the people who live near shopping centres who will be inconvenienced environmentally.
In relation to the environment we should also consider energy conservation. There is no point laughing about that. In support of easing global warming and energy conservation, the Government are to charge us an extra 17.5 per cent. on our heating bills. Therefore they must be concerned about conservation. Estimates say that seven-day opening of shops will ensure that an extra 500,000 tonnes of CO2 will be discharged into the atmosphere from extra lighting and heating. There will also be other undesirable discharges from motor vehicles. We should consider the environment in those respects. And those without cars —older people and single parents—will be inconvenienced by the loss of high street shopping and small shops.
What about shop workers? We heard my noble friend Lord Murray give a good account of the difficulties that shop workers and others will face as a result of the Bill if deregulation is agreed. As he said, while the Bill makes some provision to safeguard the position of shop workers it does nothing to protect other employees in other industries who may have to work on Sundays as a result of deregulation. Employees such as lorry drivers and those providing services to shops will be affected, as will local authority workers such as inspectors, road cleaners and traffic control staff. There is no statutory protection for them.
I advise UNISON. My noble friend Lady Dean spoke about USDAW. UNISON has three times the number of members as USDAW.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: But are they shop workers?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, but most of them are women. I said that I would come back to the subject of women. Presumably women are among those who my noble friends say want to shop on Sunday, yet UNISON is against partial or total deregulation and in favour of keeping Sunday special. That means a large union which represents a wide variety of people is in favour of keeping Sunday special.
I want to say this to my noble friend. I was told that because I want to support the KSSC—not on religious grounds but simply because I believe we should keep Sunday special—I am unprogressive; that it is progressive to open shops on seven days. What is progressive about rampant commercialism seven days a week instead of six? Supporters of deregulation should ask themselves that question before they criticise me for being unprogressive.
Furthermore, there is likely to be a demand for other services to be open on Sunday. Let us consider those people. Will there be a demand for public: libraries to be open? If shops are to be open, why should not public libraries also open? I am glad noble Lords are nodding. Let us get to the point. Let us find out exactly what it means. Will we want the civic offices to open as well? What about the employees of building societies and banks? Nobody has yet mentioned those. But presumably they will be forced to work on Sunday if Sunday shopping or Sunday activity operates.
You name it and there will be a demand that it opens on Sunday. In turn that will bring about a situation where, in working terms—my noble friends should listen to this—Sunday will be just the same as any other day. Therefore why pay a premium for Sunday working? The logical argument is that if all seven days of the week are the same and if Sunday is not special, why should anybody pay extra for it? There is therefore a danger, particularly to low paid workers, that as a result of deregulation their total take home pay will be much smaller than it has been hitherto. There is a lot more to say on the issue, but I will not say it. I have probably said enough to convince the Committee to vote my way.
I want to finish with a warning. It must not be forgotten that once we pass partial deregulation we shall have full deregulation. The one will lead to the other. And once we have done it, like hanging, there will be no going back. I hope that when Members of the Committee vote tonight they will remember that there is no going back; they will have done it for good; there will be no time for regrets. If they have ruined our week and ruined our Sunday they should have it on their consciences for the rest of their lives.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: In rising to speak in this debate I shall not so much declare an interest as declare my form. As a former Minister for Consumer Affairs, a former chairman of the National Consumer Council and as someone who is on the hoard of one of our largest retail chains, it would be very neglectful of me not to say a few words. I immediately say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that he is obviously unaware that the National Consumer Council conducted a survey which showed overwhelmingly that consumers wanted

1023
to be able to choose whether to shop on Sunday. That is what deregulation is about. It is about choice; choice whether to shop on Sunday; choice whether to open and trade on Sunday; choice whether to work on Sunday; and last but not least, choice whether to keep Sunday special. No one wants to take those choices away. Some of us want to extend those freedoms.
I could not go the whole way with the deregulation amendment although many of my inclinations lead me in that direction. I take the point that smaller shops and convenience shops are very important to consumers. They provide a very important service. They do it not just to provide a service; but nevertheless they do. That is why I go for the six hour option. It is already known that smaller shops do a majority of their business on Sunday before ten o'clock. Therefore that option offers a greater measure of protection than total deregulation. The Keep Sunday Special option, which proposes that anyone can open in the four weeks before Christmas for as long as they want, would be the most terrible blow to small shops. That is when they do their greatest trade, and they would not even have the protection of the larger stores having limited opening times.
When these debates first started I was still at Boots. Boots said at that time that they were not in favour of it but that they would do what their customers wanted and in terms of obeying the law as far as possible. That is where I find the argument of my noble friend Lady Young in previous debates—what is known, I believe, as the Marks & Spencer case—difficult to understand. I would not for one moment accuse, as some people have done, Marks & Spencer of being holier than thou—that would not be fair—but there is an inconsistency. I say that with the greatest respect to my noble friend. First, Marks & Spencer said that they were not in favour of Sunday opening; then they said that they would not break the law, and more power to them for that; and now—
Baroness Young: Unlike others.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Unlike others; I grant my noble friend that. Marks & Spencer now say that they will open on Sunday, if the law is changed, in some of the 20 edge-of-town sites. If that is the case, what they are doing is looking at their own viability niche in the market, and quite right too. They have a duty both to their customers and to their shareholders. But the fact remains that it upsets all the arguments that they have put before about whether they want to trade on Sunday.
Baroness Young: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but what she has said is so untrue that I feel I must correct it. Marks & Spencer, unlike major supermarkets, have never broken the law. That is the first and important point to make. Clearly, if the law changed the whole matter could be looked at again. If Marks & Spencer were to open—they have not yet done so—it would illustrate what will happen with the Shopping Hours Reform Council's proposals for deregulation; that everyone will probably end up by
1024
opening and Sunday will be exactly like every other day of the year, except, I believe, that we would be allowed off Christmas Day and Easter.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I am not as pessimistic about the outcome as my noble friend. I thought I made it quite clear that Marks & Spencer had never broken the law, unlike, as my noble friend said, some others. No one could be happy about that situation, I can assure noble Lords.
The argument put forward that if the small shops close people without cars will not be able to shop at the big centres shows that some people—and not just women—have not shopped at those centres themselves. Most have shuttle bus services to and from them if they are in city centres. The very pattern of Sunday opening which would follow the six hour option would vary right across the country, as it does in the United States. Where there were large shopping centres in the city or town centre it is likely that they would open. In areas where most of them were on the edge of town, it is unlikely that the city shops would open. They would do, quite correctly, what is viable for them, their shareholders and, above all, their customers. That is the important point.
I would say to the right reverend Prelates and to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, whose contribution on Second Reading I read, that I have the greatest respect and sympathy for their view. Sadly, it is totally unrealistic. The people who are standing about on the streets on a Sunday—young people and not so young people gathering in parks—are not doing that because their parents are working. They are doing that because their parents have not told them to keep Sunday special and have not told them why they should keep Sunday special. Until you put that right you can stop blaming shop opening hours for any kind of deferral from the kind of practice which in an ideal society would be a very nice situation for families.
While I am on the point of families, perhaps I may say that Sunday shopping is very often the only opportunity for families to shop together and to make major purchases. Youngsters coming home from school nowadays have a great deal of homework. It is not possible for them to go shopping at night when their fathers and mothers may or may not have finished work. That is a further argument for the family.
Baroness Seear: What is wrong with Saturday?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that a good many schoolchildren have Saturday morning jobs. In any case, they want free time to entertain themselves or to do whatever it is they want to do after a week of work at school. In my view people shop on Sundays not particularly because they want to shop on Sundays but because there is no alternative. It may be because they are working. I shop on Sunday because my husband is home and he can carry the dog food to the car. Apart from that I do not think I would choose to shop on Sunday but I will defend the right of people to choose to do so provided reasonable precautions are taken in the deregulation.

1025
I share concern about the regulation of the partial deregulation. No piece of legislation has ever been perfect and not capable of improvement. I do not believe that this one will be either. But I believe that as it stands it offers the best opportunity and the best choice for consumers, families and those who want to keep Sunday special.
6 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I believe that it is important to respect the views of those people who want to keep Sunday special and to stop shopping on Sunday. I equally expect them to respect my view, which is to support the Sunday Hours Reform Council. I find it very distressing that there is some assumption that because I support the idea of shopping on a Sunday I do not know how to bring up a family or that I have not brought up a family or that somehow I am being a bad mother. That is an outrageous statement to make.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: It has been suggested in the context of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that she brought up a family and that family attitudes are declining. One has to respect each other's particular circumstances and understand them.
I support the views of the Shopping Hours Reform Council because I believe that it should be a question of free choice, but not an imposition by law. Under those regulations Sunday can remain special for those people who want it to remain so. It will still be a day when the pressure of work is off most people and they are not waiting for the alarm clock at six o'clock in the morning in order to go to work. They will have the right to choose whether to go to church, to play sports, visit friends, go to the pub or whatever it is that they wish to do on that day. I do not believe that in any way the partial deregulation measures change that. Somehow there is an assumption that going shopping takes all day. That is not the case because there are many other things which people will be able to do on that day.
My main reservation about the restrictive proposals concerns the inconsistencies. I would understand it if people were saying that principally they are opposed to the idea of any shops being open on a Sunday and to any trading at all on a Sunday. But that is not the case. It is selective. I cannot understand why it is right for some to have to work on Sundays and not right for others. I cannot understand why it is acceptable for me to shop in a small shop, but not acceptable for me to shop in a large shop. I do not understand the logic of that. I do not understand why it i s acceptable for men-type shops—
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has encouraged me, I simply want to supply the answer. It is because her shopping contributes to keeping small shops open whereas her shopping in the large shops on Sundays helps to close the small shops.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I shall respond to that in due course. As I said, I do not know why it is acceptable for men-type shops, such as the DIY and motor accessory shops, to be open on Sunday but
1026
not shops which women and families might wish to visit. I do not know why it is acceptable for the big football matches to be held on Sunday, usually taking the male partner away from the home for the bulk of Sunday afternoon, but not for me to go to a shop. I do not know why I cannot buy basic essentials for the home, but I can buy a bottle of gin.
Possibly what causes more disruption to family life than shopping for two hours in a supermarket as a family is for the father to spend a number of hours in the pub on Sunday afternoon, a place where children are not allowed, although I do not see any move to close down the pubs. A major inconsistency is that of shopping for four weeks before Christmas. Why four weeks and not six weeks or eight weeks? IS it because those four weeks cover the time when the largest amount of money is spent in the shops, which satisfies the big stores which want to stay open and be fully commercial? It is the blatant commercialism of Christmas during those four weeks. It also deprives the small shopkeeper of the best four weeks of Sunday trading. That is to say nothing of the many anomalies, and confusion, which have been spoken about, which the proposal will create for the shopkeeper and the customer. To me, it is even more complex than the 1950 Act.
We have had some discussion about the number of jobs which would be lost if the restrictive proposals go through. Obviously there are disagreements, but I agree with my noble friend Lady Dean about the 170,000 people who could lose their Sunday pay or even their jobs. There are 80,000 workers, mainly women, who work on a Sunday. The money they earn is an important part of their week's salary. For many women being without a job will mean losing their only access to economic independence. That is a very important factor.
Many speakers have referred to the level of employment protection in the Bill. In some: ways I find that strange. I would like those proposals to be considerably stronger than they are. The proposals in the Private Member's Bill which was introduced in the other place, and which were then supported by the KSSC, were nowhere near as good as the proposals currently before the House in this Bill. There is considerably better protection than there is for workers in small shops. I am sure that nobody, at one fell swoop, would want to deprive 170,000 workers of a vital part of their income in the name of employee protection.
Not only will this amendment create unemployment; it will also cause an estimated 39,000 small shops to close. Yet we are told that the whole point is to protect them. If we are closing down small shops, I do not understand how we can then protect them. Many of those shops will be Asian shops which traditionally open on a Sunday. I live in an area surrounded by Asian shops and if they close down it will change the whole culture and nature of the area and the ethnic minority areas of many of our cities.
The closure of small shops, particularly the specialist shops, will also have a disastrous effect on our tourist industry. Those shops rely on Sunday tourists for a great amount of trade. One has only to go into The Lanes in Brighton or visit any of the craft shops which many of our towns have now developed to see families browsing

1027
through those shops. The Federation of Small Businesses says that protective Sunday trading will do little to strengthen Britain's small firms sector. All the evidence shows that in the past two years when supermarkets have been opened, there has been a decline in the number of small shops which have closed. The rate has slowed down from 9.4 per cent. in 1988–90 to 6.7 per cent. between 1990–1992. That is at a time of recession. That position will be reversed by this restrictive proposal.
I have spoken to many of the small shopkeepers in the area in which I live. They say it is not Sunday trading which they fear and the possibility that the big shops might open. What they are most concerned about and what has caused them more problems are the increased costs for gas, water, electricity and the uniform business rate. They are also extremely concerned about the growth in the number of garage forecourt shops which these proposals do nothing to stop. Those forecourt shops are in direct competition with convenience stores and have undertaken major advertising campaigns on television in order to encourage people to shop there. I know that my local Spar shop, which has a garage forecourt shop directly opposite, is more concerned about that than the Sainsbury's supermarket which is two tube stations away. That is a further inconsistency in the argument for not allowing big shops to open for part of the day.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said that there was no demand. That is a complete misunderstanding. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Stoddart will disagree with these figures: 44 per cent. of people strongly supported the idea of having the big shops open and only 12 per cent. strongly opposed that.
I had not intended to, but I now wish to make some reference to women. I find it very strange that when I refer to mainly women demonstrating in favour of having the big shops open, that is regarded as not being a very substantive factor. In fact, I have probably organised more large demonstrations than almost any other woman in the country. I felt that that women's demonstration was very effective. It is wrong to criticise such demonstrations simply because women are the participants.
Women have shown overwhelmingly that they want the freedom to shop on Sundays. Equally, women shopworkers have welcomed the opportunity to work —or not to work—on Sundays. Working Women for Sunday Shopping has supported the proposals for partial deregulation because they will allow small shops to open all day on Sunday, but will restrict the opening hours of large shops. Overwhelmingly, that organisation has backed the new legal rights of shopworkers to choose whether to work on Sundays.
Questions have been asked about deregulation and about why, if we are to have 24-hour shopping, women cannot do their shopping in the evening. I do not know how many of your Lordships actually walk the streets at night, but I must tell the Committee that I would not walk the streets at night or go shopping at night and I certainly would not want to take my children shopping at night. I would want to take them to the shops when
1028
it is light and when they can feel free to enjoy the pleasure of shopping with me instead of being afraid when out on the streets. There is no doubt that late-night opening solves nothing for mothers with small children. In fact, it increases the danger of attacks on women—and men—when travelling home from the shops.
I hope—I say this in all sincerity—that when the Committee votes later, your Lordships will take into account the wishes of the millions of women who are not able to speak or to be here today, but whose lives will be affected by our decisions.
Lord Jakobovits: I had, and took, the opportunity to express my views on this profoundly important and stirring subject during the Second Reading debate and do not propose to reiterate what I said on that occasion. I rise simply to declare that the arguments to which I have listened with a great deal of interest and attention in favour of partial or complete deregulation have not convinced me and that I stand by the arguments that I presented on Second Reading.
Perhaps I may add just one thought that was not expressed on that occasion. Reference was made both then and today to countries such as Scotland and the United States which are deregulated but which nevertheless have still preserved their religious character and their observation of the sabbath as a special day. Having lived in one of those countries for eight years, I must say that to my mind the arguments lead to the opposite conclusion. If a country is still so profoundly attached to its religious values that only 22 per cent. take advantage of deregulation to keep their shops open—the same applies in Scotland which is a profoundly religious country—regulations are not needed to preserve Sunday as a special day. That is already implanted in the hearts of most of the citizens of that country. There is no need to be reminded, by looking at the streets on a Sunday, that Sunday is a special day and is different. However, in countries like ours where, alas, the degree of secularisation is far higher than in the United States—or in Scotland, for that matter—one needs the help of the state to preserve (for those who care) a certain degree of "specialness" about the day of rest.
Perhaps I may say in passing that, as we have been reminded, while it took God six days to create the world (and then it was finished), it has taken us in this House the past 44 years to discuss how to commemorate that action of creating the world and resting on the seventh day. I can only express the hope that, at long last, after 44 years of debating how to rest, we shall be able to put this subject to rest after our vote and that we shall be able to preserve something which is still unique as a treasure and which goes back to the very creation of the world itself, so that we shall not abandon it and it shall not abandon us.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am grateful—
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: Perhaps I—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will take his seat for half a moment while I try to guide your Lordships. If your Lordships will allow the right reverend Prelate to make his contribution now and then the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, perhaps we shall be able to keep ourselves on the right track.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am grateful for this opportunity and for the words that have just been said to us by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. On behalf of all right reverend Prelates, I should like to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that of course we respect the sincerity and religious beliefs of those who take a different view from us. Nevertheless, the issue is what makes for the long-term health and well-being of society as a whole.
It is clear that there are very profound differences in the Committee about what makes a society a society. For that reason I should like to address two arguments that were put forward earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which have surfaced in different words throughout the debate. He said that regulation involves telling other people what to do. I suggest rather that the law is never neutral or value-free. It always reflects a particular understanding of humanity and human society. There is no need to be apologetic about that.
Our law has a particular understanding of marriage, for example, which is built into its very fabric. Similarly, it has had a particular understanding of Sunday. That is not because we are a theocracy or because of the interests of church-going people; it is because the rhythm of work and rest as a community is vital for the well-being of the community as a whole. If we take an organic, more Burkean, view of society—as I suspect the law does on some other issues, and as all Members of your Lordships' House do on certain issues—we will hesitate long before destroying what has been so basic to our way of life for so long. It is not a question of telling other people what to do, but of being attentive to the wisdom which has nourished our society for centuries and which, if possible, will still nourish it for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, then argued powerfully, as have others this afternoon, that the distinction entailed by regulation would be irrational, unfair and lead to confusion. But the existence of twilight does not obliterate the distinction between night and day. There is a clear and crucial distinction between the shop which remains open on the corner and whole cities being given over to non-stop shopping. The one is compatible with the family and the community finding recreation together; the other is not. The difficulty of making fine distinctions as we often do in legislation (such as in the annual Finance Bill), should not discourage us from making a fundamental distinction in favour of letting families and communities share their leisure time with one another.
A great deal of emphasis has been laid upon choice, but if there was total, or even partial, deregulation one choice would certainly disappear before long, and that is the choice of communities to do things together. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, quite rightly, that millions of people now work on a Sunday. Nevertheless, despite that, Sunday retains its special quality and character, and that it would not do if we allowed total, or even partial, deregulation.
1030
Several noble Lords have drawn attention to Scotland, but we need to look closely at the differences in culture between Scotland and England. Scotland has long had a strong sabbatarian tradition which enabled a traditional Sunday to survive deregulation. There is not a similar Calvinistic tradition in England, although the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, will remind us that there is one to some extent in Wales. The special character of Sunday in England does not derive from religious sabbatarianism, but from the combination of law and tradition which allows families and communities to share their leisure opportunity together—opportunities which are still valued, and which I would argue are still vital for the long-term health and well being of society as a whole.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: Of course my first duty is to declare an interest in that for 22 years I was chairman of the company that bears my name, and I remain, although not on the board, president of it. I feel a certain humility, although not perhaps the guilt that some earlier speakers suggested that I should have. I welcome the opportunity not of going over the arguments that have been so well put by other advocates of the compromise option which I favour, but rather to give some facts that are at variance with some of those given by those who have argued that we should keep Sunday special.
I was unable to speak on this subject when this place last considered it as I was abroad, arid I do not want to repeat the many arguments that have already been made. I want to say that there is not the slightest doubt that there is a huge demand for Sunday trading. That is the only reason why a company like mine, and our competitors, seeing small shops open, and seeing the pressure for that trade, whether guilty or not, wrongly or not, but with great difficulty and great pain, decided that we should do what our customers wanted us to do. The fact is that today 25 million of our fellow citizens go shopping regularly on a Sunday; and 11 million go shopping every Sunday. Who are we to ignore that number who choose to do that at the moment, however wrongly, and however wrong I and others have been to be influenced by that great pressure which was so well described by, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould?
Baroness Young: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give us the basis of the figures that he has quoted.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: Yes, I have the figures. They were done by MORI. The exercise was carried out in October. It was a large sample. It was worked out statistically that there are 25 million people
The Earl of Lauderdale: A figure of 25 million means every other person. Is that what the noble Lord means?
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I mean that 25 million people go shopping, not every Sunday, but regularly. That means at least once in four weeks. If one goes into a large DIY store, a large supermarket, or the much abused large stores, one will see the crowds. One will see the large number of families that go shopping

1031
together because that is the only time that they can. When one looks at the staffing situation, I have to say that so popular is Sunday working that we, and, I have no doubt, our competitors, have a waiting list of those who wish to work.
Why do we believe that that is right? It is that the duty of a retailer is to try to satisfy the needs of his customer. That may seem foreign and dreadful when it means doing what we have done. It is as simple as that. Our greatest asset is our goodwill. Our greater goodwill comes if we can offer something that our competitors cannot offer. That is my explanation. It is no excuse; it is an explanation for why 25 million people go shopping every four weeks and 11 million people go shopping virtually every Sunday.
It is not for us to say where such people should shop. They choose to shop. They vote with their feet at the shop which they believe will give them the greatest convenience, the greatest value, and the closest to what they are looking for. It is not that the big shopkeepers can dictate. We are successful only if people vote with their feet and walk into our stores. Our goodwill depends upon pleasing the people.
The law at the moment is in disrepute. If we ignore the fact that such a vast number of our fellow citizens choose to shop and want to shop, then a changed law will also fall into disrepute in the sense that people will feel that Parliament is out of touch with their needs. We do not trade on Sunday to add to our profits but because we lose customers if we do not.
The Earl of Lauderdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, what is the scale of the sample that the MORI poll took?
Lord Jacques: Perhaps I—
Baroness Seear: Some people—
A noble Lord: Liberal!
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: The MORI poll—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: I was seeking to answer the question. The MORI poll in October 1993 showed that 63 per cent. of adults go shopping at least once a month.
The Earl of Lauderdale: But what is the number of people polled?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Oh do be quiet!
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: Shush! I am sorry, I do not have those figures. It was a MORI poll. MORI is a reputable and independent organisation.
Baroness Seear: Someone said "Liberal", but I would remind the Committee that we are not speaking on a party basis. I believe that all parties are divided on this matter, and we are surely drawing near to the end of the debate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Seear: Some speakers have already said that every argument has been aired. I do not intend to go on for very long, but I should like to make one or two points. The first point I want to make—I had to be out of the Chamber for a short time unfortunately, and it may have been made then—is that I think we are all agreed that the present law is an ass; that the present law has to be changed. The other thing which is very agreeable about the debate—there are some things about it which are not very agreeable—is to find such unexpected and unusual bedfellows all over the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will not misunderstand me if I say that I think it is the first time that I have ever been in total agreement with him. I am amazed that he did not manage to bring any European reference into his extremely convincing speech.
Unfortunately, I missed what I am sure was an excellent address—it always is—from the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I am deeply sceptical about the safeguards for employees that everyone is saying are so tied up in the legislation. Anyone who has had anything to do with the application of legislation in the industrial relations field knows that it is easy to get around it. Of course people will not be disadvantaged in promotion if they will not work on Sundays! Like hell they won't be! There are many ways in which one can disadvantage a person without breaking the law. That is what is very likely to happen.
We have also to remember that a great many retail workers are not in a trade union. Perhaps they should be, and we have talked about that before. But they are not, and that is the fact of the matter, and there is no evidence that they are likely to be. What protection will they receive? If they refuse to work in a number of cases contract will be terminated by direct or indirect means. Hardly ever do people obtain reinstatement at an industrial tribunal; they receive a pittance in compensation. That will be it, so let us not fool ourselves into believing that we have adequate worker protection. In my view, we have no such thing.
I wish in particular to pick up and to develop the issue of the small shops. I do not want to be offensive to the compromise of partial deregulation. In fact, I would not call it partial deregulation. If the shops can be open between 10.00 a.m. and 6 p.m. for a six-hour period to be chosen by the shopkeeper the main trading places will be open all day. Various shops will be open in different parts of the country and it will not be easy to know which of the six hours the shops are opting for. That is virtual deregulation. Those who want deregulation will support that, which is fair enough. However, we should not imagine that there is anything partial about it because there is not.
Who is behind all this? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that it was being done to meet the needs of the customers. In a sense, that is true. However, the people behind this great campaign are the superstores and the multiples. They are behind it for the respectable reason, from their point of view, of wanting to make more money. I believe in good commerce but they are not doing it for any other reason. Why should they?

1033
They are not doing it because they are in deep sympathy with the unhappy women who cannot possibly shop on a Saturday. Perhaps it is a little dangerous to shop in the evenings, but for a good deal of the year the evenings are not all that dark and a high percentage of women work only part time. Nevertheless, the shops are not opening for such people; they are opening to make more money.
We must answer the question: how on earth are they going to make more money? No more money will be spent because shops are open seven days a week. The same amount of money will be available to be spent among all the shops. The calculation of the superstores, which have backed the campaign with liberal glossy material, must be that they will increase their market share of the retail trade. That can be only at the expense of the small shops. No one has said where else it will come from; that is where it must come from.
We have had irrefutable figures that many small shops have closed down because of the development of Sunday trading and more and more will close. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have been inundated with letters. I have had letters not from individuals but from, for example, the Asian community, which has built up a valuable service in the retail trade in small shops. I have had letters too from those who run sub-post offices, bakers and other small shops. They are an important element in the commerce and social life of this country. In rural areas the village shop and the sub-post office are more than places where people go to buy a loaf of bread. They are places where they go to have a good gossip, to get advice and to partake in social intercourse.
I use the small shops in Kennington, and valuable indeed they are. I do not like driving in London not because I am a Sabbatarian but because I am a remarkably bad driver. If those small shops close down I shall have to travel a considerable distance by bus and lug my goods home afterwards. I do that occasionally and I do not like it much—I like the small shops. They are a valuable part of our social fabric and an important part of people's livelihoods. If the small shops close down the loss of jobs will be considerable: no one can deny that. For economic reasons and in order to provide a service to customers who do not have cars and who live in inaccessible places where public transport is defective, we must keep the small shops open.
The deregulators have put forward an imaginative argument for believing that the small shops will not suffer. They say that the small shops do well between 7.30 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on Sunday mornings. I cannot claim that I am often out at 7.00 a.m. on Sunday morning but when I am I do not see queues of people lining up to go into small shops. Of course, they may sell more newspaper at that time but their trade will be decimated and they will be ruined if their traditional weekday customers go to the superstores and pour goods into the boots of their cars. That is what will ruin the small shops. It is poor compensation to have the opportunity to be able to get up at 7.30 on a Sunday morning to sell newspapers.
But there is an even bigger argument for keeping Sunday special. I would not have used the term "Keep Sunday Special". I am an Anglican and a relatively
1034
frequently practising Anglican. I believe that the Churches will happily keep going whatever the shopping hours. I would have called the campaign "Keep the Day that is Different". We all need rhythm in our lives and we need a day that is unlike other days. At one time the Soviet Union tried to make the day that was different one day in 10. They found that it did not work and they had to return to one day in seven. Make no mistake, unless we back the policy of keeping a day that is different, the rhythm in our society will be destroyed. The rhythm in our life will go and we shall not be able to bring it back. The loss will be incalculable.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I shall be brief. The one thing that has emerged from the debate is that everyone accepts that the present law is indefensible. The only people who are content with it are those who break it regularly, thus bringing the law into disrepute. Having listened to the whole debate, I believe that I could vote for any of the options and still keep Sunday special. Whatever view one takes of the position in Scotland or America, I would prefer total deregulation. Certainly, one can keep Sunday special in any event. Of the two options, it is wrong to call one "Keep Sunday Special" and the other "Anti Keep Sunday Special". I do not believe that I keep Sunday more special by shopping in a small shop rather than in a supermarket. There is a valid argument about the effect on small shops as regards the wrongly-named "Keep Sunday Special" option. I prefer the six-hour option because it is more workable; it has fewer anomalies than the "Keep Sunday Special" option.
The noble Viscount calls these issues "trivialities". It is these trivialities which bring the law into disrepute and ought if at all possible to be avoided. No doubt many issues that relate to hours and to the protection of workers can be dealt with at later stages. As I have listened to the debate today I have become more inclined to believe that we shall be wise to follow the option voted for by a substantial majority in the other place. Its Members have to answer to constituents as well as to their consciences and to the Bishops. They have weighed the advantages and disadvantages and have listened to their constituents. We are not discussing a constitutional issue and we cannot argue that there has been insufficient consultation. In my view, we have no grounds for asking the other place to look at. the matter again, even if it would do so. We want to put this matter to rest, to repeat a phrase, arid I would put it to rest as soon as possible by voting for what has been democratically chosen by the other place.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I should like to make a few practical remarks. A number of rather emotional speeches have been made this afternoon on this issue. I will make one point that your Lordships may regard as being slightly emotional. I have been disturbed by some of the attitudes towards women that have been displayed in this Chamber this afternoon. When I first came to this House some of my prejudices made me suspect that women might be regarded as a rather superficial and foolish minority. On the whole, that has not been my experience, and in your Lordships' House women are treated with equality and seriousness. But, frankly, that

1035
has not been true of some of your Lordships' contributions this afternoon. My noble friend Lady Gould has already referred to the attitude displayed when women lobbied Parliament. Several disparaging remarks have been made about the inability of women consumers to shop during the hours that would be available to them if the deregulation Bill went through. My noble friends Lady Dean and Lady Gould have both made the point that women do not wish to shop at midnight on dark, urban streets.
I should like your Lordships to consider the point made by my noble friend Lady Gould at the end of her speech. She referred to the millions of women who were not represented in this House. I should also like your Lordships to treat those women who are Members of this House with your normal respect.
I turn to the practical reasons for supporting the Shopping Hours Reform Council reform. As chairman of the Shopping Hours Reform Council, I declare my interest. Surprisingly, I am not a major retailer but a consumer. I am one of those people who, had I thought it worth while, could easily have picked up my pen and written to my noble friend Lord Stoddart and told him how often I and my friends and colleagues shopped on Sunday. I am sorry that I did not do so, but I do not believe that it would have made any difference to his opinion.
However, in supporting the position of the Shopping Hours Reform Council, I make the following practical points. This is a question of the way of life. For consumers, shopkeepers and enforcement agencies it is a practical matter that requires a practical solution. Like any new law, the regulations must command popular respect. To be enforced effectively they must be seen to be straightforward and fair. I believe that the Bill in its current form meets those practical requirements. The clear-cut nature of the offence of opening your shop and the large fines now available to the courts for infringements will make the task of policing the new regulations much easier. Because the Bill as it stands takes account of the views of the people it is designed to serve, it avoids precisely the built-in obsolescence which has been clearly demonstrated to be the continuing problem of the Shops Act 1950. This new law will stick.
I know that your Lordships are anxious to vote. I should like briefly to apply the same test of popularity, practicality and permanence to both the amendments, which I hope your Lordships will reject. I consider first total deregulation. I accept the intellectual concept, which has been well advanced in your Lordships' House, that total deregulation removes many of the problems of the current law. I know that some of the economic theorists—and some of them are my noble friends on these Benches—shudder at less academically perfect solutions. But there are wider and—dare I say it? —more practical considerations. The position of the smaller shops, so often mentioned this afternoon, and the need to ensure that Sundays do still "feel different", are both covered by the compromise solution. I agree
1036
precisely with that expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, although I do not agree with her conclusions. It is a genuine compromise solution.
In the real world of practical politics in which we all live we have to accept compromise. This is a compromise because it stands between the extremes of no regulation and heavy, complicated restriction. It balances the competing claims of different groups, ensuring that all shops can open and that consumers can have a fair and wide choice but that smaller businesses retain some competitive advantage. All compromises will disappoint somebody, but in this Bill the needs of as many people as possible have been taken into account, balanced and satisfied in a way which most people will regard as reasonable.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I believe that everybody should keep Sunday special in his own way. I believe that it is wrong for the state to intermeddle with people's freedom to come to an agreement with one another, either as between employer and employee or as between customer and shopkeeper. There is no room for the state to intermeddle.
We have heard much about shopkeepers, but nobody has yet mentioned the small shopping centre. It may be that the isolated small shopkeeper is not under as great a threat as has been indicated. Every working day of my life I come to your Lordships' House along a small back street. I can easily park my car. On the left are a liquor store, newsvendor and sub-postmaster, grocer, laun-drette and pub; on the right are a butcher, patisserie, hairdresser, dry cleaner and chemist's shop. It takes me 10 minutes to do my daily shopping and I am away to your Lordships' House. Nothing in the world will persuade me to go to a supermarket and wait in queue after queue to do a massive amount of shopping once a week, whether it be Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever. For that reason, I shall vote for a free-for-all and total deregulation. I believe that the complications of the middle course—the state of the art as it is now in the Bill—will make just as much mischief as the 1950 Act. I have already dealt with the question of keeping Sunday special. For that reason, I cannot go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Lord Elton: At this stage one should stand up almost only to be counted. However, I believe that there are one or two loose ends to which I must address myself. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, listed his local shops. I believe that research shows that he will be lucky if any of them are open five years after this Bill passes, if it passes in its present form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, made a powerful statement about the interests of women in the opening of shops. Yet a poll carried out in September of last year revealed that, if the right question was asked, the answers were different. The answer to the question whether the respondent would have deregulation if it meant the closure of large numbers of small shops showed that 80 per cent. either would not have it or did not shop on Sundays anyway, and all the respondents were women. One can do almost anything with

1037
statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has done a good deal with statistics. He has almost convinced your Lordships that half the entire population shops on and off on Sundays. I have not bumped into many of them on the rare occasions when I have done so myself.
This is a debate about three things. We are concerned here with commercial interests. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put it succinctly and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, illustrated the point. The noble Baroness said it was a question of who got the money that went into small shops. The noble Lord asked how one knew that there was pressure to buy. He said that one could see people flocking into small shops and one wanted to serve them. It is quite right that he should want to do that, but let us recognise that this is a commercial debate, in which vast amounts of support have come from large commercial organisations with a lot of money to persuade people that it is good for them to open on Sundays.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe is not here now but I should like to correct him in the columns of Hansard. He said that the first regulation of shops by law was in 1936. It was in about 969 AD under King Athelstan. We have had not 44 Bills but a thousand years. This is a constitutional issue which will decide what the country will be like for both Christians and others. I am a determined Christian and I shall worship wherever I am, even if it is a concentration camp. The fact is that we need the rhythm of life which is set out in the Old Testament and which has been endorsed by the experience of the Soviet Union: that is, that there is a need for one day off in seven for all who can have it. If you force people to work under this legislation with its inadequate protection for employees and failure to refer to those who will be swept into the system, from car park attendants to rubbish collectors, you will change the face of this nation.
There was a little straw in the wind a fortnight ago. As soon as Oxford City Council learned that there would be opening on Sunday they decided to start the parking meters, charging all the people who would go to the service in the cathedral. Your Lordships have a decision to make today. Do you want six-day weeks or seven-day weeks? I hope that you vote for six.
Baroness Flather: I shall be brief—
Baroness Trumpington: I believe that it is the turn of the opposite side.
Lord McCarthy: I have a few words to say on behalf of those who did not know how they would vote before the debate began. We have heard a series of mutually contradictory and totally irreconcilable figures which have been thrown backwards and forwards and for which virtually no one has given the sources; although when some Members of the Committee tried to do so their arguments broke down. Moreover, most of the questions which have been asked by public opinion polls would not have passed an elementary examination on how to put questions. Therefore, we are none the wiser.
The noble Lord is right to say that it is all about market shares. Of course, it is not entirely about such
1038
shares; it is also about the sabbath and about the workers. Nonetheless, it turns on market shares. The reason my view today on market shares has hardened is very much because of what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said. The retail side of our economy has been stagnating since 1990. The only way that you can get any real improvement in trade is to take it from someone else. It has been impossible—indeed, insupportable—for many of our large stores to sit and watch the small traders creaming off the market by breaking the law. In the end, with every degree of reluctance, they decided that they had no alternative but to break the law themselves.
However, why are they not satisfied with breaking the law? Of course they are not satisfied to do so because they are good people. But I also suggest that they are not satisfied because they have got just about all that they can get from breaking the law. For example, what they cannot do while they break the law is to launch a promotion. They cannot flood the television screens with images telling us with every voice-over from Arthur Daly to Sir Anthony Hopkins that it is a "Sunday tea at Tescos" or, "Songs of Praise at Safeways" or even "Sundays means Sainsburys". That is what they want to do; and, indeed, that is what they will do the moment that the Bill is passed. That is why so many people are worried about it. We think that the whole thing will then escalate. Estimates (again, the basis of which we do not know) say that 75 per cent of shops will open. I believe that the figure may well be 100 per cent. Moreover, it will not just be shops; it will be all the other types of retail outlets that people have mentioned. That is what we worry about. Compromise and even deregulation would be alright; or at least that would not be so bad and we could put up with it if it stopped there. However, we do not think that it will.
I turn now to shopworkers and the legislation. I shall be tabling an amendment when we get to the relevant part of the Bill. I hope that all Members of the Committee who said today that they accept that the Bill is not perfect so far as concerns the individual worker will support that amendment. The only way that we can do anything for shopworkers—or, indeed, anyone else in that connection—is to do so at the point of entry. If it remains legal for an employer to ask a would-be employee "Will you work on Sundays" but the employee says "No, I don't think so" and the employer therefore does not engage him, it will mean that there is no protection under the Bill and no compensation or redress. Therefore, if the Bill retains its present form, I hope that noble Lords will support such an amendment.
Baroness Strange: I shall—
Noble Lords: Labour!
Baroness Strange: I have tried before to speak. However, I shall not speak for very long or say very much because much has already been said and I know exactly how Members of the Committee must feel. Nevertheless, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about rhythm. There is a daily rhythm of day and night. The body is at its lowest ebb between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. in the morning at the

1039
death hour, but then blackbirds sing, cocks crow, peacocks shout and you have all the hurly-burly of dawn and life awakening.
There is the rhythm of the seasons, of the ages of man. Those are major rhythms. However, we must not forget the shorter one in between—the rhythm of the week. Seven is the mystic number of God and man. There are seven stars in the sky and seven days in the week. If Sunday were like every other day there would be no punctuation to the week, no break, no pause and we might all go shooting out of time into a black hole from which there is no coming back.
Lord Plant of Highfield: The divergence of views expressed in the Committee shows how difficult it is to make public policy in a society in which there is a high degree of moral and cultural pluralism. I believe there are three possible ways forward. The first is essentially the one proposed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey; namely, that since there is no agreement in society, everything must be left to choice and the role of the state is merely to provide the framework to facilitate individual choice. The second is the confessional approach, which I accept that the Bishops' Benches have not actually put forward but it is one which has been mentioned in some speeches: that the character of Sunday should somehow be determined by Christian beliefs as that is our heritage.
The third way is that we should look for some kind of reasonable compromise between the various options. That is the view I believe should be taken. It seems to me that the confessional view will not work because it is not sufficiently sensitive to the facts of moral pluralism. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim, said, it is not realistic. I agree with that view, although I speak as a Christian.
However, I strongly disagree with my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey about seeing the matter in an entirely deregulative way—that because we have no agreement in society everything must be made a matter of choice. Surely we cannot just accept that proposition; we must weigh up the consequences of the choices that we make, and make conjectures about what those consequences might be.
The idea that values can be reduced to matters of choice is a rather debilitating one for a party like the Labour Party where it wants to invoke and draw upon ideas like community and social justice which are essentially collective kinds of ideas. I believe that if we want to stick with such notions we must resist to some degree the idea that collective values can be reduced to matters of individual choice.
Those ideas will not recommend themselves to economic liberals like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, because he would regard community as an atavistic kind of concept and social justice as meaningless. However, if we take those ideas to be important, we must weigh up the consequences of deregulation. I do not want to repeat the nature of those consequences because other noble Lords have made such points most clearly. But they are consequences about communities in relation to small shops; they are
1040
consequences about social justice in relation to employment protection; and, they are also consequences about communities which will not be consulted and which will have no say about shops opening in their areas. It will be an entirely commercial decision and a community's way of life can be transformed overnight without that community having any voice in the matter whatever through the local council, which will have a largely book-keeping role.
It seems to me that the option of deregulation is something which should not be supported. However, the question then remains: what is the fair compromise if one rejects the confessional and the deregulatory view? My own feeling is that the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council are not a fair compromise; indeed, they go too far down the road of deregulation and they do not solve many of the problems regarding communities and injustice which I outlined. For those reasons, and although I would have preferred something a little less restrictive, I shall be voting for the keep Sunday special option.
Baroness Flather: I shall be very brief in what I have to say. Much has been said about small shops and the danger to their existence. As soon as we start talking about small shops we start thinking in terms of their protection. Indeed, they must be protected at all costs. None of us, whatever option we support, is against small shops but we are for choice which the small shops do not give us at this stage. There is a parade of shops near me. The Asian shop, which is a general grocers, is open until 8 o'clock in the evening but the other shops in the parade do not stay open so late. It may be that the other shops will open at different times in future, but I am not sure about that. At present, if I need to go shopping on a Sunday, I cannot get everything I need from one small shop.
I have mentioned my following point before and I shall mention it again today; namely, the forecourt shops. They, not the large supermarkets, are the biggest threat to small shops. Esso has set aside over £3 million to develop large forecourt shops. I mentioned that on Second Reading and I repeat it again today. I would rather go to the forecourt shop which is situated just across a roundabout from my home than take the car to my nearest small shops. Of course the people who live near the small shops will still shop there if they do not have cars. No matter how many shops open, wherever they open, those people will still patronise their local shops. I repeat that the threat comes from forecourt shops. We must bear that in mind. Further, it amazes me that no one is concerned about the spiritual welfare of the people who work in small shops. I wonder whether the Committee is aware how hard the families of Asian shopkeepers work in their small shops. Has anyone ever said a word about them and about the women who work all hours in those Asian shops? It is all very well for Members of the Committee to receive letters from men but the Committee is unaware how hard women work in those small Asian shops and what unsocial hours they work. Do they not need any family life, any spiritual life or any rest on a Sunday? Are those small Asian shops not run by people in the same way as these large shops

1041
that we are discussing? If we want to keep Sunday special, we should shut all the shops. As the Committee is aware, I support the middle solution and I believe that that is the only way forward.
7 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I have the distinct impression that the Committee wishes to vote before dinner. I simply wish to make a few points. I have discarded all my other points which have been made so well by my noble friends. I address one point, through the Committee, to my noble friend Lady Dean. She cannot rely on strengthening worker protection beyond what is in the Bill. I remind the Committee that today we have a free vote but after today the Whips will be on and there is no way that any measure to strengthen worker protection will get through this Chamber. If my noble friend is counting on that, I hope she will think again. What she sees in the Bill is what she will get and there will be no changes to it.
As far as I am aware, the United Road Transport Union has not been referred to in this debate. That union's members will be much affected by the deregulation which is being proposed. The general secretary of that union ended an appealing letter by stating, with regard to Sunday shopping,
"For many of my members it constitutes a huge threat to their family life, a further cause of potential alienation between children and their parents, and a sharpening of the focus on economic gains at the expense of social and religious values. Many of us believe that those traditional values are an oasis in the six-day desert of commerce".
That letter was sent by the general secretary of a union whose members will suffer greatly if this deregulation goes through. I have many other such letters but I shall not bore the Committee with them at this stage.
Earl Ferrers: Although there may be some Members of the Committee who still wish to contribute to this debate I think it is the general feeling of the Committee that the time has come for it to make a decision. I believe that all the options seem to have been canvassed and explained to the full. Members of the Committee might find it helpful if I were to reiterate, with some brevity and possibly some bluntness, how they should vote to secure the various options which are before them. I would only add that as the Committee contemplates the prospect of going through the Division Lobbies, those of its Members who have ever been Boy Scouts may remember the motto "Be Prepared", and those Members of the Committee who have never been Boy Scouts might well regret the omission but nevertheless abide by the motto.
Those Members of the Committee who wish to choose total deregulation should vote "Content" to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and "Not-Content" that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. Those Members of the Committee who wish to choose the option of regulation which is proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and Retailers for Shops Act Reform should vote "Not-Content" to Amendment No. 1 but "Content" to Amendment No. 3. Those Members of the Committee who wish to agree with another place and choose the option of partial deregulation which is
1042
proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council should vote "Not-Content" to all the amendments but "Content" that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. I would just add that those who wish for total deregulation should vote "Content" to Amendment No. 1 and those who wish either for partial deregulation which is in the Bill or for the Keep Sunday Special option should vote "Not-Content".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope I may interrupt my noble friend. The document. I have, which comes from the Printed Paper Office states, as regards keeping partial deregulation, "Not-Content" for Amendment No. 1, "Not-Content" for Amendment No. 2, but, contrary to what my noble friend says, "Content" for Clause 1 stand part, "Not-Content" for Amendment No. 3 and "Content" for Schedule 1 stand part.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am reading from a document. I only want to find out what is right.
Earl Ferrers: I had hoped to make that as clear as possible. I can only repeat what I said so that the Committee should be fairly clear on this. Those Members of the Committee who wish to choose total deregulation should vote "Content" to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and "Not-Content" that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. Those Members of the Committee who wish to choose the option of regulation which is proposed by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign and the Retailers for Shops Act Reform should vote "Not-Content" to Amendment No. 1, and Amendment No. 2 which is consequential upon it, but "Content" to Amendment No. 3. Those Members of the Committee who wish to agree with another place and choose the option of partial deregulation which is proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council should vote "Not-Content" to all the amendments but "Content" that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill, I hope that I have made that clear and in so doing—
Baroness Seear: We have had a long debate and I do not wish to suggest that we are all being rather stupid but I think it would be helpful if, after each vote, the Minister could tell us how we ought to vote on the next Division.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, usually comes up with the most helpful suggestions. As a matter of fact I was proposing to do that but I wondered whether I might be considered to be rather patronising. I am delighted to know that I shall not be considered patronising and I shall endeavour to advise the Committee, as each vote comes, how it should vote. I might add that it would be extremely helpful if the Committee could accept what I say with the best of good grace on the understanding that it is supposed to be helpful. If other Members of the Committee keep on interrupting saying, "I thought it was something different", I suggest that we shall all become totally confused. I warned the Committee that those who had been Boy Scouts should "Be Prepared", and I repeat that.
Noble Lords: And Girl Guides!
Earl Ferrers: Yes, and Girl Guides. In the Civil Service you are taught that the male embraces the female—to which I might add that you do not have to join the Civil Service to do that.
In putting forward Amendment No. 1, I suggest to your Lordships that those who wish for total deregulation should vote "Content" to this provision; and those who wish either for partial deregulation (whish is in the Bill) or for the Keep Sunday Special option, should vote "Not-Content".
7.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 303.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Birkett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blyth, L.

Marsh, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brain, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.[Teller.]

Brightman, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chapple, L.

Onslow, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Palmer, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Desai, L.

Quinton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Redesdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Borthwick, L.

Abinger, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Addison, V.

Brentford, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Broadbridge, L.

Aldenham, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Aldington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burnham, L.

Annaly, L.

Cadman, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Astor, V.

Canterbury, Abp.

Attlee, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Bancroft, L.

Carter, L.

Banks, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Barnett, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chesham, L.

Bellwin, L.

Chester, Bp.

Beloff, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Birdwood, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blackstone, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blake, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Boardman, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bolton, L.

Coleraine, L.

1044

Colnbrook, L.

Holderness, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Colwyn, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hooson, L.

Courtown, E.

Hothfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howe, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Howell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hughes, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Inchyra, L.

Crook, L.

Jacques, L.

Cross, V.

Jakobovits, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Jay, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Jeffreys, L.

Davidson, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

De Freyne, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kenyon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Killearn, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Kimball, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Donegall, M.

Kintore, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Dormer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Downshire, M.

Lawrence, L.

Dudley, E.

Lincoln, Bp.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Eccles, V.

Liverpool, Bp.

Eden of Winton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Elles, B.

London, Bp.

Elton, L.

Long, V.

Ennals, L.

Longford, E.

Faithfull, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Falkland, V.

Lucas, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Fitt, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Flather, B.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Gainford, L.

Manchester, D.

Gainsborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Gallacher, L.

Manton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Marlesford, L.

Geddes, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Geraint, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gladwyn, L.

McCarthy, L.

Glenamara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Goold, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Goschen, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Mersey, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Gridley, L.

Molloy, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Moran, L.

Hacking, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Haig, E.

Mottistone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Mountevans, L.

Hamwee, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Hanworth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Mulley, L.

Harlech, L. Harmsworth, L.

Munster, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Harrowby, E.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Haskel, L.

Nelson, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Hayter, L.

Nicol, B.

Hemphill, L.

Norfolk, D.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Henley, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Hesketh, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hindlip, L.

Oxford, Bp.

1045

Oxfuird, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Stallard, L.

Peel, E

Stewartby, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Strange, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Suffield, L.

Prentice, L.

Swansea, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pym, L.

Swinton, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Teviot, L.

Reay, L

Teynham, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rennell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Renton, L.

Tollemache, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Tonypandy, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Torrington, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Trefgame, L.

Rochester, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Varley, L.

Romney, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Savile, L.

Weatherill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wharton, B.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Serota, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Shannon, E.

Wigoder, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Wigram, L.

Sharpies, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Smith, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Worcester, Bp.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Young, B. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("on the appointed day").
The noble Earl said: As Amendment No. 2 is consequential upon Amendment No. 1 and as Members of the Committee have decided that Amendment No. 1 has not been carried, I shall not move Amendment No. 2.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: In deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who wishes guidance, as do other Members of the Committee, the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill is essential, whatever views Members of the Committee have on the various options. I therefore suggest that the matter be taken formally.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 1 REGULATION OF SUNDAY TRADING
Interpretation
1.—(1) In this Schedule—
"ancient monument" means a scheduled monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979,
"confectionery" includes ice cream,
"exempt shop" shall be construed in accordance with paragraphs 3 to 8 below,
"internal floor area", in relation to a shop, means the internal floor area of so much of the shop as consists of or is comprised in a building,
"intoxicating liquor" and "licensed premises" have the same meaning as in the Licensing Act 1964,
"London exempt area" has the meaning given by paragraph 9 below,
"medicinal product" and "registered pharmacy" have the same meaning as in the Medicines Act 1968,
"relevant floor area", in relation to a shop, means so much of the internal floor area as is attributable to any area as respects which one or more of the following conditions is satisfied at any time during the week ending with the Sunday in question—

(a) customers have access to the area,

(b) it is used for the display of goods, or

(c) it is used for the serving of customers,

"retail trade or business" includes—

(a) the business of a barber or hairdresser,

(b) the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquor,

(c) the business of hiring goods, and

(d) retail sales by auction, and

"shop" includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on.

(2) At any time when a shop is open for the purpose of displaying goods to customers with a view to the subsequent sale or hire of those goods, the shop shall be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to be open for the serving of customers, even though customers are unable to buy or hire goods at that time.

(3) At any time when a shop is not open to the public, but customers are admitted to the shop (whether by invitation, as members of a club or otherwise) for the purposes of a retail trade or business carried on there, the shop shall be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to be open for the serving of customers.

(4) No part of a sea-going vessel shall be treated as a shop for the purposes of this Schedule.

Prohibition of Sunday trading in shops
2. —(1) A shop shall not be open on Sunday for the serving of customers unless—

(a) it is an exempt shop,

(b) the Sunday in question falls within the period beginning with 27th November and ending with 24th December in any year,

(c) a notice under paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act (shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish Sabbath) has effect in relation to the shop, or

(d) the shop is situated in a London exempt area.

(2) A shop which is situated in a London exempt area shall not be open for the serving of customers on Sunday after 2 p.m., unless any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (1) above apply.
Shops exempt irrespective of size
3.—(1) A shop is an exempt shop by virtue of this paragraph if—

(a) the trade or business carried on in the shop consists wholly or mainly of any one or more of the following—

(i) the sale on licensed premises of intoxicating liquor,

(ii) the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, and

(iii) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off those premises,

(b) the trade or business carried on in the shop consists wholly or mainly of the sale of intoxicating liquor in such circumstances that the sales are not "sales by retail" within the meaning of the Licensing Act 1964,

1047

(c) the shop is a registered pharmacy and is open only for the sale (or supply otherwise than by way of sale) of medicinal products or surgical appliances,

(d) it is open only for either or both of the following—

(i) the sale of fuel for motor vehicles or for vessels or of lubricants for motor vehicles or for vessels, and

(ii) the hire of motor vehicles, bicycles, trailers or vessels,

(e) it is at a designated airport and is situated in a part of the airport to which sub-paragraph (3) below applies,

(f) it is at a service area within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980,

(g) it is open only for the provision of postal services,

(h) it is open only for the business of a funeral undertaker, or

(j) it is open only for the sale of food, stores or other necessaries required by any person for a vessel or aircraft on its arrival at, or immediately before its departure from, a port or airport.

(2) In determining whether a shop falls within sub-paragraph (1) (a) or (b) above, regard shall be had to the nature of the trade or business carried on there on weekdays as well as to the nature of the trade or business carried on there on Sunday.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies to every part of a designated airport, except any part which is not ordinarily used by persons travelling by air to or from the airport.

(4) In this paragraph "designated airport" means an airport designated for the purposes of this paragraph by an order made by the Secretary of State, as being an airport at which there appears to him to be a substantial amount of international passenger traffic.

(5) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

(6) Any order made under section 1(2) of the Shops (Airports) Act 1962 and in force at the commencement of this Schedule shall, so far as it relates to England and Wales, have effect as if made also under sub-paragraph (4) above, and may be amended or revoked as it has effect for the purposes of this paragraph by an order under sub-paragraph (4) above.

Certain small shops exempt irrespective of location
4.—(1) A shop is an exempt shop by virtue of this paragraph if—

(a) the relevant floor area of the shop does not exceed 280 square metres,

(b) the shop is a shop of any of the types specified in the first column of the Table below,

(c) the trade or business carried on in the shop (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant trade") consists wholly or mainly of the sale or hire of goods of any one or more of the descriptions specified in relation to that type of shop in the second column of that Table, and

(d) any further condition specified in relation to that type of shop in the third column of that Table is satisfied.

(2) In this paragraph, "sale", in relation to a chemist's shop, includes supply otherwise than by way of sale.

(3) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 8 below.

TABLE

Type of shop

Goods

Further condition

A grocer's shop.

Groceries.

—

A convenience shop.

Groceries, confectionery and domestic cleaning materials.

The relevant trade includes the sale of goods falling within each of the descriptions specified in the second column.

A newsagent's shop.

Newspapers, periodicals and confectionery.

The relevant trade includes the sale of goods falling within each of the descriptions specified in the second column.

A video recordings shop.

Video recordings.

—

Certain large shops exempt irrespective of location
5. — (1) A shop is an exempt shop by virtue of this paragraph if—

(a) it would be an exempt shop by virtue of paragraph 4 above as a nursery, garden centre, motor supplies shop, cycle supplies shop, motor and cycle supplies shop or do-it-yourself shop but for the fact that its relevant floor area exceeds 280 square metres, and

(b) it is open only for the sale or hire of permitted goods.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "permitted goods" means any of the following—

cycle supplies and cycle accessories;

garden supplies and garden accessories;

materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings;

motor supplies and motor accessories; and

plants and cut flowers.

Certain small shops exempt in certain locations
6. — (1) A shop is an exempt shop by virtue of this paragraph if—

(a) the relevant floor area of the shop does not exceed 280 square metres,

(b) the location of the shop is one of those specified in the first column of the Table below, and

(c) where certain descriptions of goods are specified in relation to that location in the second column of that Table, the trade or business carried on in the shop consists wholly or mainly of the sale or hire of goods of any one or more of those descriptions.

(2) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 8 below.

Table

Location

Goods

At a gallery, museum, garden, park, zoo, aquarium or ancient monument or in any building or area designated as a tourist attraction for the purposes of this Act by the local authority for the area in which it is situated.

Souvenirs, goods having some local association and confectionery.

On a farm, smallholding, allotment or similar place.

Agricultural produce of that place.

At any place where any sport or game is played or carried on.

Goods directly connected with the sport or game played or carried on at that place.

Location

Goods

In a railway station.

Books, newspapers and periodicals.

In a theatre, cinema or other place of entertainment.

Confectionery, programmes and items similar to programmes.

In a hospital.

—

In a terminal building at a harbour, seaport or hoverport.

—

Very small shops
7.—(1) A shop is an exempt shop by virtue of this paragraph if its internal floor area does not exceed 10 square metres.
(2) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 8(2) below.
Supplementary provisions as to exemption
8.—(1) In determining for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) (c) or 6(1) (c) above whether the trade or business carried on in a shop consists wholly or mainly of the sale or hire of goods of particular descriptions or for the purposes of paragraph 4(1) (d) above whether that trade or business includes the sale of such goods—

(a) regard shall be had to the nature of the trade or business carried on in the shop on weekdays as well as to the nature of the trade or business carried on there on Sunday, and

(b) there shall be disregarded any activity mentioned in paragraph 3(1) (a), (g) or (j) above.

(2) Where customers can obtain access to a shop ("the inner shop") only by passing through another shop ("the outer shop"), the inner shop cannot be an exempt shop by virtue of paragraph 4, 6 or 7 above unless the outer shop is also an exempt shop.
London exempt areas
9.—(1) For the purposes of this Schedule "London exempt area" means, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, any area in relation to which an order under section 54 of the Shops Act 1950 (special provisions for London) had effect immediately before the commencement of this Schedule.
(2) The local authority within whose area any London exempt area falls may by order provide that all or a specified part of that area is to cease to be a London exempt area.
(3) A local authority shall, before making any order under sub-paragraph (2) above, give public notice of their intention to make the order, and the notice must specify a period (not being less than four weeks) within which objections may be made to the making of the proposed order, and if, after taking into consideration any objections they have received, the local authority are satisfied that it is expedient to make the order, they may make the order.
Offences
10.—(1) If paragraph 2(1) above is contravened in relation to a shop, the occupier of the shop shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) If paragraph 2(2) above is contravened in relation to a shop, the occupier of the shop shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
11. Where a person is charged with having contravened paragraph 2(2) above by reason of his having served a customer after 2 p.m., it shall be a defence to prove that the customer was in the shop before that time and left not later than half an hour after that time.")
Earl Ferrers: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Those who wish to vote for the Keep Sunday Special option should vote "Content" for the amendment. Those who wish to vote against keeping Sunday special or in favour of partial deregulation, which is in the Bill, should vote, "Not-Content". I commend the amendment.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 206.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Lincoln, Bp.

Aldenham, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

London, Bp.

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lucas, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chancellor]

Blake, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bolton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brentford, V.

McCarthy, L.

Brightman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Molloy, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Moran, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Mountgarret, V.

Chester, Bp.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cockfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Coleraine, L.

Northbourne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Cross, V.

Ogmore, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

David, B.

Oxford, Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peterborough, Bp

Diamond, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donegall, M.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Dormer, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elles, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Elton, L.

Sennell, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Falkland, V.

Ripon, Bp.

Fitt, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Romney, E.

Geraint, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Savile, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Smith, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,

Harrowby, E.

Bp.

Harvington, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayter, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strange, B.

Hooson, L.

Suffield, L.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Jacques, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Teviot, L.

Judd, L.

Teynham, L.

Killearn, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Varley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

1051

Weatherill, L.

Winchester, Bp.

White, B.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Wigram, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Wilberforce, L.

Wynford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Geddes, L.

Addison, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Aldington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Goold, L.

Annaly, L.

Goschen, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Arran, E.

Gowrie, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor, V.

Greenway, L.

Attlee, E.

Gridley, L.

Balfour, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hacking, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Haig, E.

Barnett, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bellwin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Hamwee, B.

Birdwood, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Birkett, L.

Harlech, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Haskel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Brain, L.

Henley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hesketh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hindlip, L.

Bumham, L.

Holderness, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cadman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hothfield, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howe, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hughes, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnock, L.

Inchyra, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jay, L.

Chapple, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Chesham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kenyon, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kintore, E.

Courtown, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Crathorne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Crook, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Derwent, L.

Manchester, D.

Desai, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Manton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marsh, L.

Downshire, M.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dudley, E.

McNair, L.

Dundonald, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Flather, B.

Monson, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Morris, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountevans, L.

1052

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Moyne, L.

Sharpies, B.

Mulley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Munster, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nelson, E.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Onslow, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Palmer, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Peel, E.

Swansea, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Swinton, E.

Peston, L.

Tebbit, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Prentice, L.

Tollemache, L.

Pym, L.

Tordoff, L.

Quinton, L.

Torrington, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgame, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Redesdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rees, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wharton, B.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wigoder, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wise, L.

Shannon, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 151 names. The Clerks recorded 150 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.43 p.m.
House resumed: Clause 1 and Schedule 1 reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gas Industry: Customer Protection
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that customers and employees within the gas industry are properly protected as competition is introduced into the domestic gas market.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see from the Chamber that my powers of eloquence on the subject are not sufficient to hold a near record crowd. Nevertheless, I believe that the Question that I have asked is a very important one. It refers to customers and employees within the gas industry being properly protected in the light of the introduction of competition. Rather than speak of those people who are employed directly by British Gas, in this debate I should like to make a special feature of a consideration of those employed in the other sectors of the industry—those who supply the components and are and have been for years totally dependent on British Gas for their survival. I want to make the case for employees in two particular factories. One is in Stretford, Manchester, at Schlumberger; and the other is Smith's of south London. I feel that they have been unfortunately treated by British Gas.
I know that there are other issues in relation to British Gas, and my comrades and noble friends Lady Dean and Lord Stoddart and Lord Prys-Davies will cover a wider remit in their remarks than I shall perhaps touch on. I

1053
also start from the premise that British Gas has been placed in a difficult situation by the Government's unwise decision to widen the scope of further privatisation, hiving off services in which British Gas is already doing well. There are signs that if the consumer alone is considered, it may not be such a successful exercise. The cherries that are ripe could be picked off, and all that would be left for British Gas would be to continue to support those areas which are not so lucrative. It would have to sustain those services by putting up prices. Other people may deal with that situation.
I live in Manchester, and the two factories were brought to my notice through the press. I was able to get in touch with people in south London with regard to Smith's. Over a number of years, those two factories have manufactured meters of a particular type for the Gas Board. They knew that the time would come when those meters would be phased out. The workforce accepted that situation. They were given a date in the middle of 1995, by which time the use of the meter would cease and the workers would be made redundant. As I said, they are not employees of British Gas; they are employed solely in the making of gas meters.
Suddenly after Christmas, without any prior negotiation or discussion, British Gas brought the programme forward by 12 months. That meant that people who were preparing themselves for bad news in 1995, were suddenly confronted with it immediately. Taking the two factories in total, this means the loss of 1,000 jobs. Some noble Lords may have been present when I quoted the fact that in January this year we lost 13,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector of industry. The British Gas decision will mean that, in June or July, whenever the decision is finalised, there will be another increase in the loss of manufacturing jobs. It is not the best image and certainly not the type of industrial behaviour that we have come to expect in this country.
I realise that the days of the might of the trade unions are past. But surely, in terms of the social consequences and for the sake of humanity, a company like British Gas, with all its resources, could afford on this occasion to present a more human face rather than, as Mr. Heath once said, "the unacceptable face of capitalism". All I am seeking to do is to ask the Minister to use his best endeavours with British Gas to persuade them to stick to the original plan—that is, to keep the promise it made. I do not think that at this point in time, that is asking too much.
I said that the matter was brought to my attention through articles in the local press. I sought advice from the Member of Parliament for the area, Mr. Tony Lloyd, and I must compliment Mr. Lloyd upon the way he dealt with the situation. I do not believe that I would have been as well briefed tonight were it not for the fact that he provided me with some of my material. Some weeks ago we discussed the matter and paid a visit to Ofgas to try to redeem the situation. The discussions ended by my saying to the new director general and her staff, "What you are telling me is that in fact British Gas pulled a fast one". They nodded their heads and said that that was the case. All I ask is that the Minister uses his
1054
best endeavours to persuade the British Gas board to keep to its original programme and to the promise it made.
During the discussions that we had on the subject it came across quite clearly that it was questionable whether British Gas were right in opting for the new type of meter. From my information, the current decision by British Gas to extend its meter replacement programme by one year and to accelerate the introduction of the new solid state meter is a high-risk strategy. First, the new solid state meter technology has been given very limited field testing in gas customers' homes. For British Gas to decide to move over to buying only the new type meters in quantities of several hundred thousands on the basis of a few hundred meters on trial and laboratory tests seems to me to be a high-risk decision.
I am told that the meters that were tested were tested only in the homes of British Gas employees. To say the least, that is rather less selective than it ought to be. We must ask ourselves: what if the new technology fails? What is British Gas's fallback position? All the manufacturers of traditional meters who supplied British Gas for many years, as I said earlier, have had their contracts abruptly ended and are in the process of making nearly 1,000 people redundant as a result of that sudden decision by British Gas to turn off the supply of conventional gas meters and switch completely to the new technology meters.
The second uncertainty is the ability of the suppliers of the new solid state meters to meet the high volumes demanded by British Gas this year, but more especially in 1995 and 1996. To my knowledge neither of the two suppliers—Siemens and Eurometer, who have some form of collaboration with British Gas—has previously supplied British Gas, and the speed with which they are being asked to "ramp up" production could, again, lead to problems. Without doubt there is some risk of the new gas meter manufacturers not being able to meet the programme set down by Ofgas on behalf of the customers in agreement with British Gas.
What of the consumer? Already subjected to the iniquities of additional costs as a result of the introduction of VAT on fuel bills, including gas, it is the gas consumers who will have to bear the additional costs of the decision to extend the replacement programme; it is the gas consumers and customers who will be faced with the potential additional costs if British Gas's risk strategy goes wrong.
It seems to me only sensible that British Gas should take a more careful and structured approach to the introduction of the new meters. It would be better for all concerned for the company to revert to its original plan steadily to phase out the traditional meters and, once proven in the field, to introduce the new meters in a slow and planned manner. I seriously urge the management of British Gas to reconsider its hasty decision and to reintroduce a plan with more thought and sense, and less risk.
When one talks in terms of introducing a meter which is vital to the customer receiving an adequate and accurate service, even if the new meter is successful the difference in the cost between the two is only around 1

1055
per cent. either way. However, I made a specific case and I have had a fair crack at your Lordships' House time tonight in speaking for 12 minutes. In closing, therefore, I ask the Minister to use his best endeavours —not simply to give me an answer to what I have said, but to use his best endeavours —to try to soften the blow for those 1,000 people who have been badly let down by British Gas. I ask him to see whether or not British Gas can be persuaded, in the interests of its public image, to go back to the original schedule it promised in the first place.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for putting this item on the Order Paper, and for asking his Question regarding competition within the domestic gas market. We thank him also for bringing to the attention of the House the problems which will be faced by the 1,000 people he mentioned. My sympathy goes out to them, and I hope that the reply of the Minister will be a good and adequate one which will help them.
I want to range rather wide over the question of competition within the domestic gas area. Before I do so, I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am an adviser to UNISON, which has members in the gas industry. When the Government decided to privatise the gas industry they were clearly influenced by the then chairman, Sir Denis Rooke, who believed that British Gas would best serve the interests of the consumer as a single entity under proper public regulation. And so it was. That is what happened when the Bill came forward. That was how the Government decided to denationalise the gas industry. At that time, I was in charge of energy from the Opposition Front Bench; and I am quite sure that during the passage of the Gas Bill the Government resisted all attempts, even by their own supporters, to introduce competition into the Bill. Now, apparently, they have done a U-turn and intend to open the gas market to competition within two years. That is against the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which believes that competition should not be introduced until about the turn of the century.
This unedifying dash risks destabilising a well-managed industry. It will cause uncertainty, fear, frustration and hardship among staff of all grades who have served the industry well, many of them over a very long time. Furthermore, it will also affect people in many other industries; and my noble friend mentioned one of them. British Gas has already announced more than 25,000 redundancies; but employment in associated industries will also be adversely affected. Indeed, British Gas, as part of its reaction to competition, has stopped all United Kingdom investment. The Society of British Gas Industries has calculated that this cutback has cost its industry some 25,000 jobs. So we are talking now not about 25,000 jobs in the gas industry but an extra 25,000 jobs, making 50,000 in all. That is an enormous and alarming consequence of the introduction of competition into the domestic gas market.
1056
Furthermore, British Gas has decided to abolish regions, which will not only have an adverse effect on staff but customers as well, since the Gas Consumers Council will have no region to liaise and work with. I am connected with UNISON, but the adverse effect will be felt by all types of staff operating in other unions as well. Operating, maintenance, service and administrative staff will all feel the cold wind of redundancy, and seemingly for no good purpose since the regulator, Ofgas, has agreed to a price increase by allowing prices to be adjusted by RPI-4 instead of RPI-5. So apparently all this competition will do is put up prices—or at least that is what it seems like on the face of it. The noble Viscount who is to reply may very well tell me a different story, but it seems odd that competition which is supposed to reduce prices will actually, on the face of it, increase prices from RPI-5 to RPI-4.
When competition is introduced, it is likely that teams of expert people will be broken up, showrooms will close and the public will get a worse service rather than a better one. We must remember that British Gas provides rigorous training for its staff, particularly those concerned with safety. Are the Government concerned that safety standards may not be maintained if British Gas and its competitors become engaged in cut-throat competition? Are they confident that British Gas itself will be able to maintain its high level of safety and training in the face of competition from new entrants? After all, these new entrants will be cherry picking high-density markets and feeling under no obligation to maintain such high standards as have been maintained hitherto by British Gas. Indeed, British Gas has already intimated that it can maintain its high standards of service and safety only if all the new entrants to the gas market have to meet the same standards and work to the same rules. So we must take that threat as a real one.
Finally, I should like to know how matters relating to bad debts, cut-offs and social responsibilities to the old, to children, to the sick and to the disabled are to be reconciled with this new era of competition. How are these new firms to meet these obligations? How will they be made to meet their obligations? Will they be under the same restrictions as British Gas? What will happen? We must have an assurance from the Government tonight that these people will in no way be disadvantaged by the gadarene gallop to premature competition. I hope that we can get some answers to those questions.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Stoddart in thanking my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick for introducing this short debate. The Question refers to customers and employees within the gas industry. Of course, the only benchmark we have at the moment is British Gas and it is on that aspect that I should like to concentrate. Having said that, and in talking about employees, I received this morning some unsought advice from a public relations company acting for one of the competitors in the industry. It provided a full brief. Not one word of it referred to the position of the employees in the industry.

1057
As my noble friend said, British Gas has announced the loss of 25,000 jobs. That is just under 40 per cent. of its present workforce. In making the announcement it carried out no consultation with the unions. Indeed, the actual details were revealed only after pressure from the GMB and other unions whose members work in the industry. There was another worrying factor in that information. British Gas said that the average redundancy payment would be about £30,000 plus £10,000 for pension. The amount in the accounts is £1.3 billion. Taking the average, and looking at the total figure, it amounts to a total of 32,500 lost jobs, not 25,000. Clearly, some answers and assurances need to be given in that area. Those will not be voluntary redundancies. British Gas is seeking people as young as 35 to go as a result of the introduction of changes and competition.
We talk about employees and consumers as if they were two different entities. They are not. Employees are also consumers. It is in the consumer area that we must be concerned as well. On OECD figures the average of domestic gas utilisation in Europe is between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the energy used. Here in the United Kingdom just under 50 per cent. of domestic users of energy use gas. Therefore, the supply of energy to such a large part of our community makes it very important that we have proper consumer protection. That is of concern when one bears in mind that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report came out not for a break-up of British Gas but for a divestment of its trading arm.
It is quite clear that one of the ways British Gas has been able to run its operations has been by a cross-subsidisation between its trading arm and other sectors of the industry. The decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in regard to the consumer will mean—this is accepted not only by the commission but by the Minister, Tim Eggar, as well as by the trade unions and consumer organisations—that in the short term there will be a price increase for gas. The Investors Chronicle went further and projected last year that if this happened not only would we see a domestic price increase but we would probably also see different tariffs in different parts of the country. Against that matrix it suggests that gas in Wales could be something like 9 per cent. more expensive than gas in East Anglia, and that is before the new VAT proposals are applied.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to the social responsibilities of British Gas. That is an area of major concern. As a monopoly supplier it is required to ensure that vulnerable groups in our society are not disconnected and that they have a supply of gas. But where is the consumer protection in the new proposals and the social responsibility? It is a matter of extreme concern. It does not satisfy me to be told by competitors who are poised to come into the industry that they will ensure that their social obligations are met. I am not interested in words but requirements to have that social responsibility.
The proposed changes have already been mentioned in this short debate as regards the cutback in investment. British Gas had a programme of rapid meter exchange. However, in the South-East that was stopped without
1058
any consultation at all. One of the detrimental social spin-offs is that when replacing those meters British Gas was finding that, on average, about 250 households a week had faults within their gas supply and were potentially unsafe. Having the meters changed was a free safety check. I doubt very much whether vulnerable members of the community will be able to afford a safety check on their gas provision in future.
All the points that I have made tell me that the consumer needs a strong consumer body. So what happened? The Gas Consumers Council had about £200,000 cut from its budget; hence the cutback in staff in the regions. Where do consumers go if they have complaints? Where do consumers look, in the fragmented situation which we shall have in future, for the protection of their position? Those are all areas of genuine concern which I address to the Minister. I hope that he can give us some assurances and answers to those very real problems, not only in the employment field but the consumer field as well.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dean of Berwick for introducing this Question which enables us to have a short discussion of the recently announced reorganisation plan of British Gas. I agree very strongly with the thrust of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Stoddart and of my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde.
However, I wish to offer a few brief comments and ask a few questions about the adverse effects of this major piece of reorganisation on Wales. As part of the reorganisation of British Gas I understand that Gas Wales will be dismantled and will cease to exist. Do the Government have any view on this matter or is the Minister without instructions? Perhaps I may say a few words about the significance of this institution, Wales Gas. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, will agree with me that we in Wales are aware of the importance of getting the Welsh decision-making machinery right and hence the importance which we attach to concentrating decision-making which affects Wales in Welsh institutions on Welsh soil whenever possible.
During the past 50 years or so, new Welsh financial and administrative institutions have been set up in both the public and private sectors. Indeed, Wales Gas, which was set up in 1947, was one of the first such institutions to be established by the Attlee government. I believe that it is fair to say that the reputation of Wales Gas as a defender of Welsh interests reached well beyond Wales and indeed reached the highest circles of government.
Moreover, experience has shown that, apart from one exception, decision-making machinery in and for Wales is clear proof of a commitment by the department or body corporate to Wales. Experience shows that, once such machinery is in place, then, apart from the one exception I have mentioned, it is there to stay. The dismantling of Wales Gas by British Gas is therefore a departure from or a breach of the principle which we have been establishing slowly over the past 50 years.

1059
The setting up of a British Gas sales office in Cardiff to sell gas to customers in Wales and the West of England from Reading to Cornwall does not compensate in any way for the loss of Wales Gas providing a comprehensive range of services to Welsh customers and also strengthening, as it did, the concept of Welsh identity. We do not accept for one minute that technological change for the benefit of the industry as a whole requires the dismantling of this institution.
I am entitled to ask, as my noble friends have asked, how much more this measure will cost Wales when it comes to be worked out in detail? It will be quite a lot. According to those who have a firm understanding of the industry, and as my noble friends have illustrated, it will cost the whole country a lot in terms of employment. Sadly, we have been alerted by British Gas, but without any consultation with the employees, that in Wales there will be a loss of between 1,000 and 1,200 jobs, many of them highly skilled, by 1998. That is our part of the burden of the 25,000 to 30,000 unemployed people referred to by my noble friends. We have always appreciated and said that privatisation was never designed to provide work for redundant miners and steelworkers or for any other group.
But can the Minister tell us what steps, if any, will the Government take to soften this blow to Wales or is he without instructions? Are we to be told that the jobs lost are an irremediable fact? Of course, we shall not accept that. If we are told that this is not a matter for the Government, I would mention to the Minister that Welsh Office Ministers repeatedly proclaim up and down Wales the success in job creation of the "rainbow alliance" as they call it, between the Welsh Office, its quangos, the WDA and the private sector.
I agree with my noble friends that another price may have to be paid for this initiative of British Gas. I understand—I believe that I am quoting from the same sources as my noble friend Lady Dean—that it is estimated that, as a result of the reorganisation and against the background of deregulation, the price of gas for the Welsh domestic consumer will rise by about 9 per cent. That means an increase of about £25 for the average gas consumer. I am baffled by that figure, as we have been led by the Government and their supporters to believe that competition should lead to increased efficiency and the reduction of charges to the customer, whereas the very reverse will happen.
It is my understanding that the 9 per cent. increase to which I have referred—or at least a very substantial part of it—will reflect the higher charges which British Gas will almost certainly propose to charge for transportation of the gas upstream from the North Sea wells to the shore to compensate for its loss of current share of the industrial and commercial market. Can the Minister tell us whether there is anything to that? Can he tell us further, if the charge for upstream transportation is £x in 1994, how can British Gas in 1995 or 1998 charge the average Welsh domestic customer £x plus a sum equivalent to 9 per cent? In other words, on what basis can British Gas revalue the transportation charge? I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on the formula.
1060
Taking up a point that was made by my noble friend Lady Dean, will the Minister please tell the House whether it is anticipated that the increase will be applied uniformly throughout England and Wales or is it to be discriminatory against areas at a distance from the North Sea coast? If it is to be discriminatory, I advise the Minister that the principle is totally unacceptable in the context of the supply of gas, as it would be in the context of the supply of Scottish oil.
My last question is related to the point that I have just made. Will the reorganisation in any way serve the needs of the remoter areas or are they to be inevitably priced out of the market? Will they find it more difficult to obtain a supply of gas? I must advise the Minister that there is considerable unease about whether British Gas or an independent supplier (whenever such suppliers enter the private consumer market) will be unwilling to connect the smaller and more remote areas to the supply of gas. Is that unease well founded? In the circumstances, I very much hope that the director general of Ofgas will initiate an inquiry into the question of the supply of gas in Wales, as she has been requested to do by my colleague in another place, Ron Davies, the Shadow Welsh Secretary of State.
To conclude, I agree very strongly with the powerful case that has been deployed by my noble friends. Although we are but spectators on a distant shore, unable to influence events, we have the right to register our strong objection to this market-driven policy.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just mentioned the particular problems of Wales, I should like to say how very much I agree with him. I shall not follow his line of argument, however, save to say that I think that it is an enormous shame that British Gas did not follow the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and organise its new structure on a regional basis. Wales Gas could have been very much a part of that, and I must emphasise its importance as a national institution in Wales.
In a debate on a subject such as this, one would normally have the benefit on these Benches of the wisdom and experience of my noble friend Lord Ezra who has a lifetime of experience in the fuel industry and with nationalised industries that have been privatised. My noble friend is unable to be here this evening and I have no qualification for speaking in this debate, save as a consumer. However, it seems to me that, although the die is now cast, the Government's obsession with privatisation has been matched in my lifetime only by the Opposition's obsession with nationalisation at a very much earlier period. I should have thought that the seeds of self-destruction are equally as present in the current obsession as they were in the previous one.
The first question that I should like to ask with regard to the programme relates to its timescale. Would it not have been very much better if the Government had accepted the timescale that was set out and recommended in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? The timescale is very important because one of the insidious problems of British

1061
industry during the past decade, and of the Government, has been short-termism. Everybody is scared of the short-term implications of what the Government are doing.
I should like to refer particularly to two matters that concern people: the standard of the services and the security of supply. In my experience, the services rendered by British Gas have improved immeasurably over the years. Only last week I had to call the gas man to my flat in London because of a potential gas leak. He was there within an hour and I had been given instructions on the telephone about exactly what to do before he arrived. During the past week or so, we have heard of the sad death of Donald Swann. One always remembers his marvellous song, The Gas Man Cometh. From my experience, however, I must advise your Lordships that the gas service that I have received both in relation to my flat in London and at my home in Mid Wales has been tremendously good in recent years. We should never forget that there has been that improvement.
When something is being privatised and people are looking for a quick profit and when competitor firms are anxious to prove that they will be more cost-effective than, say, the old-established gas board, there is always the tendency to achieve the desired end by reducing the level of services. That would be totally unacceptable. Therefore, the question is: how will the Government ensure that the standard of service is not reduced?—because if it is reduced, that reduction is irremediable.
Returning to the position in Wales at the moment —that is the area that I know best—I know that the people employed by the gas board there are very skilled indeed. Many of them are not willing to move to other areas—and I do not blame them. However, we must accept that there is a danger of destroying such pools of skill. We have seen that happen in British industry time and time again. We have allowed our inherent pools of skill to be dissipated and we have suffered from our competitors as a result.
My second point relates to the security of supply over the longer term. Whenever competition is introduced, there is always a tendency for people who have just entered the industry to go cherry picking. The conveniently placed customers are the obvious target. I refer to those who can be supplied cheaply and to large consumers, whether domestic or industrial. Such customers are picked off. But how does that affect the supply of gas in distant rural areas, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred? And what will the pricing policy be?
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has raised a very important issue in his Unstarred Question. He dwelt largely on the question of the future of the industry's employees. I sympathise and entirely agree with the points that he made. He also raised the question of consumers' long-term interests. Those long-term interests seem to be threatened, and we should be aware of that. Everyone wants competitive pricing, but not at the cost of unreliability resulting from poor services and eventually threatening the security of supply itself.
Those are the two great concerns which affect us, and which will continue to affect us for years to come. Better
1062
services have been promised, and they have not come about. As some noble Lords will be aware, I am involved in business as well as in other occupations. I have seen marvellous plans drawn up by experts which are supposed to improve supply and reduce prices. They often do not work out in practice, although a marvellous theoretical case can be made out. We are in great danger of moving too fast towards complete competition in this industry. The timescale needs to be looked at again.
I shall mention a note given to me by my noble friend Lord Ezra. In his view, a fair and stable regulatory system is needed to ensure the orderly development of competition. Do the Government intend to propose such a scheme? If so, when, and how will they ensure that it will be effective?
8.31 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I make a brief intervention into this debate. It is brief because my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, have covered all the main points, and after the earlier excitements I do not believe that your Lordships will wish to be delayed too long. On the other hand, reflecting on the earlier part of the day, and wearing my economist's hat, I wonder whether, in terms of the welfare and interests of ordinary households, the efficient and equitable supply of gas is probably more important to them than the question of Sunday trading. Clearly that is not a view shared by most noble Lords who show their interest in this topic by not being present, although clearly one or two noble Lords are here.
An arguable case can be made out for how important: fuel is in terms of household welfare. On the general questions before us, I start from the MMC report. I hasten to say that it is about the most difficult MMC report that I have ever tried to read. I have had great difficulty in trying to work out the logic of what it says. It did say, and this is a body which one would assume would be in favour of competition, that it felt that the introduction of competition into the domestic market was complicated and that there were special difficulties about the safety and security of gas supplies. That is why the MMC thought that the start date for the Government's change of policy with respect to competition should be at the beginning of the next century. I wonder whether the noble Viscount will tell us about the likely publication of the Government's document on competition and the obligations of companies entering the market, and spell out in more detail why the Government feel that they can act much more quickly on those matters, given the MMC's view of the matter.
In that connection, I would underline the point trade by my noble friends. I am not against competition. I regard competition as an important part of the way in which the economy is run, but to use the expression "cherry-picking" that has been mentioned, I believe that if we are to have competition it should be—to use our favourite cliché—on a level playing field. In other words, the new competitive entrants should not be allowed to pick and choose the most remunerative and easiest customers, leaving British Gas, as it were, to pick up the pieces of the remainder, and to have the

1063
burden of ensuring the security of supply and of looking after the interests of the poorer households in our community. I should like to hear what the noble Viscount has to say on that point.
Perhaps I may also ask the noble Viscount about the extraordinary story that we heard about in The Times on Saturday, 26th March. It was about a number of rather obscure companies that have managed to find a loophole in the gas release programme which was meant to encourage new competitors into the market for industrial gas. If the story is true, and I normally assume that such things in a newspaper of that quality are true, then, to say the least, some rather dubious activities have taken place with respect to entry into that market. That is not the domestic market, it is the industrial market. I am not just concerned about the article in The Times, but also about the response of the current Director General of Ofgas which, to say the least, is a bit lily-livered when it comes to looking at this matter. I hold the new director general in the highest of esteem, but a director general has to be tough, especially when it comes to the misuse of ways of entering into the market. I should not like to see similar misuse when we come to entry into the domestic market.
Another point which I underline, and to which I hope the noble Viscount will respond, is the point made by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. She referred to the Gas Consumers Council. I have been bombarded by a certain amount of material for this evening's debate, but I have not heard a whisper from the Gas Consumers Council, which I should have thought would have taken an interest in this topic and take a vigorous view about what would benefit consumers. Again, I reiterate the point that that is consumers as a whole and not merely better off consumers.
On the straight economics of the issue, if some of the new entrants can pick and choose their customers, possibly choosing the best and giving them a certain amount of reduction in price, British Gas being left with the remainder will almost certainly have to put up its prices even more. Thus, the suggestion that all consumers would gain cannot easily be argued.
Perhaps I may say a word about redundancies which follow from the Government's economic policy. We are not debating economic policy tonight, but in so far as competition leads to redundancies that can in a way be accepted in the world of full employment in which we lived until we got this Government. Then, when people lost their jobs—apart from an interim period—they would have new jobs to go to. The point about redundancies now, especially in an industry like this, is that some of the workers who lose their jobs have lost them forever. Circumstances are different.
In conclusion, I am bound to repeat what my noble friend Lord Stoddart said. I would not have privatised gas. If I had privatised it, I would not have done it this way. If the Government now believe that, having done it this way it is wrong, I am not certain that their way of putting it right will work. The Government have got
1064
themselves into somewhat of a mess. I look forward to hearing the noble Viscount tell us how they will get themselves out of this mess.
There is one last point, and I must apologise for leaving it out. I have said nothing about Wales because it is not a subject upon which I usually speak from this Front Bench and I knew nothing about what was happening there. I have to endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I accept that what he says must be right. To say the least, I am horrified that such developments can be occurring. For the most part, none of us has been given any notice of what is happening. We are greatly indebted to my noble friend for raising that topic.
8.38 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this important Question, and all noble Lords who have contributed. The gas industry has undergone a great deal of change under this Government. In 1986 British Gas was privatised enabling it to compete effectively abroad, where it has had great success, and to supply a better service to its customers at home. We have also encouraged competition in the gas supply market which has benefited many users.
However, most customers are at present denied the benefits of competition. Allowing them access to those benefits is the essence of the proposals announced last December by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. The main proposal is to open up British Gas' tariff monopoly to competition from April 1996. From that date all non-domestic customers would be free to switch to a competitor. The domestic market will also be open to competitors but to a limited extent. However, in the first year there will be a 5 per cent. limit on how much of the domestic market competitors can capture. They will be allowed to take a further 5 per cent. the next year with the volume limit being removed after that, subject to the regulator being satisfied that the network operator has the necessary systems in place to handle unlimited switching.
The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Peston, asked about forward planning. As has been said, the DTI and Ofgas are currently finalising a joint consultation paper which will cover in more detail the proposals for opening up the domestic market to competition and other issues relevant to the important future of the gas market. The report will shortly be published.
In opening up the market we are fulfilling a manifesto commitment which stated that we would:
"progressively reduce British Gas' monopoly of the retail gas market to give small users the same rights as big firms".
We firmly believe that competition is the best way of ensuring that domestic consumers get the best possible deal. In a monopoly market, if you are not happy with the service you get you have little recourse. In a competitive market, you simply change your supplier. In this way gas consumers can get the best balance of service and prices that meets their own individual circumstances.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to join the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in paying tribute to the

1065
technical expertise and standards of service that British Gas has achieved since privatisation in 1986. The challenge is to maintain these high standards for the gas consumer while at the same time providing him with real choice.
There are three aspects of these standards where consumers are looking for reassurances. They were stressed tonight by noble Lords. These are safety, social obligations and, of course, prices. First and foremost, people expect their gas supply to be safe and reliable. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that as the new Director General of Gas Supply has already indicated, the safety of gas consumers is of paramount importance and will continue to be so in a competitive market. Responsibility for safety is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission which will, as always, be looking at the arrangements with an independent eye to ensure that the present high standards are maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others raised the question of the social obligations of suppliers. It is a key issue. The President of the Board of Trade announced before Christmas that new suppliers would have to:
"adhere to a code, for example, governing disconnections and protecting the elderly and disabled".
Adherence to this code will be one of the conditions of a licence without which companies will not be allowed to supply gas to the domestic market.
All noble Lords raised the issue of prices. The MMC recognised that the introduction of competition may lead to winners and losers. However, some competitors to British Gas have claimed that they would be able to offer cheaper prices to all domestic consumers. Certainly, in the commercial and industrial sectors many customers have seen savings in the region of 10 per cent. as a result of competition being introduced. We firmly believe that competition will lead to the best balance of price and service which best meets consumers' needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke of the threat of cherry picking services. I reassure him that my right honourable friend announced before Christmas:
"it will be a condition of their licences that suppliers to the domestic market would have to supply gas to any domestic consumer in the licence area who requests it, on the basis of a published tariff … Applicants for licences will need to demonstrate that they meet certain minimum conditions, in particular adequate financial resources and access to sufficient gas to supply customers or a continuing basis".
I now turn to the question of employment in the gas industry. We appreciate the anxiety that has been expressed about the loss of jobs in the industry. British Gas is in the process of restructuring from its present regional structure into five business units, each dealing with a different aspect of its business. For example, one unit will deal with domestic gas supply, another with appliance retailing and so on. It is doing that to cut costs and increase its efficiency. Much of the pressure to cut costs is coming from the requirement—to which British Gas voluntarily agreed—to limit the growth in tariff income to RPI minus four over the period to 1997. Some of the job losses reflect new technology—new information technology systems and the prospect of remote metering. In other words, the job losses would have happened anyway, even if the monopoly continued—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister going to respond to my specific request about the 1,000 redundancies that were made out of the blue after a promise had been given of employment into next year? The work of those people was suddenly terminated by British Gas without consultation and 12 months early. If the Minister is not going to respond to that in a sympathetic manner, is he saying that the Government are prepared to see such activity and practices become the order of the day? The workers will always receive: the rough end of the stick.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I intend fully to cover the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I was about to come to that matter. As I said, the job losses would have occurred even if the monopoly had continued. Indeed, 20,000 of the job losses were announced before the President's decision on the MMC reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, concentrated on the issue of job cuts by meter manufacturers. That is an important issue and perhaps I may look at the background. In the early 1980s it emerged that natural gas was having an adverse effect on meters fitted with leather diaphragms, which dated back to before 1980. The result was that some of the meters were over-registering. Ofgas considered enforcement—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may save the Minister some time. I am perfectly aware of the technicalities, because I have gone through them. 'The Minister is correct in saying that the redundancies would have occurred next year in any event. I am not disputing that point. The argument in principle is that British Gas, without consultation, brought the redundancies forward by 12 months. That was to the utter dismay of the 1,000 people involved. There is no argument about the quality of the meters; the issue is that 1,000 people have been badly let down by British Gas.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is important accurately to set the scene to these redundancies. The technical background is important in explaining why the situation came about. I shall briefly explain the situation and the Government's reaction to it.
Some of the meters were over-registering and in 1987 Ofgas considered enforcement action on the grounds that British Gas was failing in its duty to ensure that all its meters were in proper working order. Ofgas was able to withhold such action since British Gas agreed to double the rate of meter replacement in its existing 20-year replacement programme. That was to the manufacturing limit of the two principal meter suppliers, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. They were Schlumberger UK and United Gas Industries. Last year British Gas decided to stop using synthetic diaphragm meters and transfer to installing new electronic ultrasonic metres. In its opinion, the latter are better meters. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, stressed, the result of the decision was that jobs were lost both at Schlumberger UK and at United Gas Industries.

1067
While we appreciate and understand the noble Lord's sincere concern about the job losses, the question of which meters British Gas uses is entirely a commercial matter for it as a commercial company. The role of Ofgas is solely to ensure that the replacement programme is completed as quickly as possible because gas consumers must be supplied with accurate meters. It is very important to ensure that the consumer is protected.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves that point, I wish to be clear about it. I do not question the change to another meter. I made the point that it had not yet been proven. But I do not for one moment want the Government to interfere with the policy of the industry. I do not believe that the Minister has yet dealt adequately with the point I raised. By his silence is he saying that he fully approves the action of British Gas in bringing forward redundancies by 12 months, without any discussion, when people have been given a guarantee that their jobs will be there until next year, with the result that 1,000 people have been put out of work one year earlier? He must have listened to the point that I made. When I visited Ofgas with Mr. Lloyd, the Member of Parliament for that area of Manchester, I stated to the new director-general and her staff that it looked as though they were totally surprised that British Gas had not consulted Schlumberger and Smith's before the announcement of the more rapid redundancies than those for which they had given a guarantee. My response was to ask whether I was being told that British Gas had pulled a fast one on them. The answer that I got was "Yes". If that is the order of the day which the Government will support in a debate like this, I believe that they are supporting very poor standards indeed. Will the Government use their best endeavours to persuade British Gas that it ought not to do this and that it should stick to its original promise?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point that I sought to make was that, as the noble Lord himself agreed, it was not for the Government to intervene in what was a commercial matter for British Gas.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I did not say that. I believe that we have a Government that can intervene if they wish to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to the position as I have stated it very clearly. We do not feel that it would be appropriate for the Government to intervene in what is a commercial matter; that is, British Gas's choice of which meters it considers to be appropriate for use in their system.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the reorganisation of the British Gas Wales
1068
system. I have to say again that it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in that decision. It is part of the restructuring programme that is being undertaken by British Gas. However, British Gas has said that the new structure will retain the identity of British Gas Wales. There will be a major gas supply centre at Helmont House in Cardiff serving not only Wales but also the South West of England. Two gas transportation centres located in Wales will be responsible for the pipeline and storage network throughout Wales. Their precise locations are yet to be decided. The Welsh management scheme will continue to represent the very best interests of Wales in any companywide decision. The reduction in manpower in the Welsh operation will be in rough proportion to losses throughout England and Scotland as well.
Many jobs will be lost through natural wastage and voluntary redundancies in the overall British Gas redundancy situation, not in Wales specifically. British Gas hopes that there will be few compulsory redundancies. We must also realise that as British Gas loses customers other suppliers gain them. With the opening up of the domestic market no doubt competitors will need to take on more employees to deal with the large increase in their customers.
The important point is that we should not be considering the gas industry in isolation. Lower industrial gas prices improve the competitiveness of other industries and employment prospects in other sectors. Since privatisation, industrial gas prices have fallen in real terms by 30 per cent. It is by improving the competitiveness of all industry and commerce in this way that we shall create jobs which are genuinely secure, not by perpetuating monopolies and encouraging inefficiencies. What we are looking for is the same safety and reliability in our gas supply that we have enjoyed so far, but with the general lowering of price and better tailoring of service to individual needs that consumer choice and competition provide. I outlined our achievements to date in the gas industry at the beginning of my remarks this evening. We now need to carry these achievements forward, and I believe that the decisions which the Government made in response to the MMC reports will do this.
British Gas has made it clear that its job cuts will not impact on the standards of service it provides and will not lead to a reduction in the vitally important issue of safety. I have made it clear that the Government will ensure that the rights of domestic consumers are fully protected. The publication of the consultative paper will be the first step in the consultation process, the purpose of which is to ensure that the present very high standards in the gas industry are maintained.
House adjourned at four minutes before nine o'clock.

  PRISON SERVICE AND PRISONER CARE: EXPENDITURE
  PRISON SERVICE AND PRISONER CARE: EXPENDITURE
  LATCHMERE HOUSE: PRISONER COSTS
  LATCHMERE HOUSE: PRISONER COSTS
  BASINGSTOKE NORTHERN BYPASS: DoT SIGNS
  BASINGSTOKE NORTHERN BYPASS: DoT SIGNS
  SPEED LIMITERS on HGVs
  SPEED LIMITERS on HGVs
  DHSS EXPENDITURE
  DHSS EXPENDITURE