Sitting of 5 May 1994

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

    FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES Act 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sugar, Bananas and Rum
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration she has given, in the context of the Lomé review, to improvements to the protocols on sugar, bananas and rum; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I confirm that the United Kingdom would welcome some improvements in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries' access to European Union markets for rum, sugar and bananas.
    Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but he will recognise that the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations, on which so much praise has been lavished, has been a disaster for many developing countries, particularly those that had special access to the European Community under Lomé. When he considers common agricultural policy reform, therefore, will he think laterally as well as longitudinally, and look to the outside as well as the inside to ensure that there is no effect on third world countries? In particular, will he persuade the rest of the Ministry of that, including his redoubtable Europhile boss?
    Mr. Jack: My boss is a redoubtable person, but the hon. Gentleman's other comments are a matter for another place and another debate. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the various protocols on trade in rum, sugar and bananas between the ACP countries and the European Union are discussed by separate regimes. Difficulties have arisen with the banana regime as a direct consequence of the GATT negotiations, but sugar and rum essentially remain free of that encumbrance. In considering both GATT and the European Union-ACP relationship, we fight hard for producing countries with special interests in rum, bananas and sugar. The hon. Gentleman has a special and
    826
    continuing interest in the matter and I will gladly afford him the opportunity to hold a further meeting to discuss it more fully.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is not the situation extremely serious for many of our former colonies which produce bananas? The banana police, or whoever supervises such matters, have not been sufficiently active. The French are subsidising their former colonies. What does the Minister propose to do to deal with the serious problem faced by the unfortunate people in our former colonies?
    Mr. Jack: With respect, the serious problem with which we had to deal involved a challenge from the banana-producing Latin America countries, which lodged a complaint within GATT. That challenge has been successfully resolved. The resolution of that problem was the inhibiting factor which presented a major challenge to the opportunities available to our Caribbean producers as well as those in Africa and others associated with the European Union. Further opportunities remain for ACP banana producers to expand their commercial chances of selling their bananas in the European Union.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that consumers in this country want bananas that taste like bananas? If we continually import central American bananas, which taste like soap, he will not fulfil his task in relation to the British consumer or to producers in the Caribbean, who are dependent on that crop for their income.
    Mr. Jack: We have fought tirelessly for the interests of Caribbean banana producers. We are particularly aware of the acute difficulties of Belize and the Windward Islands in that respect. I take my hat off to those Caribbean states for their attempts to improve the quality of their bananas. The hon. Lady practises an unfortunate discrimination. The consumer must have freedom of choice, in which Conservative Members passionately believe.

    Organic Aid Scheme
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to promote the new organic aid scheme.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Once the scheme has been given approval by the Commission, we plan to give it full publicity.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the excellent Luddesdown Court organic farm in my constituency. In what way will the new scheme assist farmers to bring further acreage into organic farming?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am indeed aware of the excellence of Luddesdown Court in my hon. Friend's constituency. When the scheme is approved, we shall be able to increase the number of organic producers. We plan to increase their number threefold so that the excellence that my hon. Friend describes in his constituency of Gravesham will, we hope, be replicated elsewhere.

    Milk Marketing
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the talks between her Department and the milk marketing board on the question of vesting day.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The milk marketing board has proposed a vesting day of 1 November 1994 in its reorganisation scheme.
    Mr. Marshall: I am a little concerned about the reply that the Minister has just given. She has not yet stated that 1 November is a definite date. In that context, may I remind her that lethargy on the part of her Ministry has delayed vesting day by some six months and that the delay is likely to cost the dairy industry some £60 million or more? If there is a delay beyond 1 November, will she underwrite any further losses that the dairy industry is likely to suffer as a consequence?
    Mrs. Shephard: I see no reason at present for speculation that the 1 November vesting day will have to be postponed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have just been out to consultation on the board's amended scheme. Obviously, we are considering carefully all the comments that we have received before we decide whether to approve the scheme under the terms of the Agriculture Act 1993. We will make our decision as quickly as we can, within our responsibilities as outlined in the Act. The hon. Gentleman should understand—no doubt he does—that it is vital that the scheme should be right, given the importance and in some cases the vulnerability of the 29,000 milk producers in Britain and the 50 million consumers.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting my constituency of Macclesfield last Friday. During that visit, she met a large number of representatives of the National Farmers Union, many of whom are among the 29,000 milk producers whom she has just mentioned. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is immense support among my farmers for Milk Marque and the wonderful job that the milk marketing board has done? Is she aware that they want to be reassured that in any future system those farmers who produce milk on hill or marginal land will still be able to have their milk collected daily so that farms continue to be viable in those critical areas?
    Mrs. Shephard: I greatly enjoyed my visit to Macclesfield and found my conversations with my hon. Friend's farmers of great value. I am aware of the concern among those producers, some of whom are, indeed, very vulnerable and dependent on the arrival of the milk lorry and, equally, on the arrival of the milk cheque, which is just as important. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are sympathetic to the principle of the establishment of a single voluntary body to succeed the MMB, which has done good service for the past 60 years. That is why we are taking so seriously our consideration of the board's proposals before giving our final approval.
    Mr. Tyler: In considering at what point to make her statement, will the Minister consider the possibility of obtaining a cast iron guarantee from those organisations that have indulged in delaying tactics—notably the Dairy Trade Federation—that they will not seek to delay the scheme any further after her decision by, for example,
    828
    referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the European Commission or seeking an injunction in the courts? Will she obtain that guarantee so that milk producers throughout the country can be assured that we can progress towards a successful conclusion of the talks?
    Mrs. Shephard: I would certainly deplore any delaying tactics from whichever source they came.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that milk farmers in my constituency—those who are in favour of Milk Marque as well as those who wish to join some other marketing scheme—are sick and tired of the delays in ending this problem? Will she take on board not only what has been said in the House today but the many letters that I know she has received from farmers throughout the country? Does she agree that it would be wrong to put in place a scheme that could suddenly be challenged by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or even by the European Commission and that we want a scheme that will last as long as the milk marketing board has lasted?
    Mrs. Shephard: Of course the delay is unwelcome. It is also very worrying for milk producers and everyone else involved in the milk industry. My hon. Friend was right to underline the importance of getting the scheme right, particularly those aspects that might be of interest to the competition authorities.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the first vesting date was postponed, there is no reason to assume that the new vesting date of 1 November will not also be postponed. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the longer the delay, the greater the number of producers who will sign up with other creameries? That will leave a much smaller number of producers to sign up for the revised scheme proposed by the MMB. Therefore, the delay is very damaging. Will the right hon. Lady make the very earliest decision on the revised scheme that has been submitted to her for approval?
    Mrs. Shephard: I stress again that I deplore the delay. It is unsettling and sometimes has the results and effects described by the right hon. Gentleman. I assure him that no unnecessary delay will emanate from the Ministry, but we need to get the scheme right.

    Farm Diversification
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the Government's policy on farm diversification.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend has recently launched four rural economy booklets whose intention is to provide farmers with easy access to information on how to develop, diversify and improve their businesses.
    Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's support for diversification is being threatened by an Inland Revenue decision that the various components of a diverse rural enterprise should be treated as discrete entities for tax purposes? Will he and his colleagues, both in MAFF and in other Departments, take seriously the constructive proposals from the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association on how the problem might be overcome?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend asks his question at an appropriate time because currently £70 million of farm output in England and Wales is accounted for by diversified activity. At the heart of his question lies a report by Sir Michael Bunbury, which has already been the subject of discussion with my colleagues at the Treasury. As a result of that, I understand that Sir Michael has been asked to do further work on the subject. That is where the matter rests, but I will draw my hon. Friend's concern to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress she has made in seeking a common agricultural policy which gives better value for money.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The UK played a major part in achieving the 1992 CAP reform, which is progressively encouraging farmers to depend less on price support and more on the market.
    Mr. Amess: Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that in the further negotiations on the CAP, Britain and the Commission will do everything possible to put a high priority on combating fraud, which is causing some concern to my constituents in Basildon?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am happy to give that reassurance to my hon. Friend and his constituents. The people of Basildon and elsewhere in the UK feel strongly about this matter and they expect the Government to pursue fraud wherever it occurs. I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to do that with all the force of which I am capable.
    Mr. Barnes: As there are now to be four new members of the European Union is it not time to get rid of the sillier features of its arrangements? The CAP certainly qualifies in that respect. Not one change to the CAP resulted from Maastricht—indeed, the treaty made no reference to agriculture. Surely we now have a great opportunity to get rid of anti-social and anti-democratic measures.
    Mrs. Shephard: The common agricultural policy has a number of unwelcome features. One is that its cost is far too high and is not sustainable. We cannot expect agriculture, which represents 5 per cent. of the Community's gross domestic product, to continue to account for 54 per cent. of the EC budget. That is why the Government constantly argue that the cost of the CAP should be brought down and that some of its other features that distort the market and restrain competitiveness and innovation, such as quotas and supply controls, should be removed.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of the EC budget that has gone to maintain the CAP fell from 70 per cent. in 1988 to 50 per cent this year? While that is a welcome move, it is not nearly enough. We must move much further in that direction because, among other things, the CAP charges taxpayers tax so that food can be sold back to them at a higher price than they would otherwise have had to pay.
    Mrs. Shephard: The reformed CAP will result in reduced prices for consumers—something like £2 billion less for taxpayers and consumers in Britain by the end of
    830
    the period. Nevertheless, as I said, such a high percentage —54 per cent. to benefit 5 per cent. of EC gross domestic product—is not acceptable or sustainable in the longer term.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that it is costing approximately £28 a week for every family in Britain to sustain the CAP? Since she has the ear of the Prime Minister and speaks up for him on occasion, albeit misguidedly, as she did last weekend, can she tell us whether she has consulted him on the idea that is being floated—that there should be a referendum on Europe to resolve the Common Market problem—and tell me what the answer is?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures, which are misguided. Nor do I agree with anything else that he says at any time, including his suggestion about a referendum.

    Animal Diseases
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on progress on the steps taken to prevent the spread of animal diseases from abroad.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We recently announced newly strengthened measures to monitor imports of live animals to ensure that our very high animal health status is safeguarded.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great dangers posed by the possible importation of warbled cattle from France? Can he assure the House that the strongest possible representations are being made to French vets to ensure the continuing good health of our livestock?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is clearly voicing the concerns of farmers in his constituency. That matter is of profound concern to farmers and I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. A number of consignments of warbled cattle from France have been discovered through post-import checks by our vets. Following the most strenuous representations by the chief veterinary officer to his opposite number in France, the cattle have been returned whence they came.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that evidence given to me and to the Select Committee on Agriculture suggests that potentially infected imported cattle are being distributed from places other than registered dealers without any checks by Ministry officials? Will he ensure that all imported cattle can be reliably tracked within the European Union and the United Kingdom, or will we face the prospect of disease epidemics in the UK?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the great concern, energy and effort that the Ministry puts into the matter. I am happy to give him the assurances that he seeks. Furthermore, the regime that we have applied includes extensive checks other than those that are statutorily required. We will continue to maintain our high animal health status, which is a very high priority for the Department. I should be happy if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to send me whatever evidence he has so that we can pursue the matter.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that Gloucester market is one of those through which many warble-infected cattle have been sold and that my constituents and Gloucestershire farmers will be pleased to hear what he has said on the matter?
    Is he further aware that considerable difficulties are being caused in west Gloucestershire, where cattle have caught tuberculosis from TB-infected badgers? I know that my hon. Friend is making strenuous efforts to control the infected badger population throughout the west country. Will he have a purge of TB-infected badgers in west Gloucestershire in the interests of farmers and of public health?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right to say that TB in badgers is a matter of prime concern to farmers. I know from the representations that he has already made to me of the great concern felt in west Gloucestershire about it. I can assure my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Barnes: Reassure him.
    Mr. Soames: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Ministry will not rest until we have managed to bring the problem under control. Because of the scale and seriousness of the problem, it takes a great deal of time to catch badgers, test them and deal with them in a humane and proper manner. We have a big problem on our hands and we must get on to it. The work of the technicians involved is not helped by those who seek to disrupt it in a fundamentally irresponsible manner.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made concerning the future of the milk marketing board; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will decide whether to approve the board's reorganisation scheme as quickly as our responsibilities under the Agriculture Act 1993 allow.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers in my constituency of High Peak share the concern of other farmers at the delay in announcing the new structure for the milk marketing board? Can she reassure the House that the final structure will properly reflect the interests of the small dairy farmers and not simply the interests of large commercial milk producers?
    Mrs. Shephard: One of the reasons why we need to examine the board's proposals so carefully is precisely the need to consider the concerns and interests of 29,000 milk producers, 50 million consumers and those whose business is connected with the milk industry. I greatly regret the delay, but I do not see any reason why we should put off approval after 1 November. Any sort of delaying tactics on the part of any of the parties involved will not be accepted.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that if Mr. Andrew Dare and his colleagues had submitted the right scheme some time ago there would have been no delay and no need for complaints to be made in Parliament? May I ask the right hon. Lady a very simple question? Is the principle of regional crops completely off the agenda?
    Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the main thrust of the Agriculture Act 1993 is that there should be a strong voluntary co-operative, which also offers market freedom for other producers to sign up to sell their milk where they find it in their best interest to do so. The first submission from the milk marketing board required a great deal of work and it is true that that has caused some of the delay.
    Dr. Strang: Is it not preposterous that earlier this afternoon the right hon. Lady deplored and blamed on others a delay which derives from legislation? As the Opposition argued during the passage of the 1993 Act, it is absolutely clear that if responsibility for the reorganisation scheme had been given to the Government and not to the milk marketing boards this state of affairs would never have occurred. Does the Minister accept that radical changes are no longer consistent with starting the new arrangements on 1 November?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's hostility to a freer market for milk is well known and was well rehearsed during the passage of the 1993 Act. I repeat that no delay has been caused by the Ministry. We want that delay, which is causing so much anxiety to producers, to be brought to a speedy end.

    Woodlands
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture,Fisheries and Food what progress she has made on reaching a conclusion on the future of woodlands owned by the Forestry Commission in England; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: The report of the Forestry Review Group was submitted to Ministers on 28 February. We are now considering the report carefully and will make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Current Forestry Commission policy takes due account of landscape protection, nature conservation and broad-leaved planting. Many of my constituents in Blaby are concerned that any future plans arising from decisions of the Forestry Review Group should take due account of those issues and especially of the so-called freedom to roam and of access to forests. Will my hon. Friend please reassure my constituents on those matters?
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that matter on behalf of his constituents, who enjoy opportunities to roam freely, as he said, in the existing forest environment. We asked the Forestry Review Group to consider that specific issue and have received about 3,600 individual representations, all emphasising people's anxieties about this important matter. Ministers now considering that report will bear fully in mind the representations of my hon. Friend and others.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware of representations that we are receiving from our constituents —and, in my case, people living in Norfolk—about access to Forestry Commission woodlands? Will he reassure my constituents and others who are genuinely worried about that matter?
    Mr. Jack: I can certainly underline what I have just said in reply to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the

    833
    Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—that this has been one of the central issues that the Forestry Review Group has considered. In addition to the 3,600 individual representations, about 600 organisations have made representations, many of them emphasising their anxieties about the central issue to which my hon. Friend referred. I can say to him unequivocally that the importance of the point is lost neither on the Forestry Review Group nor on Ministers, who are considering it.
    Dr. Strang: But surely the Minister understands that hundreds of thousands of people in this country enjoy walking and cycling—indeed, they enjoy doing all sorts of things in our state forests. Surely he also understands that when a state forest is privatised, public access is restricted or totally prohibited. Whether it is in relation to forestry, railways or local government services, is the Minister aware that the vast majority of the people of the country are fed up with privatisation, and that that is only one reason why so many of them will vote against the Conservative party today?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman's question shows that he definitely cannot see the woods for the trees. I shall not comment on what he and his hon. Friends may be doing in the woods, but I repeat that Ministers are considering the conclusions to be reached from the results of the work of the Forestry Review Group. He will know that, in cases where forest land has been sold, a safeguard to access already exists in the form of access agreements reached with local authorities before the sale of that land. Sadly, the opportunities have not been taken up as widely as they might have been. Whatever the results of the review may be—and those results have not yet been decided—those mechanisms exist to protect the important rights of access for the enjoyment of our citizenry.
    I think that when members of the public reflect on the broad-based, full exercise that we are conducting in considering forestry arrangements, they will consider supporting us through the ballot box this afternoon.

    Agricultural Tenancies
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made concerning reform of the agricultural tenancy laws.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The details of new legislation are being finalised. We are keen to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time is available.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful for that answer, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the widespread agreement among all interested organisations last December clearly demonstrated that it is widely recognised that there is an urgent need for agricultural tenancy reform—a need to which we should respond?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there is real need for reform. He may know that the agricultural valuers produced a survey which demonstrated that, when tenancies end, only 10 per cent. of landlords who have a free choice choose to re-let holdings on full tenancies. In other words, the lack of reform is paralysing that sector of the industry. It was very good news that all the organisations concerned reached agreement last December, which is why we hope to build on that agreement by pressing for parliamentary time.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in Norfolk and East Anglia, where many young people want to go into farming, there is a problem with the availability of tenancies? Does she also agree that, so long as we achieve complete agreement on all sides, there should be complete freedom of contract for all new tenancies?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. We do, indeed, need reform to increase lettings. We want to increase opportunities for new entrants and to help the industry to respond to market and policy changes. There is no reason why arrangements between landlords and tenants in that sector should differ substantially from such arrangements in other sectors.

    Livestock Identification
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about difficulties experienced in the industry with livestock identification systems.
    Mr. Soames: A lengthy consultation exercise was held last year on the proposals to implement EC directive 92/102 on the identification and registration of livestock. There were 60 responses to the consultation document, and many meetings with interested organisations. Their views have been taken into consideration.
    Mr. Heppell: Have not the present arrangements for tracing animals to control fraud and outbreaks of disease proved to be inadequate? Has not the Government's mishandling of the new system caused a delay, with the result that the new arrangements will be implemented not on 1 July but on 1 November, four months later than expected?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect only: plainly, the scheme is important not only for the prevention of fraud but for the control of disease. Following the consultation exercise with the industry, we have been in close and regular contact with the industry organisations on the detailed arrangements. Our aim is to achieve a smooth transition to the new arrangements. To that end, we have decided to allow an extra three months, between 1 July and 30 September this year, during which calves may be marked with either new or old-style ear tags. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to describe that arrangement as having been a muddle. It has been carried out in an orderly, sensible and proper fashion, allowing people the right amount of time to get organised.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome the news that EC directive 92/102 is being given more time to be considered, but would point out that it is one of a series of alterations to cattle identification that have taken place in the past few years. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that it will be the last alteration for some time and that the system will be clear when it is altered?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will agree that the position will be perfectly clear when that regime comes into play. I can reassure him that we take seriously the point that he makes, which is consistent with the fact that, to protect the consumer and prevent fraud, the correct identification of cattle throughout the European Union is a matter of cardinal importance.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Is there evidence to indicate that cattle from English farms are going through the Province of Northern Ireland into the Republic and then being transported to other parts of the European Union?
    Mr. Soames: I have read the reports to which the hon. Gentleman alludes and I think that it is inherently unlikely that anything so complicated could be dreamed up.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that something along the lines of this particular scheme, together with the burdensome but necessary integrated administration and control system, is vital to control fraud and assure proper allocation of Community money, as referred to in an earlier question? As a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which has occasionally delivered the odd brickbat against my hon. Friend's Department, may I say how much farmers in my constituency and elsewhere appreciate the help that they received last year and, we hope, will receive this year, from departmental officials in responding to those complex schemes for the evasion of fraud?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to pay tribute to the work of the regional offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the marvellous staff, who do a tremendous job in assisting farmers with those schemes, which are—as he knows because he has been in close touch with us on those matters —more complicated than we would wish. The schemes are essential and it is our intention to ensure that they are pragmatically, efficiently and sensibly handled. To that end, I am glad to have my hon. Friend's endorsement of the steps that we have taken to introduce the animal identification scheme in a sensible and orderly manner.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will report on progress on the introduction of the new environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Jack: I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House that six new environmentally sensitive areas were launched on 16 March, bringing the total number in England to 22. Those cover more than 1 million hectares or 10 per cent. of English farmland.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is aware of the beautiful countryside of Surrey in which my constituency is located and so will appreciate my constituents' great interest in environmental matters. How much is he spending on the new environmentally sensitive areas and how much is he spending on environmental protection generally?
    Mr. Jack: I hope that many of my hon. Friend's constituents will be able to enjoy the delights of the environmentally sensitive areas, particularly those in the upper Thames region. Current expenditure will be £18 million, and, with the enlargement to 22 environmentally sensitive areas, that sum will increase to £43 million in 1995–96. In that financial year, the proposals will take their part in a programme valued at more than £100 million, which covers a wide range of environmental schemes.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister heard stories of some very large payments of hundreds of thousands of pounds being made to some farmers in various parts of the
    836
    United Kingdom? Is he absolutely satisfied that the amounts of money that are being paid in some cases are warranted?
    Mr. Jack: The word "stories" implies a lack of precision and a great deal of rumour. I have had reports of accurate payments to farmers. Under the integrated administration and control system, arable area payments have been correctly and properly administered. If the hon. Gentleman has stories about that scheme or about environmentally sensitive areas and lets me know, I will look into them.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In considering environmental sensitivity, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that a large number of people suffer from hay fever? Oilseed rape is a particularly virulent source of that affliction. Will he seek to balance the interests of farming prosperity with the interests of the health and well-being of people who live in country areas and pursue work through the research councils with a view to ensuring that this unfortunate by-product of some of our staple crops is reduced and perhaps eliminated?
    Mr. Jack: I can confirm that there is much research going on in that subject. I feel that the thrust of my hon. Friend's question is better directed to the Department of Health and to those who issue weather and pollen forecasts. There is much interest in growing oilseed rape, which is an important crop for our farmers. There are other ways of dealing with the problems encountered by individuals.
    Mr. Nicholls: I welcome that reply, but does my hon. Friend accept that environmentally sensitive areas and other forms of area designation must be considered in conjunction with industry's legitimate needs? If we pay too much attention to the environment—given the pressures that can exist—we can sometimes positively damage rather than enhance it. Unfashionable though it may be to say it, we must achieve the right balance.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend may have noted that implicit in an earlier answer that I gave on farm diversification was the message that we want economic activity to develop in the countryside. Part of the key to achieving that is to take a sensible and flexible approach to planning. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Ministry is involved in seminars dealing with those particular issues. The Department of the Environment is aware of the sensitivities of the matters that lie at the heart of my hon. Friend's question.

    Fruit and Vegetables
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 19 April, Official Report, column 443, what was the cost to the EC of destruction and disposal of fruit and vegetables in 1991–92.
    Mr. Jack: Based on information provided by the Commission, the total cost to the European Union of withdrawing all eligible produce throughout the Community in 1991–92 was £104.35 million.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not it sickening that that vast sum is being spent on the destruction of 751,000 tonnes of fruit and vegetables for the sole purpose of keeping prices high, thereby damaging the poorest families in the land? Rather

    837
    than just deploring this cruel nonsense, could not the Government say that there is no way that they will present any legislation to the House of Commons to increase the resources of the Economic Community until something is done about this nonsense, which is sickening and wrong?
    Mr. Jack: Had my hon. Friend been here a little earlier, he would have heard what I said in response to other questions about the efforts that this Government have made to control European Union spending and the agriculture budget. On the question of the intervention scheme for fruit and vegetables, we are at one with my hon. Friend in seeking radical reform of the regime. It is doing significant damage to the prospects of our apple growers, for example, and in the Council of Ministers we are pursuing that line of argument very vigorously indeed.
    Mrs. Lait: What progress is being made in the talks in the Council of Ministers about the fruit and vegetable regime?
    Mr. Jack: We are currently preparing a detailed submission about the types of reforms that we should like to see in this area. We have listened very carefully to the industry. I know that the industry understands that if its objective to receive a grubbing-up grant is to be achieved, for example, we must also have a parallel development in the form of the removal of the intervention scheme, particularly as it affects apples.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
    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. Lidington: In marking this month the 50th anniversary of R. A. Butler's Education Act, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that every child in this country receives a rigorous, demanding and high-quality education? Will he reaffirm the Government's commitment to enlarging choice and opportunity for parents and pupils alike?
    The Prime Minister: That Act was certainly a very revolutionary Act of Parliament, and one which has made a great difference to our education system over the years. At that time, eight out of 10 children left school at age 14. Thankfully, today almost one in three children go on to higher education. What we need to do—I hope that this is a view shared by the whole House—is build on that achievement by giving parents more choice, raising standards in schools and creating opportunities for every child to make the most of his or her abilities.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us why changes in gas pricing are being planned which will put substantial increases on the gas bills of 12 million ordinary people—the very same people who will have to pay 8 per cent. VAT this year and 17.5 per cent. next year? Does not he think that they are paying enough already?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and find out what really happens. I have seen myself the newspaper reports on which he is no doubt basing his remarks. I understand that the gas regulator believes that there is no evidence to back up those claims and that the director of the Gas Consumers Council has said that British Gas was scaremongering.
    Mr. John Smith: If the Prime Minister is so confident about that, can he specifically deny that pensioners on a basic rate pension will face a 21 per cent. increase in their gas bills? Can he give them that guarantee today?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: We want a guarantee.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will wait. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again taking a story and attempting to erect a scare to frighten vulnerable people. He knows very well that the Department of Trade and Industry and the gas regulator will be issuing a consultative document shortly.
    I suggest that, before he peddles more scares, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have the grace to wait for that document. I also remind the House that British Gas tariff prices were reduced from July 1992, reduced further from October 1992 and have fallen by more than 4 per cent. in cash terms and 6.5 per cent. in real terms in the past year.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the Gas Consumers Council has not only complained; it has pointed out that the consultative document was agreed last month but is being delayed because of today's elections? Does not the Prime Minister understand that delaying bad news until after elections is the sort of behaviour that is bringing the Conservative party into the disrepute for which it will suffer at the polls today?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is earning himself a deserved reputation for smears that will do him and his party no good. What is proposed in due course is a consultative document that will be published shortly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait until he reads that consultative document; he would be wise not to misrepresent it and he would be wise to remind everybody how real prices in gas have fallen as a result of measures taken in the past.
    Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend share my contempt for those who seek to make £1 million from the sale of secretly taken photographs, irrespective of whether the victim is a member of the royal family or an individual private citizen? What steps can the Government take to stop people in Britain profiting from such despicable behaviour?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will speak for millions of people in this country in the remarks that he has made. I will reflect on the second half of his question.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister accept the view of senior defence chiefs that, as a result of cuts in the defence budget, Britain could no longer mount an operation even on the scale of our part in the Gulf war? Is not it a grotesque betrayal of this country that his party, which has so long and so wrongly accused the Labour party of stripping Britain of its defences, has now done just that?
    The Prime Minister: For years, the hon. and learned Gentleman's party and Front-Bench spokesmen have sought to strip Britain of its nuclear weapons, dismantle a large part of its armed forces and cut down substantial expenditure on the armed forces. The one party in Parliament that consistently ensures this country's capacity to defend itself is this party—and this Government. That has been the case in the past, it is the case now and it will remain the case in future, however much the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to distort reality.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a solution to the sale of photographs of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales for £1 million: we could swiftly introduce a privacy Bill and ensure that there is no public interest defence available in that Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I note carefully my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heppell: In view of the latest Home Office estimates suggesting that it will cost £475 million to issue identity cards in Britain, with ongoing costs of £50 million to £100 million each year, is the Prime Minister now prepared to abandon his scheme and put some of that money into my constituency, which is sixteenth in the whole of Great Britain in terms of unemployment? Would not the money be better spent on the regeneration of the city of Nottingham?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment has fallen 27 per cent. in his constituency.
    Mr. Heppell: No.
    The Prime Minister: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It has fallen in his constituency, but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who may not mention unemployment, it has dropped 27 per cent. On the question raised by the hon. Gentleman, I made it clear the other day that we are examining the question of identity cards, and I think that if the hon. Gentleman were to go to his constituency and ask his constituents, he would find a very high level of support for the principle of identity cards provided that we are able to overcome the practical difficulties in introducing them.
    Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to look at this week's figures which show a dramatic reduction in the number of home repossessions and which come on top of figures showing that the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fallen by two thirds in the past two years, and that the number of people
    840
    sleeping rough on the streets of London is also down by two thirds? Does not that show that the Government's policies to tackle homelessness are clearly working?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the figures are certainly very encouraging. There is no doubt that the number of repossessions has been falling for some time, and fortunately shows signs of continuing to fall. Moreover, the housing market seems to be picking up, and new construction orders are on the increase.
    This is all part of the much brighter economic picture that is becoming clearer as day succeeds day.
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has the right answer this time.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to its chief executive, the Child Support Agency is now collecting less than the DSS did last year? Is he further aware that, on top of the fact that the CSA is chasing millions of the wrong people and causing misery to many more, and the fact that it has cost £146 million to set up, it is time for a review of the agency so that it can start to chase the right people who are paying nothing at all?
    The Prime Minister: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he might care to check his figures before asking any future questions. The agency, is bringing in a significant new system from scratch. That system has broad support right across the House and beyond it. It is in its first year—the first of a series of years in which the strategy will be examined. I do not think that it can be compared simplistically with past figures. We are seeking to bring in a new system that is right in principle. I have made it clear before, and I reiterate now, that, if there are any wrinkles, we will keep them under examination and correct them.
    Mr. King: Is my right hon. Friend aware—further to his answer to a question about whether we could fight the Gulf war now on our present defence programme—that if we followed the policy of the Labour party, which proposes a £6 billion cut in our defences, it would be impossible to provide our forces with the equipment that they need? With the new order for Challenger tanks, with the Warrior, and with the European fighter aircraft, the answer to the question about the Gulf war is surely a definite yes: we would be well equipped for any such future campaign.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks with the authority of a former Secretary of State for Defence, and I entirely agree with what he had to say. A great many extra resources have been put into providing the best, most modern equipment for our armed forces.
    Mr. Tony Banks: No, they have not.
    The Prime Minister: A great deal of expenditure has been put into providing the best equipment for the armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman does not think so, perhaps he will go and ask Vickers and some other companies what they think they are producing.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eastham: In 1988, the Government decided that they would allow pensioners claiming rebates to have £3,000 in savings. Since then, the figure has never been index-linked, and in relative values it would now be worth £3,960. When will the Government review it?
    The Prime Minister: The figure is reviewed from time to time. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it has not been changed since 1981. It is reviewed on each occasion on which we look at the uprating of pensions and other social security benefits.
    Mr. Sykes: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the grim tragedy that overwhelmed my constituency in the early hours of this morning, when a 33–year-old mother and her baby were killed in a fire at a DSS hostel in Scarborough. In March, the Government announced that they would consider a licensing scheme for such hostels. In view of this distressing incident, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to proceed with that scheme as a matter of urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I was very concerned to hear about the tragic loss of life and the appalling injuries in the fire. We are, as my hon. Friend intimates, investigating the feasibility of introducing a licensing system to control such establishments. There are of course wide-ranging powers for local authorities to enforce fire safety standards in such hostels, and a full inquiry by the fire brigade into the cause of the blaze has already begun. I will of course look carefully at my hon. Friend's request.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Prentice: Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are failing to collect the £240 million a year in national insurance contributions due from employers, as outlined in today's Financial Times? Is not this another example of the waste and inefficiency of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman leads? Why does not he do something to ensure that that money is collected, instead of slapping massive tax increases on ordinary families?
    The Prime Minister: The Inland Revenue certainly tries to collect all the tax that is available. That has always been the case. If tax is due, everything is done to ensure that it is paid. I hope that the hon. Lady will address her strictures also to the large number of Labour authorities that do not collect rents or council taxes and have run up quite shocking debts—not on one or two isolated occasions, but on a very large number of occasions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Like Westminster.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman who has shouted "Like Westminster" wants to know which local authorities have rent arrears, I shall tell him: Hackney, run by Labour; Southwark, run by Labour. One could extend the list. Seven out of the top 10 authorities on it are run by Labour. They do not collect rents or council taxes and are just plain inefficient.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 MAY—Motion on the Draft Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs.
Motion on the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order.
Motion on the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order.
Motion on the Merchant Shipping (Ro-ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations.
Motion on the immigration (European Economic Area) Order.
Motion to take note of EC Documents Nos. 10166/93 and 11317/93 relating to aid for restructuring the Italian steel industry. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion to take note of EC Document No. 6703/88 relating to equal pay and equal treatment (burden of proof). Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 10 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 MAY—Opposition Day (12th allotted day) (first part). Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Europe and the Environment" on an Opposition motion.
Debate on the Procedure Committee report on "Parliamentary Scrutiny of Deregulation Orders" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 12 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
FRIDAY 13 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16 MAY—There will be debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 10 May to consider the presidency report on the results of negotiations on the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union and the draft accession treaty.
[Relevant documents:
Monday 9 May:
European Community documents: 10166/93 and 11317/ 93 State aid to the steel industry; Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 48-iv (1993–94). European Community document: 6703/82 Burden of Proof (Equal opportunities); European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 43-xxxiv (1987–88), HC 15-iv (1988–89), HC 15-xxv (1988–89), HC 79-i (1992–93) and HC 48-v (1993–94).
Tuesday 10 May:
European Standing Committee B—European Community documents: (a) Presidency report and addendum on results of negotiations on the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union; (b) Draft accession treaty. European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 48-xiv (1993–94) and HC 48-xv (1993–94).]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to arrange an early statement on the impact on gas prices of the changes that are currently being considered? The Prime Minister has just told us that we are scaremongering when we raise the issue of the impact of these changes on low-income families—indeed, on all families—but, as disgraceful scaremongering is what he said we were engaging in when we said that VAT might be extended if the Conservative party were to win the last general election, this does not exactly strike confidence in our hearts. Thus, we should like to have an early statement on the issue.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Leader of the House to try to persuade the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the increase of 50 per cent. in the number of complaints about the health service. I realise that this will be difficult, as the right hon. Lady does not care to come to the House. It will be within the recollection of all hon. Members that the increase to which I refer is completely contrary to the statements that the right hon. Lady repeatedly makes about growing confidence in the health service. It would be helpful if she could be brought to the House to explain the discrepancy between her statements and the facts.
Finally, I noticed the Lord President's reference to consideration of the enlargement of the European Community. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the Government's decision that that debate should be held in Standing Committee B? As I know he will recall, in March the Select Committee on European Legislation said that it had no hesitation in recommending that that debate be taken on the Floor of the House because the issues that it raised were so important. I know that it is a matter of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Mr. Newton: I entirely reject the right hon. Lady's observation and notion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is unwilling to come to the House when it is appropriate. Of course I shall draw the right hon. Lady's request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
The right hon. Lady spoke about gas prices and acknowledged that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had just commented on that matter. I remind her that the word "scaremongering" was introduced by way of a quotation by the director of the Gas Consumers Council. The right hon. Lady might like to bear that in mind.
The right hon. Lady spoke about my announcement of a debate in European Standing Committee B on accession matters. Perhaps I may straightforwardly explain the problem. As is readily ascertainable from today's newspapers, the European Parliament only yesterday gave its assent to the treaty, and a formal decision may be expected at the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 and 17 May.
The only practicable way that we could see to undertake debate in the relatively short time available was in European Standing Committee B. The House will also bear in mind that I have announced for Monday week a wide-ranging debate on European matters as a whole, in which accession matters could be referred to.
Mr. David Howell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Chancellor Kohl of Germany has invited the European Parliament to participate in the discussions on the reshaping of Europe up to the treaty

845
re-examination of 1996? Has my right hon. Friend given some thought, or would he like to before the debate on the European Union, to ways in which national Parliaments, and particularly this national Parliament, can also participate in that process, as suggested in the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Newton: I had indeed noticed those reports, and I shall give thought to the matter that my right hon. Friend raises. I merely observe wryly that my experience over the past couple of years is that hon. Members find many ways to express their views on these matters.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that, now that the normal working relationship has been re-established between the Government and the official Opposition following the recent period of attrition between the two Front Benches, this would be a good moment to try to establish common ground on both sides to get reform of procedures of the House? Would he convene a meeting of the interested parties to see what common ground there is in advance of a debate on the Standing Orders that would be necessary to reform our procedures?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the way that things were moving before the usual channels were broken. Of course, I hope to resume progress in the way that was then indicated. I know that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will not mind if I advert to the fact that I have already had informal words with her about, if you like, resuming talks about talks. I shall undertake to have such talks with the hon. Gentleman as well.
Mr.Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will have heard the exchanges earlier about the possible unfortunate publication of photographs of the Princess of Wales. Requests were made for legislation on privacy. I would not support a privacy Bill, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the measures on bugging and the intrusion of telephoto lenses and one or two others that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has suggested require the urgent consideration of the House?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister undertake to reflect on points that were made, I think twice, during Prime Minister's questions. I am sure that the Prime Minister will also wish to reflect on my hon. Friend's slightly different remarks.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that it has been shown that the London borough of Newham and its people have been defrauded of £20 million of expenditure under the Government's formula for local government grant? Is he also aware that, nationally and in Newham, it is believed that the formula is fixed to favour Conservative councils? If he cannot refute that now, will he please say when we may have a debate in which it can be demonstrated?
Mr. Newton: I will observe only that I can think of quite a number of areas, where the council is under different control, where they equally believe that the rules are rigged to help some other kind of authority. It is a field
846
in which the difficulties are well known. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Anthony Steen: As the House knows, I have been drawing to the attention of the House the amount of money that is wasted in this place. Will my right hon. Friend call an urgent meeting to find out why so many of the filing cabinets in the Palace of Westminster—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-serving parliamentarian, and he knows that the Leader of the House should not be asked questions about House matters during business questions. Those questions should be put to the Leader of the House during his own Question Time. This is about the business for next week, not House matters or filing cabinets. [An HON. MEMBER: "He wants to ask about business for next week."] I know what the hon. Gentleman wants, but if he is not capable of phrasing his question properly, I am not out to help him to do so.
Mr. Steen: I found that advice very helpful.
Could I ask the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate early next week on why the filing cabinets in the Palace of Westminster are to be scrapped—they do not contain an anti-tilting mechanism as recommended by EEC directives? Will he consider why we must replace all the desks in the Palace of Westminster—they are not high enough—and why every power point in the Palace of Westminster must be numbered, because of the electricity at work regulations, which are not compulsory, merely advisory? Surely we should put our own house in order here, and not allow officials to run this place, spending public money.
Mr. Newton: I cannot, despite my hon. Friend's blandishments, promise a debate, but I can promise to bring his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Committee and, indeed, the House authorities. I will endeavour to ensure that I am able to respond to him in some other way.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House will have read this week the report prepared by the Carers National Association, "Community Care: A Fairy Tale". I am sure, therefore, that he will be prepared to ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to discuss why nearly one third of the people in need of assessments have not received them, and why many of them do not even know that community care exists. That is a horrifying situation. Will he please see that we debate it next week?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, because of my previous ministerial record, I know the people concerned with the Carers National Association very well, and, indeed, respect them, but, on this front, I simply do not agree with them. The foundations have been laid and are beginning to produce a significant improvement in care. I am bound to say that some of the voluntary organisations in my constituency have acknowledged that very clearly in meetings with me.
Mr. Barry Field: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1158, which refers to myself?
[That this House deplores the remarks alleged to have been made by the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight

847
during a discussion on the revitalisation of Coventry's city centre by members of the Select Committee of the Environment and reported in The Sunday Mercury and The Coventry Evening Telegraph; notes that the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight is reported to have interjected and said 'Bomb it again'; and therefore, demands that the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight withdraw his tasteless remarks and apologise to the people of Coventry who suffered greatly from Luftwaffe bombing raids during the War and whose courage was a symbol of hope, peace and reconciliation for the world.]
Can we have a debate on that as soon as possible, as the transcript of evidence of the Environment Select Committee does not contain the alleged remarks referred to in that early-day motion and, because of the rules of the House, the evidence cannot be made available to the press probably until the autumn when the report is published, and neither the media nor the public understand those rules, or how it is possible for an early-day motion to be laid before the House about proceedings which are not yet publicly available, and which even my right hon. Friend is not able to see?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case, of course, that, not being a member of the Select Committee, I would not have been able to see the document to which my hon. Friend referred, but I am very ready to accept his assurances about what he did or did not say. As it happens, I have in front of me a line to take—in the helpful way in which such things are provided—which says:
"It is hardly for me to comment on reports of remarks in local newspapers. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight is quite capable of looking after himself."
I think that he has confirmed that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in the very near future about the role of the United Nations and the changing patterns, where it expects regional organisations to do some of the policing in their regions? It would allow us to clarify issues and, at the same time, encourage nations in the United Nations that vote and thereafter do not participate. In particular, may I draw attention to the situation in Rwanda, where the Organisation of African Unity could do more to protect the Rwandan people?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful and thought-provoking remarks. Although they do not enable me to promise a debate, I am sure that they will be studied with interest by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The European Commission issued yesterday and today the most harsh quotas under Chinese trade restrictions—approved by the EC, but voted against by the Government. The PMS company of Southend has been told to reduce its business from £14 million to £3.5 million, although it employs 200 people, is a good employer and is expanding. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, next Thursday, the House can have some discussion of those lunatic trade restrictions introduced by the EC, which simply destroy jobs and do no good to anyone?
Mr. Newton: In view of my hon. Friend's strong constituency interests, I well understand why he raised that
848
matter. I am mildly puzzled by his reference to next Thursday, but he could be provided with opportunities to raise the issue during Department of Trade and Industry questions on Wednesday 11 May, or in the European Union debate that I announced for Monday 16 May.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made by the appropriate Minister about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which will be before the House again tomorrow, when only limited time will be available? Last Friday, the House voted unanimously for the Government to progress that Bill, which would help about 10 million disabled people to enjoy equal rights.
In view of today's scandalous report that the House will rise on 15 July, will the Leader of the House give a reassurance that at least one day, but certainly enough time necessary, will be available to allow the Bill to pass? If the House can tool up in the middle of July for three months, surely to God there should be enough time to get through that Bill for disabled people?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. I would not wish to excite his hopes or those of others over speculation concerning 15 July. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has made absolutely clear throughout the Government's wish to make constructive progress in a practical way in improving opportunities for disabled people. He will seek to advance that general cause with his comments tomorrow.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House on the costs of rail privatisation, and explain how £446 million has been spent so far on that totally unnecessary and unwanted measure? The Secretary of State could also acknowledge that, for a fraction of that cost, the line could have been electrified beyond Shrewsbury, Wellington station could have been refurbished, and the freight line to Donington and our InterCity links could have been reinstated. That would seem far better value for money.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's figure of £446 million bears no relation to any that I recognise. Leaving that aside, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be in the House to answer questions next Monday.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the House debated the Army yesterday. Some three dozen of my right hon. and hon. Friends attended, and many of us were disappointed that we were unable to contribute. Notwithstanding the remarks earlier of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), there was almost no one on the Opposition Benches, and Labour's Front-Bench spokesman had to speak for 69 minutes to conceal his colleagues' absence.
Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a further debate on the armed forces, so that those of us who are concerned about the defence of this country may be able to speak on the subject—and so that Labour Members, who have no interest in the defence of the realm, can be exposed yet again?
Mr. Newton: Not having been present myself to a great extent yesterday, I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments. I did not find them particularly surprising. Even

849
so, I cannot promise a further debate in the near future —but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be answering questions next Tuesday.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I seek the assistance of the Leader of the House in respect of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which will be debated next week. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that new clauses 22, 23 and 24 would remove from local authorities the right to control markets within a radius of six and two thirds miles. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept the growing consensus that some change has to be made, and that any change that is approved should include the whole area of a local authority.
The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there will be a problem if the local authority area has a radius of more than six and two thirds miles. It could be argued that that will increase regulation rather than deregulation. Will he turn his mind to the question and tell those hon. Members, including myself, who wish to table amendments on local authority areas how to overcome that apparently insurmountable obstacle?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of some of the points that have been made about the new clauses, and of the difficulties that have arisen. I would be unwise to seek to advise the hon. Gentleman immediately from the Dispatch Box, but I shall reflect on the argument that he has advanced.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the recently released crime figures for last year, in which I and other hon. Members could draw attention to the outstanding performance of Cleveland constabulary, where recorded crime fell last year by 7 per cent., seven times the national average? We could also draw attention to the fact that it has achieved that excellent performance despite being underfunded to the tune of £1.8 million by Labour-controlled Cleveland county council.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some good and interesting points. I am glad that he has had the opportunity to put them on the record without my being able to provide a full debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the Government on their speedy response to requests made in the Chamber for emergency aid to save the giant tortoises in the Galapagos islands. The money that the Government made available was put to good and efficient use. May I push the Leader of the House a bit further today? Could we have a debate in Government time on the threat to endangered species such as tigers and black rhinos, the population of which is reaching such a level that they may be driven into extinction?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate on the second issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. It strikes me that such remarks could be in order, subject to your view, Madam Speaker, in the Opposition debate on Europe and the environment on Wednesday 11 May. I thank him for the generous way in which he acknowledged the action that has been taken.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I feel an irresistible urge to congratulate him on holding a debate on the European Union on Monday week, which is very timely? Will he confirm that this Parliament, contrary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) implied, may be the first of all the national Parliaments of the 12 member states in the European Community to discuss the matter before the intergovernmental conference in 1996?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend advances a good argument. I am glad that he did not resist the temptation to be nice to me, and I hope that his example will be followed by other hon. Members.

The Arts
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
3.52 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): It is some time since the House has had the opportunity to debate the arts, and I welcome the opportunity to open the debate.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) was courteous enough to warn me that she would be unable to attend the debate because she is in Washington. I am sorry that she is not here, as I was impatient to hear more of the Kulturmeisterplan which I understand she has been cooking up, but of which only tantalising appetisers have thus far been served. At the risk of offending the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I should say that in France the shadow Cabinet is called the Cabinet fantöme. A new phantom of the opera is even now in gestation.
Every cloud, however, has a silver lining, and today it takes the form of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who can take comfort from Winston Churchill's judgment on the Margrave of Baden, the ally of the 1st Duke of Marlborough and the Prince Eugen:
"His military epitaph for all time must be that the two greatest captains of his age, pre-eminent and renowned in all the annals of war, rated, by actions more expressive than words, his absence from a decisive battlefield well worth fifteen thousand men."
I understand that, while the hon. Member for Redcar may have been responsible for giving birth to the putative Ministry of Culture, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is claiming paternity. Doubtless the more acute among my hon. Friends will be able to spot with a subtle eye which of the genetic traits of their new offspring he apportions to Redcar and which he claims for himself. I wonder whether we will spot a little blush as the arm's length is atrophied.
Many hon. Members are deeply knowledgeable in the arts, and almost all will have their own artistic interests. This afternoon, I want to give the House some indication of how we perceive the state of the arts in Britain today, to demonstrate the Government's wholehearted commitment to the arts, and to touch on the exciting possibilities ahead.
No one can doubt the vital part that the arts play in all our lives.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Oh, yes we can.
Mr. Brooke: I was gratified to learn that my hon. Friend would be in the Chamber for the debate.
They have the ability to educate, stimulate, calm, excite, amuse, and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), annoy—sometimes at the same time. More and more people are using their leisure time to participate in the arts, either as viewers or as practitioners. Since 1986, there has been a 19 per cent. increase in the number of people attending opera, and a 5 per cent. increase in those attending the ballet.
Despite all the other pressures on the spending power of the individual, the numbers of people attending plays, classical music concerts and art galleries have held up well in the recession. Thirty-six per cent. of adults in Great Britain attend events in one or more of the major art forms, and half of those go more than once a year.
852
Britain is, of course, greatly privileged to have an enormous wealth of talent, and a magnificent tradition in the arts. Our literary heritage is unrivalled. Our performers in music, drama and dance are feted throughout the world. Our artists are represented in major collections everywhere. The quality and diversity of our artistic provision are exceptional. I could fill the time available to me this afternoon easily by simply reciting from the press what is on offer this week in any of our major cities.
London is especially privileged in being the home of several of our national companies. Tonight, for example, hon. Members could choose between a new production of "Cosi Fan Tutte" at the Coliseum, "Carmen" at the Royal Opera house, Cocteau at the national theatre or Berio on the south bank; they could spend "A Month in the Country" at the Albery or take in "An Absolute Turkey" at the Globe—soon, I am pleased to say, to be renamed the Gielgud.
This is only to scratch the surface of the performing arts provision in London. While time permits, hon. Members could see world-class exhibitions of the work of Dali, Goya, Picasso, and any number of smaller shows of contemporary artists from this country and all over the world. If one's taste is for the applied arts, the new glass gallery at the Victoria and Albert museum or the vibrant "Colour into Cloth" exhibition at the Crafts Council provide an impressive depth of coverage.
Outside London, the scene is no less rich and varied. The past 10 years have seen a remarkable trend in major capital developments in the arts: we have seen new theatres such as the West Yorkshire playhouse, and concert halls such as St David's hall in Cardiff, the symphony hall in Birmingham, and Glasgow royal concert hall. There is now a Tate of the North and a Tate St. Ives. The refurbishment of the gas hall in Birmingham has provided us with the imaginative juxtaposition of sublime paintings by Canaletto and the far from ridiculous decoration of motor cycles. I am confident that the prospect of funds from the national lottery, a subject to which I shall return, will inspire many more equally imaginative projects.
Our major cities have always played a significant part in the cultural life of the country, and it is gratifying that the newer centres of population that have grown up more recently have also recognised the need to provide for the cultural life of their citizens. The most recent example—I am pleased to be able to mention it today—is the Anvil arts centre at Basingstoke, which opened last week with, among other things, the world premiere of a new work by John Tavener.
Many developing centres have chosen to promote themselves and their people in the traditional way by holding a festival. It is astonishing that this year there will be more than 500 official arts festivals in Britain—half of which have been going only since 1980—and that they will be enjoyed by around 4 million people.
My Department is committed to encouraging the widest possible access to all its fields of responsibilities. In the arts, one of the greatest contributions to that goal is the work done by the Arts Council and the regional arts boards to promote touring. It is a tremendous privilege to be able to see our great companies performing around the country, and those performances have introduced many people to the delights of drama, opera or dance. Exhibitions of contemporary fine and applied art also reach a much wider public through the efforts of the arts and crafts councils.

853
The growth of community arts, whether in cities or rural communities, is one of the most encouraging recent developments in the arts. At a recent conference organised by my Department in the west midlands, I heard of projects to stage contemporary works in properties run by English Heritage. Not only does that give an excellent example of co-operation between bodies operating in different areas of interest to my Department: it also shows how local people can be made more aware of their own heritage through art and performance.
It also demonstrates the way in which education can be provided through art. The links between education and art are long-established and strong, but they are not rigid. Each generation can discover for itself the power of art and the fascination of creativity.
The development of education units in our great companies has been a great success story in recent years. Symphony orchestras, opera houses and theatres all run education programmes designed to introduce young people to music and drama. Young people can be suspicious of art forms whose relevance to their lives they cannot immediately see, but the benefits that they and the musicians and actors who participate in the schemes gain are tremendous.
In music, the national curriculum now provides that pupils should perform and listen to music of the European "classical" tradition from its earliest roots to the present day. Popular and rock music, indigenous music of the countries of these islands, and music from a variety of western and non-western cultures can all expect to receive attention in schools. A wide-ranging course of study has been laid down, which will encourage the appreciation and enjoyment of music in all forms and lay the foundations for future generations to gain even more pleasure from listening and playing.
In the community-based arts, we have also seen an enormous increase in the provision of events that reflect the exciting diversity of our culture today. The variety and richness of what is on offer throughout the country, from African, Bangladeshi, Chinese and many other cultures, is staggering, and I am pleased to see that the representation of ethnic arts in mainstream houses is increasing all the time, to the great benefit of us all.
I should here pay tribute to the regional arts boards for their success in developing the arts in local communities. The health of the arts depends on bringing some often disparate parties together to form productive and lasting partnerships. The regional arts boards combine local knowledge with a regional perspective and have developed an unrivalled expertise in creating those partnerships.
What has that flowering of artistic and creative activity to do with the Government? The people of this country show a clear and enthusiastic interest in the arts, and it is the Government's job, through my Department, to cater for that interest by helping to create the culture of today, to add to the heritage for future generations and to broaden opportunities for people to enjoy the benefits of their heritage and culture. That is the case for all my responsibilities.
For the arts, the Government make their rnain contribution by funding the Arts Council. I shall say more in a moment about how they do so, and the relationship between the council and Government.
T. S. Eliot said:
"April is the cruellest month".
He may have had cricket in mind. For the arts world, this
854
April has been less cruel than momentous. From the first of the month, the Arts Council of Great Britain ceased to operate, and was succeeded by the Arts Councils of England, Scotland and Wales. Each of those bodies is now autonomous, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales now have responsibility for the arts in their countries.
A new council meant a new royal charter and a new chairman. The noble Lord Palumbo has given distinguished service to the council and to the entire arts world as chairman since 1989. The noble Lord Gowrie, as the first chairman of the new body, has already started to make his mark. His ringing cheers for Harrison Birtwhistle's "Gawain" show his willingness to share his wholehearted enthusiasm for the arts.
Mr. Tony Banks: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman's very interesting speech. Does he not think that, as Lord Gowrie was a former Conservative Arts Minister, his employment as the new chairman of the Arts Council does away with the arm's-length principle? How can we feel confident that a Tory ex-Minister will take on a Conservative Government on behalf of the arts in the way that we would expect the chairman of the Arts Council to do?
Mr. Brooke: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that Lord Gowrie has been considerably ruder about the Government since he took office than his predecessor was. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should raise that sceptical note, because the appointment of Lord Gowrie as chairman has been widely welcomed, not only throughout the arts constituency but within the Arts Council itself.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On the appointment of Lord Gowrie and the fact that April is a cruel month, a moment ago I opened a letter from Lord Gowrie, which I had just had passed to me, in which he writes:
"We may be able to cope just with static funding in real terms; a cut sends many of the arts organisations the Council funds to the emergency ward. Over the next four years, we have been told to expect a 13 per cent. real terms reduction in the grants to the arts."
The House need have no worry that Lord Gowrie will be a creature of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for quotations from Lord Gowrie, who has made reasonably clear the strenuousness with which he will fight on that issue. I remark, absolutely in passing, that the last time there was a real-terms cut in the arts funding budget when the Opposition were in power was an occasion when the Labour Government of the day were supported by the Lib-Lab pact.
April also saw the appointment of a new secretary general for the council. The incumbent of that post, together with the chairman, is, for the majority of people, the public face of the council. It is a demanding job, and one which I am sure appears thankless from time to time. Ministers understand that position only too well. But the health of the Arts Council is intimately connected with the health of the arts, and hon Members will wish to join me in wishing Mary Allen and Lord Gowrie godspeed as their new ship puts out into what have of late been stormy waters.
April saw other changes, notably the delegation, which I announced 16 months ago, of a further 42 arts organisations to the regional arts boards. That reflects the Government's belief that decisions are often best taken

855
close to those who will be affected by them. The transfer of responsibilities for the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils is further evidence of that belief.
I hope that I have demonstrated by what I have said so far that the arts in this country are flourishing, and that they are served by a dynamic funding system. Let me now say a little more about that funding system, the players in it and the Government's role.
Since the Wilding report in 1989, the arts funding system has gone through a significant period of change, and is now in the process of ensuring that it is in good shape to meet the undoubted challenges to come. In particular, the Arts Council itself has undergone a series of reviews, the end of which was signalled by my statement to the House in November. The outcome of those reviews is that there is common ground between the council, Ministers and the wider world on a number of points.
I would like to talk about the arm's-length principle. This is the principle which has governed the relationship between Ministers and the council since it was founded, and which keeps the funding of individual arts organisations out of the political arena. It follows, therefore, that it is not for the Government to seek to intervene in matters of artistic judgment, although there can be occasions when it is right for Ministers to convey to the Arts Council public and political opinion which has been expressed to them.
"Arm's length" is a slogan that trips easily off the tongue, but a concept which many people, I fear, seem to have difficulty in accepting. I can assure the House that we understand it on the Government Benches, and adhere to it. I think that most people would agree that the principle has served the country well for very nearly 50 years.
It is therefore with some surprise that I read recent statements attributed to the hon. Member for Redcar which suggest that the Labour party may not have the same level of commitment to the arm's-length principle; indeed, that it would effectively end it.
The hon. Member for Redcar brushes off this momentous change with the words:
"The Government is elected to make policy."
Up to a point, Lord Copper. I think it would be a tragic day for the arts in Britain were a Government to develop, as the Labour party seems to threaten, a policy for each art form. No wonder there has been such exponential growth in the number of departmental shadows. It took four Jack Lang wannabes to think up that nonsensical Ministry of Culture, a recipe for bureaucratic strangulation and political interference.
The productivity of Conservative Members is rather more impressive. I can safely say that either I or my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) could have jettisoned such lunacy all on our own. To be fair, the shadow spokesmen are arrogating to themselves other responsibilities, such as measuring the dimensions of council house passageways. What the single genius of Sir Parker Morris accomplished before will no doubt be less productively achieved by the less formidable partnership of Fisher-Corbett. We also admire their sartorial self-confidence of seeking to take responsibility for fashion design as well.
Thank goodness the shadows will remain insubstantial. I have perhaps thought of a better purpose for them. When Marsham street, a building of suitably eastern European
856
design, is finally emptied, the shadow National Heritage spokesmen—who by then will presumably number dozens —can be let loose inside to caretake. They will pass their days out of harm's way, dreaming of a Ministry of Culture, measuring corridors and calibrating views.
To return to reality, as I have said, we all want the widest possible access to the arts.
Mr. Tim Renton: I have been following what my right hon. Friend has said with great interest. If I have any fortune in catching your eye, Madam Speaker, I might refer to it later. I am a little surprised by my right hon. Friend's references to the French Ministry of Culture under Jack Lang. I was fortunate enough, when I was Minister for the Arts, to meet Jack Lang several times, and I have to say that, as his Ministry is strictly hands-on—it gets its budget directly from the French Tresor, and no one is allowed to interfere with that—Jack Lang certainly was an interventionist, but he was a successful interventionist in many ways, and he was extremely successful in getting the grands oeuvres of President Mitterrand built quickly. The Richelieu wing of the Louvre and the new music conservatory at La Villette, to mention only two, are the result of very direct interventionism by a French Minister of Culture.
Mr. Tony Banks: Hell hath no fury like an Arts Minister scorned.
Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that he seemed to deliver most of his speech in the course of that intervention.
Mr. Banks: It is getting vicious.
Mr. Brooke: In response to my right hon. Friend, of course I acknowledge the particular French genius and am happy to listen on the occasions when we are told that those matters are ordered better in France.
The fact remains that, as it comes out of a different culture, it comes out of a different national temperament, and the manner in which those matters are managed reflects the temperament and history of the respective countries. I am also gratified—it is testimony to the partnership that exists between us, fostered by my right hon. Friend in his day—at the degree of inquiry from Paris about the manner in which we order certain things ourselves, not least in the museums world.
As I have said, we all want the widest possible access to the arts. That objective is shared by Government, the arts councils, the regional arts boards and arts organisations everywhere, but to be achieved it needs hard work.
My Department launched its access initiative last year in consultation with our sponsored bodies. At one level, the initiative will establish what each of our sponsored bodies means by widening access, how successful policies are at present, what might more realistically be achieved, and whether that suggests the adoption of new policies and priorities. At the operational level, the initiative aims to provide information, encourage networking between organisations and take up common causes. The Department will especially work to collect and disseminate statistical information and examples of good practice.
Another priority of mine, which is accepted by the Arts Council, is that the council must be ready to explain the basis for its decisions more clearly. The council has put forward many ideas for doing so: I was especially impressed by the willingness shown by representatives of

857
the council to expose themselves to a potentially hostile audience at the seminar organised by the National Campaign for the Arts. Opportunities such as that seminar and an openness on all sides can only lead to greater understanding.
I also feel that we need still further to streamline the system. Last November, I set the Arts Council a target of gross savings in its administration costs of 8 per cent. in a full year; money which can feed through into support for the arts. Those savings are being implemented, and the administrative costs of the council and the remainder of the system will continue to be closely watched.
Mr. Mark Fisher: The Secretary of State is encouraging people to do good housekeeping. How does he explain the administrative costs of his own Department, which have gone up by 150 per cent. since the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was Minister? It now costs £25 million in bureaucracy to administer Government policy.
Mr. Brooke: I am diffident about making this rejoinder to the hon. Gentleman, but the responsibilities of the Department of National Heritage exceed by a factor of 150 per cent. the responsibilities which we inherited from my right hon. Friend.
The scene is now set for a strong and effective Arts Council, working in a clear and well structured relationship with Government for the good of the arts in Britain. The continued vitality of our artistic life depends on fostering a range of sources of support: the audience; central and local government; the private sector; and individual patrons.
The Government are committed to supporting the arts in three broad ways: by continuing to invest in the arts, mainly through providing grant in aid to the Arts Council; by encouraging a greater sense of independence and self-reliance within the arts community itself; and by encouraging the ever closer involvement of the business community and individual patrons.
In terms of direct investment, the Government's commitment has been amply demonstrated over the years, with significant increases in real terms in the Arts Council's grant in aid. Between 1979 and 1993, the real-terms increase was some 45 per cent. Against that background, I cannot accept that this year's provision should have been greeted with such criticism. Government funding remains substantial, but subsidy for the arts is a call on the public purse and must be considered alongside all other such calls.
The economic climate is, and has been, very difficult, which has inevitably meant that some organisations have needed to cut their coats according to a smaller piece of cloth. Over a year ago, in the 1992 public spending round, against the background of those economic difficulties, the Government signalled a reduction in Arts Council funding for 1994–95. That is the basis on which the Arts Council had to plan throughout last year. Nevertheless, last November, despite the continuing need to keep a tight rein on public expenditure, I managed to find more money than was planned for the arts.
Against earlier plans, the Arts Council is to receive an extra £800,000 this year, resulting in grant in aid of £186 million, and an extra £1.6 million in 1995–96, which will be maintained in 1996–97. In allocating those funds for 1994–95, the Council has managed, in the vast majority of
858
cases, to protect funding for revenue clients. There will be some reduction in the amount of developmental work, but regional theatres and national companies, among others, will receive the same amounts as this year.
Since last November, extraordinary credence has been given to the suggestion that the Albert memorial is to benefit at the expense of the arts. Before hon. Members try to make something of that peculiar idea, let me put the record straight.
Queen Victoria's consort may not now be much in favour, and the style of his memorial may not be to everyone's taste, but it is a landmark in London, forming the northern focus of that celebration of arts and sciences now known as "Albertopolis". It needs restoration. I remark in passing that it is in my constituency, and I am proud of it.
The announcement last November that work on the memorial could start in 1994–95—an announcement which I should have thought would be welcomed by such as the Evening Standard, which had been campaigning for the restoration—gave birth to the odd belief that I had punished the arts in order to restore Albert. The Prince Consort, an accomplished musician and composer and the visionary force behind the Great Exhibition of 1851, would certainly not have put preservation before innovation.
English Heritage published its "Forward Strategy" in autumn 1992, and the organisational changes resulting from its implementation have enabled substantial sums to be deployed away from administrative costs. One of the benefits of those changes is that English Heritage has been able to make up to £1 million available in 1994–95 to allow the restoration of the memorial to start.
Some commentators have also suggested that the new British library is being built at the expense of the arts. It is extraordinary to suggest, as at least one has done, that nobody wants the new building. We have in this country one of the greatest libraries in the world: a vast store of human knowledge which encompasses all other aspects of our heritage. As a Sunday newspaper used proudly to boast, all human life is there. Such a treasure deserves to be housed appropriately.
But, having said that, the development is still proceeding within the total funding allowed. For 1994–95, I was able to bring forward some agreed expenditure, but again this was not new money.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people think that it is a scandal that the Albert memorial has been left sheathed as it has been for so long? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the land adjacent to the British library will not be sold so that the library never has a chance to expand?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remark about the Albert memorial. It is for the British library to state what purpose it might intend for the land which is surplus to its requirements.
Local authorities are also key patrons of the arts—providing direct funding for arts organisations and for individuals, supporting arts buildings and incorporating public art into regeneration schemes. A substantial survey recently undertaken by the Arts Council has shown that local authorities are broadly maintaining their level of support for the arts, which is roughly equivalent to that provided by central Government.

859
I pay tribute to the enormous amount of valuable support that local authorities give to the arts. They are major funders of some of the most famous of our regional theatres, providing large-scale arts and entertainment programmes for very large audiences. Just as important is the smaller scale, where a local service is necessary to support local arts; that often means the amateur sector, a large and important sector which we all know well within our constituencies.
The list of local authorities that make imaginative and substantial contributions is a long one, and I mean no disservice to any other on that list if I mention only Nottingham, Cambridge, Derby, Southampton and—dare I say it, at the risk of influencing today's poll—the cities of London and Westminster.
When I have attended my Department's regional conferences over the past few months, I have been made aware of concerns that those involved in the arts and recreation have about the proposed changes in the structure of local government. It is important to ensure that there are effective arrangements in place for the delivery of recreational and cultural services, and I hope that reorganisation will be seen as an opportunity to create new structures within local government to improve provision in those sectors.
The past 20 years or so have seen a quite remarkable increase in business sponsorship of the arts. In 1976, business sponsorship stood at a modest half a million pounds. By 1992–93, business support amounted to some £58 million. Much credit for that steady and significant growth goes to the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which has developed a pivotal position in business investment in the arts.
The Government's own initiative—the business sponsorship incentive scheme—has also played its part. Established in 1984, the scheme has so far attracted nearly £70 million in new money for the arts, £46.5 million from business sponsors and £22.7 million from Government awards.
The underlying trend remains very healthy. In recognition of the success of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, the Government are giving an additional £300,000 for the scheme in each of the next three years. This year so far, we have seen the announcement of the splendid new partnership between Allied Lyons and the Royal Shakespeare company of £3.3 million over the next three years, and British Telecom's new three-year commitment, worth more than half a million pounds, to British orchestras. Only last week, I attended the launch of KPMG's interesting new "Go Opera" scheme.
For the future—and it is getting close now—there is the exciting prospect of the national lottery. By early next year, that should be providing significant sums on a continuing basis for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and millennium projects. Money for new buildings, for badly needed refurbishment of existing ones and for new equipment, could all come from lottery proceeds. The Arts Council will be distributing those funds for the arts, including film and crafts.
Subject to the directions that I will be issuing, it will be able to decide on priorities in its own area against which to assess applications. The lottery will be able to fund projects that are important to the nation's quality of life,
860
but do not have first call on public expenditure. That extra money will make a huge impact in improving provision of and access to the arts in this country.
I hope that the House will join me in celebrating the arts in this country. The arts serve as a measure of the level of our civilisation, and I believe that we are fortunate to be living in a period when such vitality and diversity add immeasurably to the life of the nation.
Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a tradition of the House that an Opposition Member follows a speaker from the Government Front Bench. That is normal, because those opposite usually oppose what has been said. In this instance, there is no real opposition in principle from the other side—there is just argument about detail. As I am the only legitimate opposition speaker present, I wonder whether I should be called next.
Madam Speaker: That is a very good try by the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly look his way in due course.
4.24 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is patient, he will hear plenty of opposition to a thoroughly inadequate presentation by the Secretary of State over the past half hour. As the Secretary of State pointed out, there has been no debate about the arts since July 1990—almost four years ago.
The Government have shown a remarkable lack of enthusiasm to account for their policies on the arts. In that time, there has been a new Department of state and two Secretaries of State. The present Secretary of State has been in his post for 20 months and this is the first time that he has come to the House to account for his policies. His lack of enthusiasm—the hon. Gentleman will understand that—is hardly surprising, given the Government's poor record in the arts.
The Government's record is terrible; they have been wasteful, incompetent and feeble. If the best that they can do is the sort of speech that the Secretary of State just made, that illustrates my point. His speech was benign and patrician; it failed to address any of the problems that his Government have created in the cultural life of this country. The Secretary of State ought to be ashamed of himself.
He painted a very upbeat picture. He took us on a Brooke's tour of the arts. He simply quoted what was on offer, mainly in London but around the country to some extent. He is correct: there are some remarkable companies and artists and amazing museums. But, on the whole, they are existing and innovating in spite of, rather than because of, the Government's policies which have been so deficient in many respects.
The Government have put all of the companies that the Minister mentioned today in impossible positions—almost all have had to cut their programmes, cut their staff numbers and cut back on commissioning new work. The Secretary of State had a remarkable nerve to take credit for their activities in that smug and complacent way. They are surviving through their ingenuity and determination in spite of, rather than because of, the Government.
The Secretary of State also took credit for what local authorities are doing. He mentioned some cities. It is they, rather than his Government, which have supported the arts

861
for the past 15 years, but they have done so in the teeth of the Government's incredible dogmatic hostility to any expenditure by local authorities.
What local authorities all over the country—of both political persuasions, but mainly those under Labour control—have invested in the cultural life of their cities is remarkable. Every time that they have increased expenditure, they have done so without the support of central Government. Indeed, they have increased expenditure with central Government sneering and carping and saying that any investment by local authorities Is, per se, bad.
There is dogmatic and idiotic hostility to local government expenditure, whatever it is. Whether it is competent, imaginative, profitable or whether it helps the long-term cultural or economic life of a city, the Government are opposed to it. They have put every obstacle in the way of local authorities through targeting, rate capping, poll tax, council tax and all of the other penalties which have been imposed on local authorities.
Mr. Toby Jessel rose—
Mr. Fisher: I will not give way; I will finish the point that I am making to the Secretary of State. For him to take any credit for what local authorities have done in the teeth of 15 years sustained hostility from central Government is breathtaking. He should have the grace to acknowledge that. He has not supported local authorities; he has attacked them for 15 years.
Mr. Jessel: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear any of what was said? Before he went into his string of adjectives, did not he hear that there has been a 45 per cent. increase in real terms in the Arts Council budget since 1979? Did not he hear about the hundred fold increase in business sponsorship? Did not he hear what is to come in the national lottery?
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman always contributes to our debates and almost always gets his facts wrong. There has not been a 45 per cent. increase in Arts Council expenditure since 1979. Those figures have been conclusively rubbished and discredited. Arts sponsorship has gone up and I welcome that, but it increased from nothing to something and has fallen back over the past year. The hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework before he intervenes in our debates.
Let me return to the record of the Secretary of State and the Government. The idea that he should take any credit for what has happened in cities and country is breathtaking. The Government's hostility to what has been happening has caused much frustration and anger around the country. The Government cannot understand the cultural importance of what has happened. It is extraordinary for a Conservative Government, who pride themselves on having some understanding of the economy and what happens in business, not to understand that, despite them, those cities have built hugely profitable cultural industries employing more than 500,000 people, earning huge amounts of exports and attracting tourists to Britain. They are a key part of our economy.
For the sake of underfunding the seedcorn—the small sums of money to the Arts Council—and trying to constrain local authorities in their seedcorn investment, the
862
Government are diminishing the impact of our important cultural industries—publishing, the record industry, broadcasting, film and the design industries.
The Secretary of State sneered at the importance of design. He does not seem to understand that design is something that Britain does best and that the Government spend £73 billion of taxpayers' money on goods and services that need the input of a designer. Those are the Government's own figures given in answer to a parliamentary question. He sneered at designers. He does not understand the importance of design as an industry as well as to the quality of our cultural life. That lack of perspective running through his speech is the reason why his policies have been not only ineffective but wrong.
The Government have done one good thing in the past two years—they set up this Department of State. Throughout the 1980s, the Labour party, supported by the Liberal Democrats, argued that there should be a coherent Ministry covering the arts, the media and the cultural industries. Throughout those years, Tory Members and former Ministers sneered at the idea and ridiculed it in the same words as the Secretary of State ridiculed the idea of a Ministry of Culture and said that it would never work. I am delighted that the Government saw sense at the last election, nicked our policy and adopted it. I congratulate them on that, but it is the only good thing in the past two years.
Mr. Brooke: My strong recollection is that Norman Buchan declined holding office in the shadow Administration because the Labour party would not include broadcasting in the Department to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Mr. Fisher: If the Minister had taken the trouble to read our long cultural policy at the last general election, headed
"Arts and Media—our cultural future",
he would have seen that we were proposing precisely the Ministry that he was. We proposed it in debate after debate in the House. It included responsibility for broadcasting. It did not include sport and tourism. That was the only change that the Government made—an interesting change and not one that we oppose. Otherwise, it was what we were proposing—a coherent cultural Ministry. The Government had the sense to set it up and I congratulate them. It was long overdue and I am glad they did it. However, it has not had a policy. Because it was a piece of opportunism—it grew out of years of opposition to the idea —there was no policy to hold it together.
Many people around the country would agree with me that, while the Government have brought together all these functions within one Department of State, they are all operating separately. The broadcasting side is operating separately from the arts and libraries side and the other sectors have not been brought together by a coherent policy. The Secretary of State has to address that important policy vacuum. In his heart of hearts he probably understands and knows that, but it is difficult for him to develop a cultural policy that unites those functions, which he has rightly brought together in one Department of State.
Behind all this, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged today, is the key area of funding. It is by no means the only criterion by which the Government should be judged. There are other important ones, such as their attitudes to education, training and access, and to changing our monocultural domination—the traditions of the sole

863
use of the English language in a multicultural society, and so on. Nevertheless, funding is one of the key criteria by which the Department will continue to be judged.
In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to wriggle out of it, the record is a poor one. The Arts Council grant has been cut for the first time in years—a cut of £3.3 million, which the Arts Council tells us will translate, in real terms, into more than £7 million worth of cuts in grant. That represents a broken promise. The Government did not make many promises about the cultural life of the country in their manifesto, but they did make the simple statement that they would maintain support for the arts. That they have not done. This is just another broken promise, rather like their broken promises on taxation and many other matters—
Mr. Irvine Patnick: Get on with it.
Mr. Fisher: I will not get on with it. The people need to be reminded of that, and they are only too ready to listen to the catalogue of promises that the Government have broken. There could not have been a clearer commitment than the Government's pledge to maintain support for the arts, but this year they have not done so. Support for the arts will be less this year.
Interestingly enough, the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Scotland and Wales did recognise that commitment. The relevant Secretaries of State have topped up Arts Council grants for Scotland and Wales, but this Secretary of State has not done so for England. Why is England, uniquely, to be disadvantaged? Is it that the Secretary of State lacks the will? Did he not care enough, was he not prepared to fight for his budget as hard as his colleagues fought for theirs?
Mr. Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that decisions about Arts Council funding have always been affected by the general economic climate? If he is about to attack the Government for their funding decisions, will he explain—allowing for the length of time that his party was in office—why the Labour party cut the Arts Council budget disproportionately more often than we have, taking into account the fact that it has been cut in real terms on 11 occasions?
Mr. Fisher: We are debating the policies of the Government over the past 15 years. If, on a different occasion, the Minister wants to debate political history —I regret to say that Labour Governments are a matter of political history—we shall be happy to engage him in such a debate. Today, the Government must be held accountable for their own policies, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that they have cut the grant.
Mr. Richard Spring: The hon. Gentleman has given us a long shock-horror catalogue of the state of the arts which no one who takes an interest in those matters would begin to recognise. What spending pledge would he like to give, to make good the shortfall which he alleges exists? Shall we hear anything about that from the Labour party this afternoon?
Mr. Fisher: No, we are debating Government policies this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman has obviously been asleep. I have not yet delivered any catalogue of shock-horror disasters. I intend to come to some of the
864
problems that the Minister has created, but I have not yet identified any company, or the size of its deficit, although many of them certainly face problems—orchestras, theatres and opera companies. Had the hon. Gentleman remained awake he would have realised that.
The Secretary of State cannot get away with saying that he has to cut in relation to the economic climate. He should be fighting for his new Department's funding; moreover, as he said only too clearly, he has been able to find money for other important works. I do not dispute the fact that the British library needs finishing. The Minister, I noted, was) not too keen to discuss it, apart from in funding terms, as the library is probably the greatest single public expenditure disaster of the past 15 years, given the overrun on expenditure, the lack of scrutiny of its budget, the changes to its contracting and legal status. The Government have an appalling record here. However, I entirely agree that we need the British library. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's point about the land behind it. That is very important to the library's development, but it is a matter to which the Government have not yet given the necessary attention.
The Secretary of State can find money for the projects that he wants, such as the British library and the Albert memorial. I agree that it is nonsensical that the Albert memorial should have been under that great pall of scaffolding for so many years. When the right hon. Gentleman could find money for this purpose, why did he cut by £3.3 million the amount available to the Arts Council? He could have protected the budget. As we are debating the arts today, I have to make the point that the right hon. Gentleman did not protect his budget in the way that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales protected theirs.
Mr. Brooke: I am sorry to go back over ground that was covered in my speech, but I have to say that I made it perfectly clear that the Government have not found any money for the Albert memorial next year and that the amount available to the Arts Council was not cut because we were providing such funds. I said that English Heritage, out of its savings, had been able to make a contribution.
Mr. Fisher: English Heritage comes under the right hon. Gentleman's Department. However, I accept the detailed point that he did find money for the royal palaces and for the British library. He knows perfectly well that the cuts were not made in all parts of his departmental budget. The Arts Council was singled out for treatment. It is baffling why it should be so. I hope that the noble Lord Gowrie will explain to the Secretary of State—he probably has done so already—the impact of such a small amount of money. Indeed, the sum is insignificant in the context of the Department's expenditure, including an outlay of £25 million on administration. The Secretary of State has not made any attempt to cut that figure, yet he has taken £3 million from the Arts Council. That cut has had a disproportionately malign effect on companies all over the country. The right hon. Gentleman must understand the simple point that, for very small savings in his departmental budget—petty change even in the context of that budget—he has done enormous harm to the Arts Council at a very difficult time.
The Government are setting a very difficult—almost impossible—task for the new chairman, Lord Gowrie, and the new secretary general, Mary Allen. The Opposition

865
congratulate those two people and wish them well. We want the Arts Council to succeed. Lord Gowrie and Ms Allen know that their problem is that, because of the Government's stupid minimal and mean-minded cuts, they are inheriting a demoralised arts administration world at a time when the Arts Council already suffers from the lack of the credibility that has been enjoyed in the past and does not have a reputation for competence. I do not believe that that is the fault of the previous chairman, who, in many ways, did an extremely good job and was a brave advocate for the arts. In administration—particularly in relation to the so-called initiative concerning the London orchestras and the attempt last year to cut six regional theatres—the Arts Council has been left a difficult legacy, which has been made far worse by the Secretary of State.
The Arts Council must do various things very quickly. It must speak up for the arts world and explain some basic truths to the Secretary of State. Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I was much encouraged by Lord Gowrie's letter to Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. That letter, received today, says:
"Arts activity cannot be sustained against this background of cuts."
I am glad that the new chairman will be critical when criticism is necessary. That is a good start. The Government must listen. The Secretary of State appointed the chairman and he must take account of his advice, but the right hon. Gentleman must also find an approach to restore the Arts Council's credibility. We all want it to succeed. We need such a national body.
I shall not engage in the rather silly debate about the arm's-length principle. The Secretary of State, who started the debate, knows that the Opposition are committed to that principle in that it applies to non-interference in the artistic decisions and the independence of companies. We have always been, and remain, committed to those things, as the Secretary of State knows. Equally, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the argument is much more complicated. There is no arm's-length principle in respect of museums, galleries and many other parts of the right hon. Gentleman's brief. Those are funded directly by the Department, in precisely the way that the Arts Council protects the Secretary of State from funding the national theatre. The Tate gallery is funded directly; the national theatre is not.
The Secretary of State knows that in many sectors—particularly with local authorities, which he rightly praised—there is no arm's-length principle. We have no tradition, at either central or local government level, of interference in the artistic judgment and decisions of companies. That is a position with which hon. Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the country agree, and it will remain. It is a strength of the cultural life of the country.
Mr. Brooke: I apologise for intervening again, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. By virtue of the number of hon. Members present, we have an opportunity to make this a proper debate.
Does the hon. Gentleman, like many people on the continent, acknowledge that one of the glories of our system is the trustee principle in the case of the national museums? The funding of museums on the continent is subject to a great deal more interference and intervention. In our case, the trustees are remarkably robust in making it clear that the running of museums is a matter for them.
Mr. Fisher: I certainly share that view, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman bases the arm's-length principle on the existence of trustees. The national theatre has a board of trustees, but many people would say—correctly, in my view—that if the Arts Council were abolished and the national theatre were funded directly by the Department, there would be a risk of destroying the arm's-length principle, despite the existence of the board of trustees. The essence of the arm's-length principle is not the relationship but the lack of interference in artistic decisions. The Secretary of State knows that, and his argument was a false and rather blustering one.
In an interesting intervention, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) praised the French system. I share the praise for what was done by Jack Lang to raise the importance and the profile of cultural life in France, but I disagree entirely with the way in which the French system runs everything from the ministry. Grants are administered directly by civil servants. That is wasteful, bureaucratic and centralist, but it is a long-standing French tradition to run things from the top down—from Paris down. It is not our way. In particular, it is not the way of the Labour party, which believes in devolution and in trusting local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative.
Local authorities should be allowed to get on and develop cultural life in their own areas. That is true devolution. Unfortunately, the Government do not believe in true devolution. The Greater London council started the whole movement towards local authorities believing in the arts and developing the cultural life of the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who, sadly, is not in the Chamber, was chairman of the relevant committee. He was harassed by the Conservative Government. Indeed, the Government so deplored the council that it was abolished.
The Secretary of State must know that, leaving aside individual decisions of the Greater London council, everything he has said about local authorities goes back to the lead that was given by that body's understanding of the importance of investing in the cultural life of London. The lack of strategic planning of the cultural life of the city is undermining its cultural strength, to which, referring to the west end theatres, the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute. As there is no coherent strategy, many cultural opportunities in London are going amiss.
I hope that Lord Gowrie will not see the Arts Council's problems purely in managerial terms. It is important that the council gets things right. Decisions must be taken more quickly and more cheaply. Now that the council's clients have been devolved, there are fewer staff, but this is not solely a managerial problem. The council must find a new role and must reassert old ones. It must find a new relationship with the regional arts boards and local authorities. There must be a genuine partnership. The council must pursue the agendas that it has been pursuing quite well in recent years, breaking down the monoculture and creating opportunities for disabled people, for women and for people whose mother tongue is not English. In particular, it could adopt a huge new role on innovation.
For 20 years, arts administration and policy, at national and local levels, concentrated on audiences and access. It was quite right that that should be so. We needed to enlarge audiences and to widen access. The education and community and outreach work that the Secretary of State has mentioned has furthered that cause. However, we need to emphasise once again the need for innovation and for

867
support for the individual and creative genius of companies and of individuals. Here, the Arts Council has a role in finding new ways to encourage innovation, particularly with the funding, through the national lottery and the millennium fund, of the new generation of buildings. We welcome that new generation of buildings because the arts have lacked capital investment.
If thinking and debate about the nature of such buildings and the needs that they should serve are not led now by the Secretary of State and the Arts Council, we could end up repeating the 20th century in the 21st century rather than understanding cultural needs over the next 50 years. The Secretary of State will have noted the breakdown in the divisions between dance, drama and music. Those require different sorts of venues and we should take care before building a generation of proscenium arch theatres or more concert halls.
I join the Secretary of State in welcoming developments at Basingstoke. Many high-quality, beautiful and much-needed concert halls have been built in the past 10 years, but they are basically 19th century structures. For the performing arts and especially for theatre and dance I suspect that a different sort of space is needed. We certainly need a debate on that and on how they should be funded—via the companies that play there or the venues themselves. Those are difficult decisions but all hon. Members should have a common interest in them and the Arts Council has an opportunity to lead that innovative debate.
The Secretary of State will know that Mr. Peter Brook has come back this year with a new production. He had to leave the country because it could not provide the sort of imaginative and long-term support for the innovative work that he wanted to do or the spaces in which he wanted to do it. I suspect that his work is being repeated in different ways by the Theatre de Complicité by Opera Factory, by the work that Ruth Mackenzie is doing at the Nottingham Playhouse and by the Tramway in Glasgow.
This is a new way of looking at the arts that breaks down the barriers between dance, drama and music. The national lottery and the millennium fund provide a chance to help that and to find new and exciting ways to sustain it. If we do not sustain it we shall simply repeat 19th century or, at best, 20th century houses. There is a big role for the Arts Council in this development, and I hope that the Secretary of State will help it to fulfil that role.
The Secretary of State has had difficulty in developing a policy and in defending his budget because he has not been long in office and has not been able to develop in his Department a strategy for our cultural life. Now that his Department is up and running, he should turn to that. He had some fun mocking the Labour party's development of ideas of a cultural policy, but he would do well to be a little more modest and to discover what that means. The distinction between that cultural policy and arts funding policy, which is what the Secretary of State is pursuing although not very well because he is cutting funding, is crucial.
A cultural policy recognises that cultural life does not just happen in the arts organisations that it funds or in those that are funded by the Arts Council, local authorities and other bodies: it happens in the commercial world and in the voluntary side of our culture, which are very important. It
868
is only when we examine the scale of those and the number of people who earn a living from them that we recognise their importance to the economy and how they permeate medicine, hospitals, prisons, the environment, open spaces, buildings, parks and their design and public art. They make a great contribution and the Government have an enormous responsibility in all those sectors.
An arts funding policy that concentrates solely on how much or how little is given to the existing companies is wholly inadequate. A cultural policy must recognise that our cultural life is what happens in Penguin or in record shops or—the Secretary of State sneered at this—in the design of clothes or furniture. Those are as important as what happens in our theatres, and until the Government understand that basic truth they will not get arts funding right. Until they have a cultural policy they cannot have an adequate arts funding policy.
With the national lottery and the millennium fund the Minister has a real responsibility. The new European directive on architectural competition lays a responsibility on the Government to employ architects for the first time for those buildings and to hold design competitions on various scales. That will not necessarily be expensive or cumbersome. I share the praise of the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex for what the French have done but the French Government had specific legislation on architecture that brought on a new generation of architects and made sure that Government expenditure on architecture carried weight and led with good design.
The Secretary of State may not appreciate that, between them, other Departments are spending £5,000 million of taxpayers' money on new buildings and on renovating old buildings. There is no Government policy on that, no co-ordinated approach and no fostering of design or good architects. Until we have that, the incredible amount of taxpayers' money that is already being spent before the national lottery or the millennium fund come on stream will not carry its full weight.
There are plenty of examples of good Government-funded buildings such as Waterloo station but there are also some rotten examples. The Minister ought to recognise that that is as important to our cultural life as what happens in theatres or concert halls. The Government can grasp that responsibility only by supporting a cultural rather than an arts funding policy and particularly one that incorporates the role of the Department for Education in promoting art in schools and in training. The Minister knows that there is a crisis there. I accept that he is not responsible, but this is a debate on Government policy on the arts and the Government's policy on the arts in schools is a disaster. The number of advisory posts has dropped by almost half and the Secretary of State knows that there is a crisis of morale and lack of opportunity in the school library and museum services and in music teaching.
The right hon. Member for Bexley and Old Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) did much to support music in this country. We have great orchestras because we gave young people a chance to discover their skills at playing instruments in primary school and trained them, but that no longer happens under many local authorities. In whole swathes of the country children never get a chance to discover whether they can play an instrument. That is a disgrace and the Government should put it right by remedying their policy on discretionary grants to drama and dance schools.
The Minister has had all the evidence from the Gulbenkian report, which the Government co-funded. He

869
should look at that and recognise that for very small sums of Government money he could put that right and make sure that a small number of accredited drama and dance schools were able to take the students that they want because they think that they will be the professional dancers and actors of the future. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, he is denying opportunities and skills and undermining his policies for the future.
Those are Government policies rather than the policies of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but they point up our assertion that the arts and our cultural life do not depend solely on his Department. All Departments make decisions every week that affect our cultural life. If a Labour Government were in power, the right hon. Gentleman's Department would not interfere in the activities of other Departments but would co-ordinate them. That is difficult because it runs counter to the whole Gladstonian structure of Departments and civil service responsibilities and empires.
The Minister knows that Departments such as the Department for Education, the Departments of Transport and of Health and Departments responsible for training make cultural decisions. They are making them in isolation, without the Secretary of State's advice and without understanding their cultural impact. That is wrong, and that is why we need a cultural policy that supports rather than attacks local authorities. They want to get on with investing in the life of their cities and should have Government support. Until the Government recognise their importance and the importance of a cultural policy, they will continue to get arts funding wrong in the way that they have got it wrong over the past year.
4.58 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage for missing the first few minutes of his speech. I had a hint that it was necessary for me to vote in Westminster and I felt that it was desirable and necessary to carry out that request. However, I listened with the greatest interest to the rest of my hon. Friend's speech.
It is disquieting that the Government should have chosen to have an arts debate on the one day in the year on which they were bound to find the House almost empty because hon. Members are active on the electoral scene. The only consolation is that, whereas there are four hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, there are eight on ours. To have 100 per cent. more than the Opposition is in itself some small consolation.
The arts are particularly important for the Conservative party and we must be seen publicly to be full in our support for them. In the 1920s and the 1930s, the Conservatives had all too deep a reputation for being hard-nosed monetary people, naturally containing the wealthy, who were able to enjoy their opera and music because they could afford to pay for it. The rest of the population had great difficulty in doing that. All of that changed after the second world war. We must be careful in preserving the reputation that we have since established. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—I think that he is a friend—shouted out earlier that those things are nothing whatever to do with the Government. I completely disagree with him on that. He is representing what I have described as the hard-nosed monetary side of
870
the Conservative party. The Government have a very great responsibility for the arts. My anxiety is that they should maintain that responsibility.
I must confess that I did not find the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), particularly appealing, being somewhat vitriolic in its nature. There were valid points, but, if I may say so, he might have more influence if he put things rather more gently and explained how he thinks that they could be done. He emphasised what needs to be done, and on some points I would not challenge him for one moment, but there was little indication of how it could be done. If I were still as deeply involved in the arts and the world outside as I once was, I am not sure that I should be very attracted by the hon. Gentleman's approach. I would find the thought of meeting him in his room rather devastating. In fact, the box office would probably be closed before he finished telling me exactly what he was thinking. Nevertheless, I am sure that his contribution can be valuable from time to time.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised funding. I do not accept that if the Government are forced into economies we should have a level playing field all round. I take exactly the opposite view: I believe that some items of expenditure should be exempt in an economy drive. Indeed, I would go further and say that some types of expenditure, the arts being one, should continue to be increased. I recall that when the Treasury, through its second or third Secretary, was responsible for funding the arts, the arts got the best deal that they had ever had. It was, if I may say so, the cultured at the summit at the Treasury who said to their pals, "Look, we are not going to damage the things that we enjoy." That was when the arts got a really good deal. I am not saying for one moment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage does not personally take that view, as I know that he does, but he has considerable weight against him on that point.
There was once a time when if I went to the Festival hall or Covent garden or elsewhere I could depend on seeing a considerable number of colleagues. It seems to be a rather different situation today. Whether it is the depression, I do not know, but seldom at Covent garden or at any musical festival do I see a large number of my colleagues anxiously waiting to imbibe culture. So one can weigh up the problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in funding the arts.
I am concerned at the situation in the schools, about which we have just heard. When one considers the arts in this country over the past century, one sees that there has been a remarkable transformation. It is quite extraordinary. One can trace it back to the start of the promenade concerts with Sir Henry Wood. When I was a kid in the 1930s, I used to cycle 73 miles from my home to London, stay with friends for a week, go to the prom each night, paying two shillings, and then cycle 73 miles back again. That was worth while. If we wanted it, that was what we did. In those days, the prom gave one an education in classical music, with some modern works. There was the Wagner night, the Haydn and Schubert night, the Beethoven night on the Friday, the mixed night on the Saturday, and new ones on the Tuesday. It was a well-balanced performance. I believe that the BBC has gone too far now: that basic education is no longer in the proms because it has moved too far in the other direction.

871
I do not want anybody to accuse me of going "back to basics", because that is not my attitude. On the other hand, I am not prepared to produce a full-blooded condemnation of atonality and those people referring to it. If one looks at the past, one finds that Beethoven was deeply criticised for his seventh symphony: it was considered far too modern and something that people did not want to listen to. Stravinsky's "Le Sacré du Printemps" was shouted down in Paris in 1913 when it was first performed. I went to the 50th anniversary performance in the Albert hall, with Stravinsky sitting beside me and Monteux, the original conductor, conducting it again. The Albert hall was packed to the ceiling with people who stood and cheered afterwards for minute after minute. One cannot be condemnatory about such things in a general way, however well versed one is in the arts and however high one's position in the country.
Look at what happened to the pictorial arts at the end of the 19th century and to the impressionists when their works were first produced. It took two intelligent Russians to go to Paris constantly and buy up the works so that today the Hermitage in St. Petersburg has the finest collection of impressionists. The same is true with the galleries in Moscow. What about Picasso? Look at the reception that he received when he first changed his styles. Now one has to pays millions if one wants a Picasso. We must be careful about saying that we must stick to the basics, because I do not believe that that is justifiable in any way.
After the Education Act 1944, on the basis of what we had on the proms, and the Saturday morning concerts, which were privately financed by Sir Robert Mayer, the educational addition produced the results that we have seen in the past few years. I have already cited the example of the European Community youth orchestra, as it then was. I was one of those who founded it. Our purpose was to show that our continent had a common heritage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the French heritage is different from ours, but I would not go far with him on that. The method by which they fund it might be different, but we have a common heritage. When I hear opponents of the European Union saying that we must keep our national heritage, I ask myself what on earth they mean. Are they saying that Shakespeare can be performed only in Stratford-on-Avon and that we should not play Bach, Beethoven or Brahms? That makes no sense whatever. We have a European culture in the widest sense, and that is what we want to continue to maintain. The European Community youth orchestra was formed to show that we were not concerned only with tariffs, agricultural policy, the price of meat, and so on, but that we had a common heritage which we wanted everybody—particularly the young—to share.
Music has the advantage of a common language. Had we gone for the theatre, we would have been in difficulty straightaway. Ballet was possible, but more difficult. We had a competition for members of the orchestra. At first the Germans did not want to take part, as they thought that it would affect their youth orchestras. After the first year, however, they realised that they were missing out on a good enterprise—a European culture—and they came in. We had the same assessment committee—at least two members of it, but a national assessment committee—in each country. I remember the difficulty in which I found
872
myself in the last year that I advised and conducted that orchestra. Of its 126 members, 66—on merit—came from this country. That was entirely due to our educational system and to the youth orchestras that had been built up. For example, many countries could not produce double bass players or people who could play the larger wind instruments. Britain could produce all types of musicians. I had to say that 66 members out of 126 was too big a proportion for one country and that the orchestra's membership had to be spread further, and that was done. That is how we developed what is now the European Union youth orchestra.
My concern is that music education is dropping back. It is difficult to obtain exact expenditure figures because they are accumulated with other types of expenditure, but one can identify the number of children aged 11 or over who are receiving music education, and there is no doubt that there has been a drop of as much as 5 per cent.—I am sure of that. People write to me from all over the country saying, "Our school no longer has a music teacher—it cannot pay for a music teacher." That is a loss. Other people write to me, "Can you help us to buy an instrument for our daughter, who is proving to be a good violinist?" There is a limit to what one can do in that way, however deserving the cause. Those are real needs. If one is to deal fully with the problem, one must focus attention on those real needs rather than make critical remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If that is done, we may secure continued support for other aspects of the arts.
There is no doubt that private funding fell in the recession. That is pointed out by people who have the figures. It may take some years before we retrieve that funding. If one makes cuts in music, one loses out for a long period, and it takes a long time to make that up. If one postpones a construction job for one or two years, it can be restarted, but the same cannot be done with the arts. It cannot be done with young people in orchestras or theatres or in other artistic disciplines such as design. That is why I am much against so-called temporary cuts. Their impact is lengthy and it takes a long time to make up that loss.
Both the Arts Council and our orchestras face difficulties. I hope that my noble Friend Lord Gowrie will review that issue philosophically. I am sure that he will. I have no doubts about his power to put his own views and those of the Arts Council strongly. In the latest episode, the Arts Council wanted a super-orchestra—or two—in London. At present, London has five major symphony orchestras and a growing number of smaller string orchestras and chamber orchestras. The Arts Council concluded that it was not possible for those five to reach the standard of the major orchestras of the world such as the Berlin, Amsterdam, Venice, Chicago, Philadelphia and New York orchestras, and there are people who support the Arts Council in that view. Leading world conductors will come to London if they can bring their own orchestras, but not otherwise. That is partly due to standards and partly because London will not pay the fees that they receive elsewhere. That also comes down to funding.
A growing difficulty in the past two or three years is that fewer musicians want to be contracted to an orchestra permanently or for a period of years. They say, "We would rather keep our freedom; if you want us, telephone us beforehand and we will say whether we are available." That is bound to weaken the strength of a major symphony

873
orchestra. In some cases, 30 per cent. of an orchestra's strength has to be made up by telephoning musicians who are not contracted to it.
That situation leads to far too low a level of rehearsing. I have known all too many cases of inadequate rehearsing. When I was asked to conduct a Coronation anniversary concert at Kenwood last year, I said that I must have two rehearsals. They said, "You are being very difficult--but if you insist." I said that my second stipulation was that the musicians who played in the first rehearsal must play in the second rehearsal. They said, "Now you are being really difficult—but all right, if you insist." I said that there was a third stipulation—that the musicians who played in the two rehearsals must also play in the concert. They said, "That is going too far—you are asking too much." But they agreed in the end.
There was a previous attempt to establish a super-orchestra, 30 years ago. It was decided that one of the symphony orchestras must go. At the time, I was a trustee of the London symphony orchestra. To everybody's surprise, the doomed orchestra, the philharmonic, suddenly received royal support and became the Royal Philharmonic orchestra—so then they could not get rid of it. Thirty years later, that has been tried again and ended in failure. My only advice is that everything must be worked out and agreed beforehand, and then be carried through. Otherwise one suffers, as Lord Palumbo unfortunately suffered, from a complete turnround in orchestras.
The Birmingham symphony and Hallé orchestras also had intense financial difficulties. Simon Rattle said, "Unless you get this, I go." That is a most unhappy position. I want the funding of orchestras improved, and I will give figures to illustrate my argument.
The Berlin philharmonic has a total income of £16.2 million. All its members are on contract. They are ordered when to go on holiday, and they are forbidden to play anywhere else when they are on holiday. They meet all their obligations to the Berliners. The Chicago orchestra has an income of £22.55 million, and the New York philharmonic has £16.7 million. The orchestra with the largest financing in this country is the London symphony orchestra, with £7.7 million—only one third Chicago's income. The Bournemouth, which I admit is my local orchestra, has an income of £4.82 million, which is only about half that of the London symphony orchestra. The contrasts are immense.
In the United States, almost all the funding is from private sources—from concert revenue or from supporters. That is because the Americans have a tradition of private charity, and tax incentives to make donations are considerable whereas those in this country are not. The tax incentives in the UK to keep one's money in a family trust are great, and there is not the incentive to use money from a trust to support orchestras or other forms of the arts. I suggest to those who are working on the issue that tax changes could be enormously influential in persuading companies and individuals to be charitable towards the arts and towards musicians in particular.
Mr. Jessel: Although I accept some of my right hon. Friend's points, is he not denigrating some of our symphony orchestras a little too much? Some of our best orchestras play to a brilliant, precise and inspired standard and display a high level of musicianship. With the greatest respect, my right hon. Friend should pay more tribute to those orchestras' strengths and standards.
Sir Edward Heath: I am trying to put our orchestras in a world perspective. Orchestra players know the position perfectly well. Many of them are no longer contracted to a symphony orchestra because they prefer to keep their individual freedom and perform when they feel like it, which I regret. If my hon. Friend is asking how our orchestras compare, I will give him my view in private. I am not denigrating any of the British orchestras—I am pointing out the difficulties that they face. We shall get nowhere and do no one any good if we do not acknowledge those difficulties. The only way to improve matters is by recognising them and describing what action should be taken.
The Berlin philharmonic has an income of £16.2 million. Income from its concerts totals £6.9 million; the rest of its revenue comes from Berlin's local government, the state or Bonn. The position is the same in Hamburg. I do not have the figures for Hamburg, but they may be higher as Hamburg has the opera. In Europe, Governments willingly make full contributions because they realise the importance of music and the arts to their countries.
The facts are there for all of us to see. In the rest of the arts—for example, in architecture and in pictures—we have done very well, but the remarkable achievements of this century and, in particular, of the past 50 years should not be gradually whittled away by a number of forces, some of which I have described.
I give the Secretary of State my full support for everything that he wants to do to reach the position that the public and those involved with the arts want to reach. The interest and demand is there. That is why so many people are sad about what is happening in our schools and that we cannot give greater support to the things that they value.
5.21 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) not only because of his knowledge of these matters but because of his insight into what he described as the more monetarist wing of the Conservative party and the things for which it was responsible. Some of my speech will relate to that more monetarist wing. I can only sadly reflect, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does, that some of the policies that that wing proposed, not least the Broadcasting Act 1990, would never have been enacted if the less monetarist wing of the Conservative party had not been prepared to vote for it. I want to deal with those who suffered the consequences of that Act.
The Secretary of State did not refer to broadcasting in his opening speech, but I make no apology for doing so. I am sure that the House supports the view that broadcasting policy is of enormous importance in any debate on the arts.
Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This, too, is of importance. As usual, there is an awful smell of cooking coming up as a result of the artistic creativity of the chefs in the kitchen. Will someone ask them to redirect the smells elsewhere?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The matter will be looked into.
Mr. Grocott: I am enjoying the smell of cooking; we should have a vote before anything precipitate is done.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to the way in which events have developed, including the proms. If I am to justify concentrating my

875
remarks on broadcasting, I need do no more than to say that it is only via broadcasting that the arts are made available to millions of people. I confess that I am not a great fan of the proms or of the last night of the proms, but I acknowledge that 5 million people watched it on television on 11 September last year and that the "Young Musician of the Year" finals this year, which I watched and enjoyed, were watched by 1.3 million people. That attracted a smaller audience for a less widely publicised event. None the less, a huge number of people watched it. I always measure audiences against the number of people at Wembley on cup final day. The audience for the "Young Musician of the Year" finals was about 13 times as high as the number at Wembley on cup final day. That audience was of tremendous importance.
I say with a great sense of urgency that something precious in this country—the structure of broadcasting and the quality of programmes that it delivers—is in danger of collapsing. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility to ensure that it does not do so. I will not say that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup reflects a golden age because I did not regard the years 1970 to 1974 as such, but some of the things that have happened to broadcasting as a result of deliberate Government policy would have been unthinkable during that earlier Tory Administration or under any Labour Administration.
I do not need to establish the credentials of British broadcasting, which are well known and understood. British television is recognised as being among the best, if not the best, in the world. It broadcasts a huge range of high-quality programmes and transmits to most homes in this country—21.5 million, or 98 per cent. of households that have access to terrestrial television. That is almost everyone.
The threat to terrestrial television must be dealt with urgently by the Government. At its best, broadcasting enriches our lives. We watch, on average, 25 hours of television a week. That is a lot of hours a week, but television is far more important to the housebound, the elderly, people with disabilities and children. A lot has been said recently about the damaging effect of television on children. Good-quality children's programmes enhance children's lives, just as directed programming enhances the lives of other groups in the community.
It is no understatement to say that broadcasting is in a state of crisis. I shall give specific examples that need to be dealt with rapidly. The first relates to job losses. I should declare a degree of self-interest in that matter, although I no longer have a direct interest. The television industry has suffered enormous job losses in the past seven years, before and immediately after the implementation of the Broadcasting Act. In 1987, 16,937 people were employed in ITV; by 1993, the number had halved to 8,000. In the same period, the BBC shed one in four jobs. A lot of people will say that the job losses were among bureaucrats, who we could do without. But if he is honest, the Secretary of State will know from his visits to different television centres that many of those who lost their jobs were highly skilled and well trained: they included sound engineers, vision mixers, production assistants, directors, and producers, who had a range of broadcasting skills. They have been lost and they will be extraordinarily difficult to
876
replace. It will not happen through the so-called independent sector, which lives off the experience and expertise that was built up in the public sector of old.
Secondly, as many of us predicted, there has been an almost inevitable lowering of standards in broadcasting. I am talking about a deterioration not in the quality of programmes but in the ethos surrounding their production. Not long ago, the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the way in which the ethos of the civil service has steadily gone down hill. The same is happening rapidly in broadcasting. It is all to do with the creeping and overlapping commercial interests that come into the production of programmes. Am I the only person in the country who does not like programmes being sponsored by commercial organisations? Does it really add anything to "Play Your Cards Right" that it is sponsored by The Sun newspaper? Does it add anything to "Rumpole" to say that a particular brand of drink is sponsoring it? Is there any limit to the amount of sponsorship money that will go to programmes?
Let us take the example of programmes of national interest. I am not being entirely facetious in saying that, if present trends continue, the state opening of Parliament will one day be sponsored by a tobacco company and will be available exclusively on Sky. That is the logic of the way in which the financing of programmes is developing. Programmes go to the highest bidder. That includes the largest amount of sponsorship money that happens to be available. If the programme is available only to a restricted audience, so be it. That is the response of so many people.
On the next matter, perhaps I may appeal to the Secretary of State, with his love of sport. Predictably—I am not being wise after the event; many of us have said this time and again—the proliferation of channels does not mean the extension of choice. It is not an inevitable consequence of the number of channels being increased that we get more choice. If the channels all produce the same stuff and a lot of it is dross, there is no extension of choice whatever. We know one specific way in which there has been a reduction in choice. Again, I appeal to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase, "It is dross". With respect, who is he to decide what someone else wants to watch and what they find interesting?
Mr. Grocott: I have heard the hon. Gentleman develop that argument in the past. He knows very little if he thinks that the delivery of television programmes, even on totally deregulated commercial channels, is entirely a matter of what the audience wants. It is not merely a matter of responding to audiences in the way that the hon. Gentleman, in his populist way, wants. Let me assure him that it is all to do with much more complicated machinations between advertisers, money men and accountants. The type of television that he seems to want is dominated by the accountants and advertisers, not by the programme makers and the people.
One area in which we have restricted choice is the availability of many key sporting events to most of our constituents. At one stage, we would have been able to watch Brian Lara score his 375 the other day live on terrestrial television. We certainly would have been able to see the edited highlights in a package in the evening. We cannot see it now. It is available only to people who have access to Sky. We shall not be able to watch the Ryder Cup

877
next time round. We cannot watch the key premier league football games. Again, football is a national sport. Those of us who not only watch it on television but go to matches regularly want to see the best of British football on television.
Mr. Derek Enright: One can see the rugby league.
Mr. Grocott: My hon. Friend is right. We can see the rugby league—but for how much longer if present trends continue, I do not know. What else will go before long? Will it be Wimbledon next? It may well be. I am less concerned about Wimbledon than about premier league football, but they are both national events and part of our national heritage. If we make them exclusive to satellite television, we shall lose something valuable and important. Our choice is being restricted, as many of us predicted it would, with the deregulation of the media.
What else is happening? We are seeing the inevitable and inexorable growth of monopoly power within the media. We must deal with that because it is extremely important. It has been dramatic in independent television. We all know that, in effect, independent television is controlled by three people: Messrs. Green, Hollick and Robinson. I make no comment about them as individuals except to describe how rapid the change has been.
Two years ago, Michael Green, or his company, did not own one television company. He acquired the franchise for Carlton. Within a short period, the bosses of television managed to persuade the Secretary of State that the rules by which they had happily been prepared to abide when they bid for the franchises were no good. They said that they were wrong and unfair to them. So the rules were relaxed and Carlton acquired Central, which in turn has shares in GMTV and substantial interests in ITN. So, from nowhere, one individual has acquired a tremendously powerful voice within the world of commercial television. I do not like such growths in monopoly control.
There is also the scandal of the protected position of Sky Television and Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps some Conservative Members have more detached views of Rupert Murdoch these days than they did when the privileges were announced. His newspapers are temporarily not quite so friendly to the Conservative party as they were a few years ago. Suddenly and rather belatedly the Prime Minister and perhaps the Secretary of State have discovered that the tabloid newspapers influence people. Ministers complain about tabloid newspapers determining who is in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State's predecessor was particularly vitriolic on that point.
Opposition Members have for many years complained that tabloid newspapers can be an important determining factor in who wins general elections. So perhaps the growth of monopoly power should concern us all. We should be worried that, as well as owning all the Sky channels, one individual owns 35 per cent. of the newspapers in Britain.
I had a real insight into the power that cross-media ownership brings with it when a few weeks ago I talked to an experienced producer who had made a programme for Sky Television. He had made dozens of programmes previously for terrestrial television. The usual programme launch was held. The press were invited along and told that it would be a splendid programme—
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but the Order Paper says that this is a debate on the arts. Although the hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the arts at the beginning of his speech, he seems to be talking about all the other responsibilities of the Secretary of State and not about the arts.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the debate is actually on the Adjournment. That is the real debate.
Mr. Grocott: I expected a challenge along those lines, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak. Perhaps he was motivated, at least in part, by a hope that I would sit down fairly soon. I can assure him that I shall do just that. I do not think that it would need a great deal to persuade the House that if broadcasting in the public service sense to which we have been accustomed in Britain collapsed—in many respects it is in danger of doing just that—the arts of which the hon. Gentleman is so fond would lose a massive part of their audience.
I shall finish the true tale about the experience of the producer who found himself launching a programme that he had made for Sky rather than for the terrestrial channels for which he had always worked in the past. To his absolute amazement, the press attended in great numbers the routine press call to the launch of a programme. The producer suddenly realised that the journalists were there because the newspapers were owned by the same people who owned the television station for which he had made the programme. Sure enough, there were splendid write-ups in the said newspapers the following day. That is the implication of cross-media ownership. If Conservative Members cannot see the importance of that, I shall be very concerned indeed.
The Secretary of State has made one mistake in allowing television companies to take one another over. I hope that he does not make another mistake by allowing newspapers and television companies to become even more enmeshed with one another than they have been in the past.
I shall now suggest what the Secretary of State should consider. My first suggestion is a pretty impassioned plea. I get sick and tired of people being mesmerised by technology. I hear all sorts of talk about communications super-highways. I appeal to the Secretary of State to understand—I am sure that he does—that the fact that the same technology may be used to order a takeaway pizza as could be used to deliver live the film of the dismantling of the Berlin wall does not mean that the two are of equal importance or need the same regulatory system. The right hon. Gentleman's area of responsibility is crucially different from that of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I hope that he will not neglect the importance of preserving and defending standards in that area of responsibility.
Secondly, the Secretary of State should not be mesmerised by all the talk about the viewer penetration achieved by Sky, cable and satellite television. As I said, 21.5 million households have access to terrestrial channels. A staggering audience of 24 million people recently watched Torvill and Dean in the finals of a competition. However, only 3 million households have satellite and cable television and even the industry estimates that there

879
will only be about 10 million households by 2000. No cable or satellite channel will be able to reach the audience that terrestrial television reaches today within the lifetime of anyone present. Therefore, if the Secretary of State does not concentrate on defending and protecting terrestrial television, with all its qualities, he will not be devoting himself to the most important task.
I must add a rider. At the moment there is no level playing field: the contest between cable and satellite television and the terrestrial channels is just not fair. No rules worth speaking of govern cable and satellite channels. They are not required to buy British or even European Community productions. The controls over what they can do, for example with sponsorship and advertising, are much looser.
Mr. Brooke: Quotas are set out governing European productions because they emanate from a European Union directive—British production obviously falls within that quota. How does the hon. Gentleman square those quotas, on which the channels are obliged to report and to which we have frequently referred in the House, with his statement that such channels are not subject to any controls?
Mr. Grocott: I can only give the right hon. Gentleman the statistics for the proportion of domestically produced material used. In 1992, 65 per cent. of BBC 1 and BBC 2 output was made up of original home-produced material and 60 per cent. of ITV and Channel 4 material was home produced. In the same year, 29 per cent. of material used by BSkyB was home produced and most of it was news and sport.
Whatever the rules and regulations, the expansion of cable and satellite television has not benefited British or even European Community domestic production. By and large, that expansion has been fuelled through cheap imports and the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly how the system operates.
Mr. Brooke: I was merely querying the hon. Gentleman's statement that those companies are under no controls. The directive establishes an obligation to meet the quotas where practical. The obligation is subject to that condition and the Commission takes that into account. However, the upward thrust of production must be towards meeting the quota figures.
Mr. Grocott: The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own intervention. There is no effective control—perhaps I missed a word out—and the rules do not apply equally to cable, satellite and terrestrial channels. No amount of playing with words will alter that fact.
I had not intended to go down that road, but since the Secretary of State tempts me I shall do so. I was stunned to learn today that, under the British regulatory framework, GMTV—the morning breakfast television programme—has had its regulations loosened by the television authority. The company was established only 18 months ago and knew what it was bidding for. It knew the rules, the terms and all the rest and worked out the price, but it has had its obligations eased unilaterally. What is worse, according to the report in the Financial Times today, GMTV said that it had implemented the reduction in the quotas—it broke the rules—in advance of the television authority's ruling and
880
took "a calculated risk". Is that the way to regulate? The company hoped that the regulators would change their minds and ignored the regulations for the time being. That is not a regulatory system; it is a disgrace.
Added to that, GMTV is substantially owned by two of the moguls of the independent televisior, industry, Carlton Communications and Granada—not exactly companies that have had it rough since the Broadcasting Act was passed. They seem to have been continuously successful in lobbying to have the rules changed in their favour, despite the fact that they committed themselves so recently to the system.
Dr. Kim Howells: Is my hon. Friend aware that the same thing is happening in radio? Jazz FM quite properly submitted a bid to produce a jazz network, but has largely become a purveyor of American soul and alternative pop music, which is a great shame. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) objected that my hon. Friend's contribution did not deal with the arts, but television is at the heart of that subject. By the turn of the century the entertainment industry will be bigger than any other industry in America. It will be the biggest money earner. If we lose our ability to produce television programmes, radio programmes and films, we will also lose an important amount of money—perhaps our most important money earner—as well as our production ability in many sectors of the arts.
Mr. Grocott: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend and I know that he cares as passionately as I do about such matters.
I am conscious of the time. Hon. Members may be looking nervously at my notes, fearing that I will go on for much longer and I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to many other subjects, but perhaps I can do so in correspondence rather than by taking up the time of the House.
The Secretary of State normally has a gentle and timeless approach to some of these problems and I urge him to realise that they are a matter of urgency. During the past few years one of the best broadcasting systems in the world has gone down hill rapidly because of the Government's lack of willingness to understand that technology is the servant, not the master, and that free market forces will not deliver quality programmes. If I can only persuade the right hon. Gentleman of those two facts, I will not have wasted my time.
5.47 pm
Mr. Tim Renton: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) by devoting the greater part of my remarks to broadcasting, although I understand that his passion and enthusiasm for the subject led him to do so.
While I was at the Home Office, I was one of the architects of the Broadcasting Act 1990. The hon. Member for The Wrekin should surely bear in mind that, by agreeing to the mergers, for example, between Carlton and Central, to which he referred, three companies—Carlton, Meridian and Granada—dominate the ITV world and that one of the reasons for the mergers was to ensure that, when competing with Sky and the BBC, the ITV companies were substantial enough to deliver the hours of creative programming of good quality that they had committed themselves to in their franchise applications.

881
There is no point in having 10, 12 or 14 independent television companies all committed, under their franchise applications, to creative and constructive programming if their budgets are so small and their audience figures so limited that that programming has little worth or value. That is one of the aspects that the hon. Member for The Wrekin ignored.
I fully understand some of the hon. Member's other arguments and share his concern about the growing dominance of Sky in television, but a very important function of the mergers is that the Independent Television Commission, with the majors that have survived, should make absolutely certain that the commitments to important new creative programming are maintained. They should offer programming that not only we can enjoy, but produce programmes such as "Jewel in the Crown", which is so often quoted, that have a ready appeal on the world markets.
Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that when those companies gave their undertakings to obtain the franchise they did not expect to be able to give full weight to those undertakings unless they were involved in mergers? That was not the impression that they gave.
Mr. Renton: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman down that path. I am sure that he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so he will be able to pursue that argument. Television is a rapidly changing world and competition in it changes quickly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has therefore had to be aware of those changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has strong support from me in one respect, because I find the combination of discussing the arts amidst the strong smell of overcooked beef an interesting but unpleasant experience. Perhaps it is the House's definition of nouvelle cuisine. We hear a great deal about the use of new technology in the House, but that combination is a remarkable presentation of it. I hope that your efforts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to suppress those smells will soon be successful.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only on the positive, determined and successful role that he has brought to weaving together the different parts of his important Department—heritage, sport and tourism, as well as the arts and broadcasting—but on a rather mundane success: that he has managed to have a debate on the arts today. In the 18 months that I was Arts Minister—I found that a pleasant, happy time—I never succeeded in persuading the business managers that we should have a debate on the arts. Perhaps we should have council elections more frequently, so that we can have more debates on the subject.
One of the permanent features of such debates is the position of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) as Opposition spokesman on the arts. I suspect that he was in the same position in the debate in July 1990.
Mr. Fisher: And many years before that.
Mr. Renton: Yes, indeed.
As I listened to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, I felt that he was slightly like Sleeping Beauty. He had been in the thicket of briar for so long, frozen into silence, that when he was given the chance to speak the words poured
882
out almost without cessation. At times, listening to him was a little bit like reading a long book by James Joyce, because it was rather hard to know where the commas would come, let alone the full stops or, indeed, where the book would end. I know of his passion for the subject and I admire him for his persistence in speaking about the arts on behalf of the Opposition. Long may he continue to do so.
The hon. Gentleman tends to be a Cassandra in sackcloth and ashes, who runs around complaining that everything is going wrong with the world of the arts. He behaved like that frequently when I was Arts Minister and I used regularly to remind him that in 1989–90 we had managed to get a record 14 per cent. increase in the budget for the Arts Council, which meant another £21 million for it. The hon. Gentleman never listened to me.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, the hon. Gentleman might do his cause better if he occasionally spoke with more enthusiasm and positive verve about the many good things that are happening in the arts in Britain today, of which he is well aware.
Mr. Enright: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, although Cassandra was all doom and gloom, she was always correct?
Mr. Renton: I am not sure whether she was a mythical prophetess or not.
Mr. Dicks: I thought she was a ballet dancer.
Mr. Renton: That shows that some of us have still got a long way to go. Perhaps my hon. Friend's mind will be changed by the end of the debate.
Only this morning, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and I were debating on a programme on Channel 4. I heard much the same notes of Cassandra—I mention the word again—from him then. I reminded him that if we walked just a few hundred yards from 4 Millbank, where the programme was made, we would come to the Tate. Its exhibition on Picasso and the relationship between his paintings and his sculpture is the most successful that it has ever staged. The Tate, funded as it is by the Government, has had a number of extremely successful years and it can now look forward to trying to develop a gallery of modern art on the old Bankside power station site. That example, which is so close to the House, is a living exemplar to us of how one of our major galleries is doing so well and attracting huge crowds.
One of the pleasant things that one notices when driving by the Tate at lunchtime is the enormous number of young people who are congregated on the steps of the gallery. They are there talking, eating sandwiches and using the Tate as a place to get together. That is exactly what a major art gallery should be like.
My old friend, Lord Gowrie, whose letter of 4 May, sent to us all, has already been quoted in the debate, has not only shown, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that he will be a fierce and independent defender of arts interests as chairman of the Arts Council, but he concluded his letter with the words:
"The arts need nurturing, not spoiling."
The purpose of the debate is to enable us, with our different viewpoints, to consider what is the best way to nurture rather than spoil the arts.
I should declare a number of interests, which are all recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, because I

883
am the patron, trustee or director of a number of arts bodies. I am also the chairman of a small start-up company, Interactive Telephone Services, which has interests in some of these areas. I should like to consider the way in which arts funding takes place. After Lord Palumbo released his mantle of chairman of the Arts Council he took a good swipe at me in an article in The Sunday Times for comments that I had made, as Arts Minister and subsequently, about the future of the Arts Council. Now that the Department of National Heritage and the 10 English regional arts boards are well established, I questioned the future role of the council as another intervening layer—a third layer—of authority, administration, spending and committees, governing how the precious sums of money that are available to the arts are distributed. Now that the Department is so well set, I argue that we should consider whether there was a case for major national clients such as the national theatre, the south bank, the two opera companies in London and national orchestras to be funded directly by my right hon. Friend's Department rather than through the Arts Council.
I have always argued that case with absolutely no ill will to the Arts Council; after all, I have many friends who have served on its committees and board. I wish Lord Gowrie, whom I greatly respect, every possible success in his job. I also wish the same to Mary Allen, who is the new secretary general. She has a good stage career behind her,so she must have learnt a lot from that about the ups and downs of life and must be used to having the spotlight, sometimes a critical one, focused on her.
However, I confess that I was always somewhat surprised at the amount of upset that those remarks of mine caused, not least to Lord Palumbo, because, after all, first the Office of Arts and Libraries and now the Department of National Heritage have funded the major museums and galleries directly. The British museum, the British library, the Tate gallery, the Victoria and Albert museum, the science museum, the natural history museum and the national gallery receive their moneys directly from the Government. Of course, they fight for more money—they use their sharp elbows to try to achieve that end—but, in my experience, that has always been a successful and good relationship.
If the Tate gallery, in the Turner prize awards, shows a collection of extremely modern exhibitions, including 12 tonnes of rice with red neon tubes down the middle, as it did recently, that does not cause the Minister to become upset. He does not say that surely there should be a portrait from the Royal College of Art there—a naturalist portrait —or that a portrait of the Minister should have been on the short list.
Mr.MichaelStern: Oh no.
Mr. Renton: No indeed. I say that only to show that that is a successful, satisfactory relationship. If that is so between the Department and the museums and galleries, why is it thought to be impossible between the Department and the theatres and the orchestras or the opera companies?
I confess that I often felt that the hostility with which my remarks were received by senior people in the Arts Council showed an unwillingness to think the unthinkable, an hostility to considering fundamental change, that is
884
often a characteristic of a dying organisation or an organisation that has been in place for a long time without looking at itself and trying to revive itself actively enough.
There will have to be a change in the organisation of arts funding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded us that 42 more organisations had now been delegated to the 10 regional arts boards. I am not surprised by that. I am delighted by it. After all, the regional arts boards are now all set up. By and large, they have strong chairmen, good boards and good directors. I am sure that they will expect to be increasingly responsible for more and more bodies in their areas.
Leading on from that, one must reach the conclusion that, between the Department of National Heritage, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards, three organisations are concerned with arts funding. Is that not one organisation too many, consuming too much administration money, possibly interfering with each other too much? There is another strain to my thought, which is that the advent of large sums from the national lottery, which I greatly welcome—when I was Arts Minister, I always strongly supported the concept that we should have a national lottery—will, in the case of the Arts Council, for example, perhaps double its budget. There will be an enormous increase in the sums of money available to the national heritage memorial fund. That, in turn, should cause radical thinking about the way in which arts funding is organised.
The Millennium Commission, which I greatly welcome, and which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will have to take direct decisions about which project to support for the year 2000. I believe that, in taking those decisions, the Millennium Commission will show that there is a principle of ministerial intervention in deciding the relative importance of one arts project versus another. That principle will be established.
I believe—I realise that what I shall say will cause some disturbance among my friends on the Government Front Bench—that that will lead to a consideration of the validity of the arm's-length principle that Ministers do not, notionally at least, intervene in the way in which arts budgets are spent.
I remember that on the first day that I arrived in the Office of Arts and Libraries I was told about the arm's-length principle. I think that that very afternoon, three Members of Parliament came to see me to plead that London City ballet should continue to receive a large subsidy. I said, "That is nothing to do with me; it is the arm's-length principle. It is entirely up to the Arts Council." I will not say from which side of the House the Members of Parliament came. They said, "Come off it, Minister. You can tell the Arts Council what to do. The London City ballet is very good news and you should jolly well make certain that it continues to receive the money that. they have always had. We like them very much and you should certainly go and tell Lord Palumbo what to do."
Putting the London City ballet on one side, when the Royal Opera house or the national theatre or the south bank need large sums of money for backstage restoration at the opera house, for building repairs at the national theatre, or for redevelopment of the south bank, it is to the Minister that they go. They speak to him about it because they hope that he will find some way of producing a golden key and unlocking a door which will produce funds for them that would not otherwise be available. That happened in the

885
days when my noble Friend Lord Gowrie was Arts Minister, when Sir Richard Luce was Arts Minister and when I was Arts Minister.
When it became possible for the freehold of the Coliseum to be bought because the Holmes-à-Court estate showed its potential willingness to sell it, it was to me as the Minister that English National Opera made its representations, hoping that I would be able to find the money with which the freehold could be purchased. I am glad to say that, in the end, I was able to persuade the Chief Secretary to do just that.
I accept that the arm's-length principle is deeply useful to Ministers. It enables them to say, "This awkward decision is not mine; it is the Arts Council's." There must be a de minimis rule whereby many decisions will be, and should always be, delegated to the Arts Council or the regional arts boards.
However, I do not enormously like pretence. Perhaps that is why I am not a very good politician. I have always thought that there was a good deal of pretence behind the arm's-length principle. In the future, the strength of the regional arts boards, the strong Department of National Heritage with a Secretary of State who sits in the Cabinet, the national lottery moneys and the Millennium Commission will require the Department of National Heritage to be more in the front line, establishing its own priorities, and in the firing line. That does not give me the worries that it appears to give so many other people. I wholly respect my right hon. Friend's judgment in that respect.
Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cases that he cited as exceptions to the general principle have tended to concentrate on capital projects rather than on the revenue funding of specific artistic institutions and productions, and that he is taking us on to slightly marshy ground if he suggests that Ministers should be involved in lottery distribution? We are determined to make certain that that is additional to public expenditure.
Mr. Renton: I accept that and I am wholly behind the principle that the lottery money should be in addition to existing public expenditure. I was only making the subsidiary point because I am not in any sense trying to lay down the rules. However, the Millennium Commission,which my right hon. Friend chairs and on which the President of the Board of Trade sits, I believe, as a second Cabinet Minister, will be required to take decisions about the way in which its share of the lottery money is spent. Those are likely to be capital projects, and Ministers will be in the front line. I welcome that and do not feel the great concern that many others have always shown on that issue.
I am immensely optimistic about the future of art, orchestras and galleries in Britain. Despite all the funding difficulties, the past 10 years have seen a renaissance of all kinds of art—from different cultures and ethnic origins —often helped by local authority money, patronage, sponsorship and the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, and I am sure that that will continue.
A few weekends ago, I visited the Tate of the West for the first time, in the company of Sir Richard Carew Pole, without whose persistence the Tate of the West would not have been built. It was also funded largely by money from the Cornwall county council. It was a joy to be there, not only to see the gallery and look out on the famous beach which Ben Nicholson and Barbara Hepworth looked at, as
886
one painted and the other sculpted, but to hear subsequently from Sir Richard Carew Pole about an investigation that had been conducted in the town only some 10 months after the gallery had opened, in which all local traders were asked what effect the gallery had had on their businesses. The vast majority said that the effect was thoroughly positive—there were more tourists, they were doing more business, and the whole town seemed to have been woken up again. It was more active and lively, and people were looking forward more positively than they had before that relatively small gallery had been built. That is a marvellous example of what artistic rebuilding in the centre of towns throughout the country can do in creating renaissances.
Not long ago, I was asked—I accepted with great pleasure—to review a book by my old friend, Sir Alan Peacock, who was chairman of the Scottish Arts Council and a combination of a formidable brain, a musician, economist and great iconoclast in the arts world. In his book, he quoted with approval the comment of two American professors that
"few of us are willing to take the responsibility of passing on to future generations a country whose beauty has been destroyed".
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will share that sentiment in this unusual arts debate this afternoon. By whatever means we arrive at it, we all wish to ensure that this country's beauty will be not destroyed but indefinitely preserved, added to and made more accessible to more people.
6.12 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate has been well justified by all the contributions so far. I only wish that these occasions did not occur simply because the Secretary of State does not want to play a part in the local elections in Westminster.
The debate's reflective tone, exemplified by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), is of greater value than the partisan character that tends to divide the House when we debate other matters. It is not because a consensus exists in the House—there are different angles of vision.
The Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), speaks with great passion on, and an obvious commitment to, these matters. He does not simulate his sense of outrage that the Secretary of State did not do better for the arts in the public expenditure round.
I do not profess to take the same tone, although I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment, for the reasons that have been spelt out dispassionately by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He made the important point that, when public spending is cut from the performing arts, it has a permanent or at least long-term effect. The postponement of capital projects is one, thing, but the cutting away of funds from a living performing company can be extremely damaging.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex asked whether the Arts Council was necessary and whether the arm's-length principle was simply a form of humbug. An answer lies in what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said about the history of arts funding. He recalled the lack of support for the arts during the bleak 1930s of his childhood and contrasted it with what happened in the post-war period. It is not entirely a propter hoc fallacy to reflect on the effect on the arts as a result of

887
the report of the committee chaired by Lord Keynes and the setting up of the Arts Council in its early form at the end of the war.
Even more significant than the funding role of the Arts Council in the future may be its role as an advocate for the arts. The transfer of responsibility to the regional arts boards for funding some institutions is a healthy step, as it involves local communities more directly in the choice of institutions that they want to back. But there can never be a substitute for the nationally expressed voice of the Arts Council, which seems to have suffered in recent years. I do not blame Lord Palumbo for that because he had some bright ideas and a difficult row to hoe. He deserves credit for the millennium fund, among other things, which he personally advocated. As he returns to private life, I wish him well.
The Arts Council has not sung with a clear voice in recent years. I hope that, under its new chairman, Lord Gowrie, it will not merely be independent—I have no doubt about that—but will have clear authority when it speaks for the nation on those matters. It is not always open to Ministers of the Crown to speak with authority on those issues, not only because they are understandably reticent about expressing artistic priorities but because, within the scheme of things, the arts inevitably do not have the prominence of some other areas of our national life.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State mentioned "Albertopolis". I was beginning to look forward to a rendition of "Albert and the Lion" by Stanley Holloway, but perhaps we did not have quite the roar that Holloway would have given us. But the Secretary of State reflected an acceptance that the arts lie at the heart of society and are the basis of the nation's civilisation, and that the ideas and notions that they convey are often inexpressible by other means. What may be peculiar to the arts is the fact that, if they are to be part of our environment, new ideas are the prerequisite of success.
It is in the sphere of novelty and innovation that public funding is important. The market does not automatically provide for new forms of expression; nor does it always go to those parts of our country and communities that have not had the opportunity of hearing or seeing a specific art form before. Public funding will always be necessary in order to increase access to the arts in those areas and to spread experimentation. If we under-resource the nation's arts, we shall have to resign ourselves to a duller society.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to two notable connoisseurs from Russia who had, through their private patronage, brought a wealth of impressionist paintings to the Hermitage. Private patronage has an important part to play in society today —indeed, it always has.
The right hon. Gentleman's reference to those two Russian connoisseurs made me think of a Scottish connoisseur called Alexander Reid, who became a partner in a firm known today as Reid and LeFevre. He spent a formative part of his life in Paris, where he shared accommodation with Vincent Van Gogh. He was the subject of a notable portrait by Van Gogh which, I am happy to say, hangs in the municipal collection in Glasgow. As a result of his wise advice to the tycoons of the day in Glasgow, many of them invested in the purchase of paintings by Sisley, Monet, Pisarro and others whom he
888
had known and admired. Their paintings were, in turn, passed on to the great municipal collection in Glasgow. That happened as a result not of public intervention, but of connoisseurship and wise patronage. That will never be displaced, any more than will the need for public funding.
We cannot rely on sponsorship to provide continuity of artistic endeavour, which is why the Secretary of State must win his battles with the Treasury. There has been generous sponsorship from a number of major national companies. The Secretary of State mentioned two—British Telecom, with its involvement in orchestras, and the Allied Lyons link with the Royal Shakespeare company. Those sponsorships are welcome, but we must remember how private sponsorship failed the Royal Shakespeare company for a time, and there were dark nights in the Barbican. We must recall how close the Barbican came to losing that central part of our current national artistic provision.
Those who sponsor the arts are conscious that they cannot provide core funding, but can only help to boost it and enable those involved in the arts to do better work and to take their work more widely around the country.
I shall spare the Secretary of State a lecture on the importance of the arts, as I do not doubt that he well understands the significance of the arts to our national economy. If he is looking for a job in the future, he could do worse than chair the British Tourist Authority. Were he deployed in that role, his recounting of the excellence to be discovered in Britain today would doubtless bring many more visitors to our shores. He is right to draw attention to the extraordinary quality of work being done in all parts of Britain today—not only by those professionals whose contribution is admired throughout the world, but by amateurs and those who enjoy participating in the arts and the community, even in simple ways. Their contribution to the arts is of immense importance. Our funding policy can never lose sight of the importance of encouraging the young to have an understanding and appreciation of the arts.
Like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I am concerned about the evident decline in support for education in the arts. That is not the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State, but it must cause him concern. I hope that he will discuss with his colleagues what more can be done to provide musical instrumental training of the young. The treatment of music in the curriculum and of the arts generally appears not to have fostered the acquisition of those skills. The fact that itinerant, peripatetic music teachers are being withdrawn from schools in rural regions is disturbing.
Another issue for which the Secretary of State is not directly responsible, but which has caused great anxiety in the arts world, is that of discretionary grants for the performing arts in unrecognised institutions. The issue of who enters the performing arts is becoming an increasingly haphazard process which appears to depend increasingly on where one lives and how rich one's parents are, not on one's talent or whether one is likely to become the next Peggy Ashcroft or John Gielgud. That is not acceptable and I hope that the Secretary of State or, when he winds up the debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage will mention that problem. It is not directly a matter for them, but it is giving rise to justifiable concern.
The arts play a role in society that goes far beyond the mere provision of leisure occupation. The arts also have a valuable therapeutic role, as those of us who are interested

889
in penal policy—as I am, wearing another hat—can vouchsafe. In prisons we see remarkable examples of prisoners involved both in performing and in sharing the experience. Such activity helps to re-educate them, and to correct their view of themselves and their understanding of the world to which they must ultimately be returned—it should not be left entirely to happenstance.
It is desirable that such a role, as played by artistic organisations, should be enlarged and enhanced for the civilising effect it has on those people in our society who are much in need of it.
Despite the Secretary of State's recitation of the strengths of the arts world in Britain today, there are a number of areas of weakness and great concern. I do not wish to produce a shopping list of demands, because it would be a long one, but I must allude to the plight of the orchestras. Too many of them are in heavy deficit. If I were to single out one orchestra for particular attention, it would be the home orchestra of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—the Bournemouth symphony orchestra. It services a substantial area of southern England and I understand that it has a deficit of £250,000, but has fewer resources to draw on than some of the better-known London orchestras. Although the Minister takes the view that he does about the arm's-length principle, I hope that he will have a word with Lord Gowrie about that orchestra.
The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex is correct in recognising that things will change. One should not simply mouth support for the arm's-length principle when, in reality, ministerial influence exists and can be exercised beneficently. But if the Minister seeks to wind up the Arts Council, I think that I am prepared to have my cake and eat it.
I also draw the Secretary of State's attention to the extraordinary importance of the BBC to the arts. It is particularly important to draw attention to it at the time of the review of its charter. The BBC's orchestras alone constitute one of our greatest national advantages. They are particularly important in those parts of the country that do not have great resident orchestras. The orchestras travel to small communities and play new music. Orchestra members are allowed the flexibility to play in small groups and in reduced numbers in halls that could not accommodate full-size orchestras, which, of course, is the case in many parts of the country.
There is evidence that the BBC is looking for ways of disembarrassing itself of the cost of financing its orchestras. If that were to happen on a major scale, the current underfunding problems faced by other orchestras would become immensely more difficult to deal with. Although it may be an historical anomaly that the BBC has been able to create great orchestras, they are an asset which we should not allow to slip away through inadvertence or by putting pressure upon the BBC's funding arrangements and making it rethink the appropriateness of what it does.
That is only one of the many ways in which the BBC is a bountiful donor to the artistic world, but it is perhaps the one which is most seriously at risk at this time.
I hope that the Secretary of State will feel that the debate has been worth while and that he will prevail on his colleagues to make debates about the arts a regular feature of our political life. I think that it has been too long since we last had an opportunity to consider these matters.
6.33 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in the debate, as 38 years ago I used to play with him in a band. We attended the same college; and the president of our college junior common room was the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
I cannot always agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but I share in his tribute to the BBC in respect of music, not only in relation to its splendid seasons of promenade concerts which were mentioned earlier and its upholding of the orchestras to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but also in relation to what it has achieved through BBC Radio 3.
I draw the attention of the Secretary of State—whether or not he discusses it with the new chairman of the Arts Council; I hope that he will—to the whole position of orchestras. The chairman of the Arts Council is also a Balliol man, but I think junior to the other three persons I have mentioned. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the long-term position of serious music in this country after the BBC's next charter, which I hope will take place.
The National Heritage Committee—upon which I sit —in its report last year about the future of the BBC, while recommending the renewal of the BBC's charter for the next 10 years, anticipated that, with the growth in satellite and cable television channels, and as the time would come when people would be able to call up and put on their telephone bill any video that they wanted, then the whole concept of a daily menu of programmes through four television channels, which everyone is used to, would wither away. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who also serves on the committee, will confirm what I am saying.
That can hardly fail to have a knock-on effect in the very long term—looking 15 or 20 years ahead—on the four radio channels, including Radio 3. I think that this could possibly have a serious effect on taste for good music in this country, even despite the tremendous acknowledged success of Classic FM, which most people have admired and which has grown so much in the past year.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, firstly, on the positive survey that he gave the House of the arts scene in Britain and, secondly, on the national lottery. I was glad to hear him say that he was determined to make the proceeds additional to public expenditure. The more often that this is repeated the better, and I was glad to hear him say it again today.I am convinced that history will show that the national lottery was a great achievement for this Parliament and this Government. It will do a tremendous amount of good.
I see Britain as one of the capitals of the arts world. As the Secretary of State said, on any weekday in London there is a vast range of theatres, concerts, opera, ballet, museums, art galleries and special exhibitions. All over Britain there is a tremendous array of cathedrals, abbeys, castles and country houses which are open to the public. It is a tremendous heritage.
My constituency boasts Hampton Court palace and Kneller hall, where the painter used to live and which is now the Royal Military School of Music where British army bands are trained, whose high standards of excellence are the envy of the entire world. We have Horace Walpole's Strawberry hill, which was the beginning of the

891
gothic revival in this country. It gave rise to every neo-gothic building that one can see, whether it is the Palace of Westminster, which was rebuilt after the fire; St. Pancras station; every Victorian town hall; or every Victorian school with pointed windows. All those buildings stem from Horace Walpole's Strawberry hill at Twickenham.
We have Marble Hill park, now excellently run by English Heritage following the abolition of the Greater London council. Last September, I had the tremendous privilege for an amateur pianist of playing with the London Mozart Players at the last outdoor concert of the season in Marble Hill park, which was attended by 5,400 people. We have the art gallery at Orleans house, and many fine Georgian houses.
The whole country has a tremendous range of historic buildings whose preservation we all want to support. English Heritage, for example, maintains more than 400 of them. The National Trust, which is a different kind of body, not only looks after buildings, but has a great deal of beautiful countryside and coastline. It also runs 320 properties, including about 190 historic castles and houses.
The Government have many historic buildings open to the public; local authorities have about 500 buildings open to the public; and in private hands there are about 1,300 members of the Historic Houses Association and those 1,300 houses are open to the public. All these statistics were listed in a report of the Select Committee on the National Heritage which was published a couple of months back.
In the performing arts, we have a huge amount of talent. There is a large number of brilliant actors and actresses, brilliant producers such as my constituent and neighbour Dr. Louis Marks, who produced the BBC series "Middlemarch" which attracted so much favourable comment from all over the world. We have superb musicians; we are one of the most musical countries in the world. Here I have to declare an interest as a member of the council of the Association of British Orchestras—although unpaid.
I am very glad that not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but also the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned orchestras. I should say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is a Balliol man as well, which makes five.
Three right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned orchestras. None of us should apologise for doing so. The whole House would hope that the Secretary of State, the new chairman of the Arts Council and his new secretary general should devote particular attention to the problem of orchestras, which they failed so signally to resolve last year.
Despite what my right hon. Friend said, orchestras are one of Britain's success stories. I believe, as I implied in my earlier intervention, that the standards of the top British orchestras are very high indeed. They achieve the most remarkable standards of accuracy, musicianship and spiritual dimension in their performance. They are extremely close in standard to such orchestras as the Chicago, Vienna, Berlin and Amsterdam orchestras, mentioned by my right hon. Friend.
892
In the richness and diversity of our orchestras, we have a provision unrivalled anywhere in the world. Their repertoire is tremendously varied and adventurous, although some of them face alarming budgetary difficulties. I hope that the whole House will support the most careful study and see if more can be done to find a solution.
I do not think we should ever play down our achievements in the arts. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was a Cassandra—however Cassandra is defined and whoever Cassandra was. He was rather dismal and gloomy in what he said and I do not think that we should take such a despairing attitude; if we do, it will have a dampening effect on what the arts should achieve. We should build on our strengths and we should uphold the arts, which are largely a success story.
The arts are very important in this country, first and foremost for their intrinsic value, because what people perceive through their eyes and ears in the arts enriches and fulfils their lives and can excite and stimulate them and uplift their spirits. That is the most important thing.
Secondly, the arts have an undoubted economic value. Visitors come to Britain not for our weather but for our traditional scene, our heritage, our monarchy, our royal palaces, such as Hampton Court, our military bands, our cathedrals, our castles, our country houses, our villages and towns—many of which have great character—and our beautiful countryside, as well as our superb theatres and many of our concerts and other live arts performances. That is why visitors come to Britain; and when they do, they spend not only upon the arts and heritage, but upon hotels, restaurants, shopping and internal travel. Many of those activities are labour-ntensive and the visitors, by their spending, generate employment and income and a tax yield to the Government.
It has been estimated by the tourist board that visitors from abroad produce in income about £8 billion a year. Anyone can work out as a piece of simple arithmetic that, in a population of 55 million, that amounts to something like £140 to £150 per head of population, or about £400 per household, per year. That is money in the big league; it is equivalent to not far short of half the cost of the national health service or 5p in the pound on income tax. It is very substantial, and we would be crazy not to go flat out not merely to hold it up, but to increase it still further.
I know from what my right hon. Friend said that he is very much seized of that, and I am glad that his Department, which he is welding together so successfully, covers tourism as well as the arts and heritage, because, from an economic point of view although not in every other sense, these things are linked. That showed not only in what he said today, but in his evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage.
Business sponsorship is very important, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central seemed to play it down. It is a hundredfold increase, from £500,000 per year in the late 1970sto£58 million a year now. When we compare that with the estimate of £80 million that the national lottery is expected to produce for the arts—or £80 million that it is expected to produce for the heritage—or the Arts Council budget which is of the order of £200 million, when it has found its level, we can see that it is in the same league.
Business sponsorship is very important and my right hon. Friend referred to the generous sponsorship of Allied

893
Lyons for the Royal Shakespeare Company of £3.3 million over three years and the £500,000 from British Telecom to the orchestras.
The one which makes me uneasy is tobacco sponsorship. The purpose of sponsorship is to improve the image of the sponsoring company, to promote goodwill and indirectly to promote the sale of its products.
In a typical constituency with 1,300 15-year-olds, according to the Royal College of Physicians, 24 per cent. of 15–year-olds now smoke and, if there is no change in the pattern, about one-third of them or 100 of the 1,300 will die from smoking or smoking-related diseases. I do not want the arts, about which I care passionately, to be abused to foster goodwill for a product which is lethal. I hope that the arts will take that view and will look harder for other sponsors, and that eventually people will spend less on tobacco and more on other things. I hope that producers of other products will in turn provide the sponsorship for the arts that is currently provided by the tobacco companies.
Many arts events are attended by doctors. It seems that they are often musical. They go to a lot of concerts. I believe that they could make their influence felt rather more if they pulled together. Perhaps they could get the BMA to organise them to do so.
I should like to mention two final matters in which I have an interest. I have three choral societies in my constituency: the Hampton choral society, of which I am president, the Twickenham choral society and the Teddington choral society. All over the country, choral societies perform their range of oratorios, requiems and masses at two or three concerts a year. They are a mainstream British musical tradition. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is in his place. The three choirs festival, which highlights what I am saying, sprang up in his county in the 19th century; choral concerts now take place all over Britain. This is an important and a particularly English tradition.
In London these choral societies find it increasingly difficult to get funds, because they seek to obtain them from the Greater London Arts Association, which is dominated by politically correct people from inner London. Thus an ethnic body in central London can easily obtain arts funding whereas a choral society in outer London cannot. To some extent, that could threaten the societies' future.
I would ask the Under-Secretary to be kind enough to send for information on this point and, when he has had time to do so, to let me have a letter on how choral societies, not only in my own constituency and in greater London but all over the United Kingdom, can be upheld in the future.
My final point relates to our military heritage. Anyone who travels from Devonshire to Portsmouth can see.HMS Victory in Portsmouth dockyard—and HMS Warrior. These are 19th century ships that have been preserved. However, if people in 100 years' time want to see a second world war ship—apart from HMS Belfast, which has been preserved on the River Thames, and one or two smaller ships—they will find it difficult to do so. Hitherto the preservation of such ships has been effected by a few philanthropists, including our former colleague Sir Philip Goodhart, who has preserved a submarine. It may become increasingly difficult to find a destroyer or a frigate because the only ones left will be those that have been sold to other countries.
894
I very much hope that the Secretary of State, who has already informed the Select Committee that he is seized of this matter, will give careful consideration to the funding of the preservation of warships, as part of Britain's military heritage. I am thinking not so much of the day-to-day revenue costs of keeping ships open as of the fact that they need major repairs from time to time to enable their hulls to survive. I hope that this activity can be funded by one part or another of the national lottery, so that the warships of the mid-20th century will be preserved for posterity. I should be grateful if the Government would give continuing consideration to that point, and if I could be told what they have in mind.
6.54 pm
Mr. Derek Enright: I begin by apologising to the Under-Secretary of State, because I shall have to leave before he makes his response. Nevertheless, I assure him that on Monday morning I shall open my Hansard with trembling fingers and read every word that he utters this evening. I eagerly anticipate that.
The House will be relieved to know that I shall be mercifully brief this evening. It is always a great joy to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who took us on a little tour through the beauties of his constituency. I should like to mention some of the beauties of mine.
We have, for instance, Featherstone Alps, perhaps better known as a pit top, but it looks pretty just after it has snowed. We also have eight pits that have been closed down in the past 18 months. We have empty factories and a great deal of unemployment. Yet I think it crucial to speak in this debate, because it is in times of poverty and near-despair that we need the arts more than ever—and we need them where we live.
I would not want to denigrate Lord Gowrie and the Arts Council. On the whole, I happen to think that the council does an admirable job. It is all too easy to carp, because we all believe that we could do the job better. But it is not the Arts Council's job to look at what is happening deep down in the regions.
One of the problems in the regions is the lack of money given to our local councils. They are certainly not the be-all and end-all for the arts in my part of Yorkshire. They do go in for healthy fights with other bodies, and so they should. Unless, however, they have the money to prompt and to assist, and to fight other interested bodies, the arts do not stand a chance.
I think particularly of the hatchet job that the Secretary of State for Education has done—we are consistently deprived by his actions. He has decreed that education authorities be given only an absolute minimum of central funds. The West Riding used to enjoy a fine musical tradition of orchestras, peripatetic music teachers and so on. That tradition was second to none. If people want to see a dramatic improvement in education standards, they have only to look at the difference between how music, art, the dance and drama were taught a mere 20 years ago and how vibrantly they are taught now.
All this is threatened by imposing on schools the responsibility to duplicate what used to be done by the grand county council of West Riding, which stretched from Dent all the way down to Hemsworth, Barnsley and beyond.
As a result of the change, the quality of artistic back-up, and of the help with starting projects that is so crucial to the

895
arts, no longer exists. The Under-Secretary of State should take up his sword and fight the Department for Education. I applaud what he has done for team games; now I urge him to take on another educational policy which is extremely short-sighted.
We still have a strong tradition of male voice choirs; some of the best ones come from the old West Riding. The tradition of their excellence continues. This relies very heavily on the work of people involved in education. Nonetheless, it includes everyone, from the top people—the miners—right down to the doctors. They all sing together happily, and to some purpose. Indeed, they often come to the Albert hall to bring a little civilisation to this cruel and barbaric city.
The problems of brass band have been compounded. In this context, I must express gratitude to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—this is beginning to sound like a love-in—for his work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman thoroughly enjoyed himself last Saturday, when huge crowds came from the north to the centre of this city and showed it how to behave. With all those people at Wembley, there was not a single arrest. That would not happen in Hayes and Harlington or any other such place.
Brass bands have a very serious problem which I have mentioned in the House previously. This arises from the closure of the pits. Frickley, which is in my constituency, was closed just at Christmas, and with it went the funds for the brass band. Those funds came not from the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation but from individual pits. Money was contributed by individual miners, and a certain amount came from the management.
This did not cover the entire costs, and it did not enable band members to live in luxury or to get off work. Members still went down the pit or went about their other jobs. However, funding was provided for youngsters participating in a village tradition. Those young people simply could not afford to buy such expensive instruments. Purchase was often on a shared basis.
It will be a very serious loss if, now that we have a grand arts Department, this kind of thing ceases. Apart from anything else, there is huge unemployment in my constituency. Youngsters leaving school cannot find work. I am thinking in particular of males. Boys do not have an opportunity to work with men who can show them how to behave and how to do a job.
In such a setting, a young lad stepping out of line was soon dealt with. Now boys are left on the streets. The kind of contact they need is available only through male voice choirs, brass bands and orchestras. Members of brass bands come together with string players to form orchestras, which have been very successful.
This is a fine heritage from the old West Riding, which was controlled, in turn, by Labour and Conservative councils, both of which contributed wholeheartedly to the tradition. The fact that the orchestras are rapidly dying out cannot possibly be blamed on the opting-out of schools, as no schools in the Wakefield area have opted out. The problem arises from the devolution of funding to schools.
I am arguing not that schools should not control their own funds but that the Government ought to recognise that there must be some central financial control if this function
896
is to be properly discharged. It is just as important as the business of controlling truancy, for which central funds are necessary.
I should like to refer to the splendid sculpture park in Bretton, which is in the Wakefield district. If Ministers have not visited the park, I, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), invite them to do so. I shall be there this Saturday to see what is happening before we launch yet more Henry Moore statues.
Few sculpture parks can boast the Barbara Hepworths and the Henry Moores that we can boast. Both those people come from our area, and both were nurtured in the tradition and rigour of the West Riding. That is what informs their work. In Bretton, one can see sculptures in their proper setting. It is marvellous to behold families there on a good day. They take pictures and roam around the Henry Moore. These things are not sacred in that area; they are familiar.
Mr. Tony Banks: People can walk through it.
Mr. Enright: Indeed, or, as I witnessed not long ago, play hide-and-seek. It is important that such things should become a familiar part of people's lives.
In this area of excellence, there is currently serious underfunding. If I could get hold of the Arts Council, I would make the case that it should be a priority. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will take a close look and see what can be done. The Wakefield council has gallantly set about funding the project. Now its continuation needs to be secured. I am quite sure that, in this regard, I shall have the wholehearted backing of the House and of the Department.
It is sad that a debate on the arts has to take place on an Adjournment motion. It is a great shame that such a discussion cannot be held in the middle of the week, when everything is throbbing and vibrant. However, the quality of the hon. Members present makes up for the lack of numbers.
7.6 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). I agree with much of what he has said and, in particular, with his final remarks. We are all delighted to have this debate, but it is a scandal that the last one took place four years ago. It is equally scandalous that almost every time that we have an arts debate it is held in what could hardly be described as prime time. It is a great pity that, almost certainly, very little of what is said in the Chamber will be reported in the press tomorrow. While talking about the press, perhaps I should say that, although I entirely respect the desire of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to interfere, I hope that he will be able to encourage some of the so-called quality papers to carry a parliamentary page once again.
I was tempted to follow the hon. Member for Hemsworth and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) by going on a scenic tour of my constituency. Sadly, I too can boast empty collieries. However, I can also boast fine historiċ houses, like Weston Park. I do not intend to take hon. Members on such a tour, but I should like to make a number of brief points.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has returned to the Chamber. I regard the hon. Gentleman highly in many ways—as a

897
Staffordshire neighbour and colleague and as the son of a dear friend who had the good sense to sit on the Conservative side of the House. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, when he speaks in the House, has to sound so totally cross about everything. He is not like that in private life. He is very much nicer than he sounds in the Chamber. His diatribe this afternoon would have made one think that nothing was right, that all was wrong.
Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, but I shall give way to him.
Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Far from being a diatribe against everything, what I said was a diatribe just against the Government's policy, or lack of it. I have nothing but praise for everything else in the world of the arts, whether at local government level or the work of Lord Gowrie. My speech was an attack on the Government and nothing else.
Mr. Cormack: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's speech was not entirely worthy of him. One of the great features of the arts and our heritage is that many of us have struggled to keep them out of the party political arena. I am delighted to be chairman of the all-party committee on arts and heritage, which we founded in the mid-1970s and which has more paid-up members than any other all-party group in either House. We have successfully lobbied successive Governments.
Some of the achievements of the past 15 years include the national heritage memorial fund and the establishment of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which is now called English Heritage. In that time, too, we have seen the burgeoning of new arts galleries in London. I think of the Clore gallery at the Tate and the Sackler gallery at the Royal Academy. We have every right: to be proud of all that has happened. By no means can all of it be the subject of praise for the Government.
I attended the opening of the Sainsbury wing at the national gallery and in a powerful speech Lord Sainsbury said—I hope that I can paraphrase him with reasonable accuracy—that although the family were delighted to be involved in that munificent gift to the nation—it was munificent—it was a pity that there was not more Government money for similar ventures. I echo that plea, just as I warmly endorse all the thanks that have rightly been bestowed upon the Sainsburys for what they gave to the national gallery.
Britain has incredible riches. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was slightly derogatory about the capital city but I am sure he did not mean it because in many ways London is the richest capital city in the world, although perhaps that is a subjective view. It has theatrical and musical traditions that are second to none and its museums and galleries are collectively the best in the world. We have an enormous amount to be proud of and it is our duty to ensure that when it is passed on to succeeding generations it will be even richer than it is now.
I am concerned about the fairly parlous structural state of some of our museums and galleries. My right hon. Friend, who is the most civilised man imaginable, made a passing reference to the Tate gallery. He was right about the Picasso exhibition but the Tate needs major structural repairs and it is important that they are effected. I hope that a prime task of the millennium fund will be to ensure that
898
the structure of every major gallery and museum, not just in the capital city but in the country, is in a fit state to meet the 21st century.
Often we do not sufficiently appreciate what we have. The hon. Member for Hemsworth rightly spoke about people who have fallen upon hard times getting solace from the arts. Some of the most moving pictures that I have seen in the past two or three years have been those of the citizens of Sarajevo gathering for concerts. There was a marvellous event when Professor Nigel Osborne from Edinburgh sat in the middle of the devastated olympic arena and played a moving cello composition that he had written for the occasion. He played in white tie and tails surrounding by a crowd of people who had literally risked their lives to hear him. Older friends to whom I spoke about that said that it brought back memories of Myra Hess playing in the national gallery to the people of London in the last war.
The arts enrich and sustain. Anyone who had the chance to visit, as I did, one or two communist countries before the collapse of the Berlin wall will know what it meant for the people of those countries to be able to see good theatre, to listen to music and to get books. The arts have an overriding, enriching influence on our lives. As several hon. Members rightly said, the arts also bring money to this country. By jove they do, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said, people come here not for the weather but for our incomparably rich culture.
The letter from Lord Gowrie that has been quoted in the debate should be quoted again. It states:
"Our enviable level of arts activity, with all that implies for employment, foreign exchange and national interests in general, cannot be sustained against this background."
The background that he mentions is the parlous state of public funding. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for what he has done and for what he as a man stands for. There could be no more fitting holder of his office, and I am glad that he is supported and assisted by an Under-Secretary of State who adopts a robust approach to these matters.
However, we need more funding. I remember attending a conference organised by the Conservative party in 1979, shortly before our general election victory 15 years ago.My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham was there and probably remembers it too. Lord St. John of Fawsley, as he now is, was the moving spirit behind it and the Baroness Thatcher of Finchley, as she now is, made a passionate speech about the arts and money and castigated candle-end economies. She said that in the arts a little money goes a long way and that the savings which accrue when the arts budget is cut are minuscule in the context of the national budget. Those words are as true today as they were when she uttered them 15 or more years ago. Therefore, I hope that in the next round of public spending my right hon. Friend, supported by hon. Members from all parts of the House, will fight his corner as he has never fought it before. I make no criticism of his commitment, dedication and knowledge, which is considerable, but we must fight to preserve or increase the arts budget because it is a tiny sum.
Mr. Tony Banks: I was the one who raised the issue of the suitability of the noble Earl Gowrie as chairman of the Arts Council. I spoke not against him as an individual but because he is an ex-Conservative Minister. I know the way that these things go. Another reason for Lord Gowrie

899
perhaps not being an ideal choice is that his letter mentions cuts in the arts. The hon. Gentleman said that the Baroness Thatcher spoke about candle-end savings, but many people in the arts have to survive on virtually nothing. I remember Lord Gowrie quitting as Arts Minister because he said he could not live on a salary that at that time was £33,000. That is a strange message to send to artists who live on a mere pittance.
Mr. Cormack: I cannot quite see the aim of that intervention other than to get something off the hon. Gentleman's chest. His jocularity shows that it was totally irrelevant and I do not intend to be led astray. However, I will say that gamekeepers often prove to be the best poachers and vice versa. Lord Gowrie will fight robustly for the arts and will be an admirable chairman. He is immensely civilised, has a great knowledge of the arts, and is skilful with his pen as well as on his feet. He will prove to be a doughty champion. The Arts Council will be well led by him and will have my complete support.
I understand the reasons for some of the doubts expressed by a former arts Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), but there is a need for an Arts Council. There is a case for all the great nationals to be funded directly as are the great museums and galleries, but I certainly think that there is a continuing role for a robust Arts Council, and I believe that it will be under Lord Gowrie.
I have talked about the Tate and the parlous state of its fabric. We should recognise that our museums suffer not just from leaking roofs but from their frozen purchase grants. Although the national heritage memorial fund does a wonderful job, it is deeply disturbing to me that so many of the important objects, for which the Export Review Committee refuses to give an export licence, eventually go abroad. I am not one of those who would fight to the last to keep every object in this country, as that would be entirely ridiculous, but nevertheless it is disturbing how many of the things that are of great national significance have gone abroad. The prime reason for them going is the level of purchase grant that our museums and galleries have. There is great unease and real concern among trustees—all those whom I know—and the directors on that score. That must be addressed with vigour.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might well say that the lottery will be able to help. As one of those who fought for the lottery, I am delighted about that and welcome the new money but, as has been said on a number of occasions, it is no substitute for Government and national responsibility. It is vital that it should be additional money against an increasing national budget, not against a frozen or decreasing one. That is important and I would welcome assurances from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he replies. I know that he shares my concern about the wonderful museums that we have throughout the country and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I have a particular interest in, and concern for, another group of buildings—our historic churches. In so many of our towns and cities, the only building of real historic interest and significance is the church. I speak as church warden of a small village church. The village has a relatively tiny population—under 300 people—and we are raising £100,000 to repair our church. Although we have
900
the aid of a grant from English Heritage, for which we are extremely grateful, we shall have to raise the bulk of the money ourselves. If we have a similar problem in five or six years time, it will be beyond the resources of such a small area to raise a similar sum again. That tale could be repeated time and again up and down the country.
I declare an interest as a trustee of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, which, every year, gives away some £500,000. We are climbing a mountain that is getting bigger by the year. One of the problems is the vexed question of VAT on repairs to listed buildings. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who is a former Treasury Minister and, in that capacity, received me with trustees on that subject some years ago, will talk to the Chancellor and other Treasury colleagues about it. That problem will not go away; indeed, given the increasingly parlous state of the Church of England's finances, it will grow bigger year by year. Any nation that allowed some of its fine historic churches and cathedrals to be put in jeopardy could not call itself civilised.
Only today, incidentally, I received a letter from our former colleague, Sir Hugh Rossi, who heads up the new Historic Chapels Trust. Again—I am not just concerned about the buildings of the established church—there is a real problem. I welcome the new trust and I am sure that Sir Hugh will give it dedicated and splendid leadership, but it does not have funds and resources. He is looking for ways and means of raising the finance to sustain those religious buildings that are no longer used, but that are an important part of the life and history of the country.
In many of the mining towns of Wales, Yorkshire, and even parts of my native Staffordshire, the chapel played a central part, but now, in many cases, a handful of people go, or none at all, and it is redundant. Far too many of those buildings have been turned into furniture repositories, office machinery sales rooms and all sorts of wholly unsuitable uses. It is excellent that Sir Hugh's trust exists to try to preserve redundant chapels but it needs money.
That brings me to the point that I made earlier—the sums that we are talking of are very small. They are tiny in the national budget. My right hon. Friend's Department has, in comparison with other Government Departments, a very small budget. I am not a prodigal spender, and I do not advocate open-ended commitments and blank cheques, but there is a national responsibility. I welcome the establishment of the National Heritage Department, but it is sad that this is the first debate on the arts since it was established. I was one of those who argued for its creation 20 years ago and constantly made reference to the need for uniting arts and heritage under a Cabinet Minister, so of course I am glad that it is there, but if it is to fulfil its potential, it needs a proper budget to meet all of its responsibilities. At the moment, it does not have that, and we should all do everything that we can to try to ensure that it gets greater resources.
We are dealing with one of the most important subjects that Parliament can debate, because, in a few years' time, amid the furore of a Tuesday and Thursday, the particular issues that might have excited passions today on many other fronts will be forgotten. If our civilisation is to survive, it is important that the buildings that encapsulate it and the works of art that speak of our heritage and history are preserved. It is now the responsibility of the National Heritage Department to do that. I am sure that there is not a single hon. Member in the House who would not wish my right hon. and hon. Friends success in their tremendous

901
task, but we need to give higher priority to the subjects that we are debating today, in financial terms as well as parliamentary time.
7.27 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: After the last few words of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) I feel almost like breaking out and singing Rule Britannia or perhaps even the national anthem, so deeply do I feel about such matters. This is a club: it is the "we all love the arts" club—the luvvies' club—and I am not a member. I am on the outside —a Philistine. Indeed, if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will excuse the ethnic expression, if it were down to the unanimity of many hon. Members, I would be blackballed. I am delighted about that, because it is not the sort of club that I want to belong to.
I have heard a couple of things that interest me. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) talked about bringing the arts to prison. The mind boggles. Imagine the Krays dressed up in tights and prancing around—that sounds rather good—or Ronnie Knight singing like an opera singer instead of like a bird? Perhaps we should bring in the Trojan horse for those on the other side—they might be able to use it for other purposes.
In the Whips Office there is a Conservative research department brief on the arts. Under the heading "The Governments's Approach" it says:
"The central aim of Conservative arts policy has always been to encourage wider access to, and higher standards in, the arts. This aim applies at every level of artistic activity, from amateur dramatics to Grand Opera."
That is very good, very narrow, very exclusive and very elitist, is it not? There is no mention of anything but amateur dramatics in the arts. Why not darts? That is a game played in most working men's clubs throughout the world and in this country, particularly in the north-east and north-west, but there is no mention of improving the standard of darts playing. Ten-pin bowling is one of the most enjoyed leisure pursuits. Those who play have to pay the full cost of using the bowling lanes, but there is no mention of the Government becoming involved in improving standards there. The same is true of tiddlywinks. Table tennis is probably played by more people in this country than any other sport, but there is no mention of that. What always angers me about arts debates is that they are too damned elitist and closed shop.
There is no reference to the sports that I mentioned because they are not Establishment sports or pursuits—although given the decimation of the arts world in America and here due to a particular kind of illness, one wonders what the arts world gets up to in respect of some leisure pursuits. Our heritage is what the Establishment says it is. Time and again, I have asked for somebody to tell me in simple words—because I am a simple chap—what is so special about the arts and what is so ordinary about working-class pastimes.
I refer, for example, to the sport of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). Watching him dashing for the tape in the Olympics, either just behind or just ahead of Steve Ovett—the sheer form of that man running for his country—was to witness an artistic form. It was something special and really nice. Compare that: with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South about looking at churches, which
902
would bore me to tears. Once, I visited Athens. It seemed like a Wimpey building site and I was absolutely bored. However, that is my view. If somebody else thinks that old broken brick is marvellous, that is up to them—but do not expect me to accept your view of what is special. In the same way, I do not expect you to accept my view of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not bring me into it. He probably did not intend to.
Mr. Dicks: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We must be more generous and take a more general view of leisure pursuits. Take Pavarotti. Nowadays, he has to be helped on to the stage and leans against a backdrop. He has to be supported by other singers in case he falls over. He holds a handkerchief that is soaking wet, and he weighs 25 stone. His voice is going now. How on earth can he be seen to be singing a love song to a supposedly young lady but in reality to a woman of the same age and nearly the same weight who rocks and rolls every time she stands up? If others want to say that watching such a performance is their pastime and heritage, let them do so, but they should pay the full cost and not expect me, my constituents or anyone else to put our hands in our pockets to the tune of nearly £40 a seat to support them. If they are daft enough to follow that pursuit, let them be daft enough to pay for it.
For my sins, I have supported Bristol Rovers for 50 years. They are now struggling in the second division of the Endsleigh league. They are not doing well and are almost broke. When I attend their matches, and if I am not invited to the chairman's box, which is just a little wooden structure—nothing like the luxury box in which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) sits when he goes to Chelsea—
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman amuses me, but he is not getting away with that calumny. I am a Chelsea season ticket holder and I have been a regular supporter for 40 years. I queue for my ticket, sit in the stands, and pay for my seat—which is more than I can say for some Members of Parliament.
Mr. Dicks: I will take a guess that the hon. Gentleman has a cup final ticket, which many Chelsea supporters do not—and I bet that he did not have to queue for it. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that those of us who support soccer and appreciate its beauty —and the artistry of Manchester United, Newcastle and Blackburn Rovers in particular—pay the full economic cost of entering the grounds. Nobody says, "The cost of a stand seat is £60, but we will give you £40 towards it because it is important in the wider context of the heritage of our country." I suppose I should go down on one knee when I say that.
Football is our heritage. It was founded in this country, but nobody seems to care whether Hartlepool United goes out of existence, because the luvvies do not watch Hartlepool United but go in their droves to watch opera and ballet, kiss each other on both cheeks and say, "Darling, how nice to see you." That is why poor Hartlepool United and, to a lesser extent, Bristol Rovers have to struggle to make ends meet, week in and week out. I get fed up with it, I am sick and tired of it, and I hope that one day some common sense will be shown by members of my Front Bench and that something will be done.

903
The Conservative research department brief also states that the west end theatre is a success and that
"11.5 million people attended shows at West End theatres in 1993–94."
However, it does not reveal that the most successful shows are those where supply and demand come together—as in the case of Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals—and make a price. The public are prepared to pay the full cost to see a damned good show. They are prepared to queue for tickets, or even to wait three or four months for them. In the arty-farty world, where it is a case of an obscure opera staged in the back of beyond, it is said, "It will go out of business unless we give it money." Of course it will go out of business if it is a load of rubbish and nobody wants to see it unless someone else pays for the ticket. That is the problem with the arts: so much rubbish is put on that nobody wants to see unless someone else makes a contribution.
I mentioned Manchester United and Arsenal. People pay the full cost to see them. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) mentioned the wonderful game that Wigan played against Leeds last Saturday. Everyone involved paid their own way. There was no subsidy of the kind given to transporting musical instruments. Players and fans paid the cost of their own journeys. They went to Wembley, where it cost them a fortune not only to watch the game but to pay for the barrels of beer afterwards—and good luck to them. There is no subsidy for those working-class lads up north who—unlike a load of middle class twits swanning around in their bow ties and long frocks—support their team and pay their own way out of their hard-earned wages. They paid the full cost, and quite right. We are all very proud of them.
The Conservative research document also makes reference to an access initiative,
"aimed at encouraging a wider range of people to participate in the arts, and at"—
this is the best bit—
"improving (or deepening) the quality of their experience of the arts."
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State share with me—to use the "in" phrase—what is meant by deepening the quality of experience of the arts? That is politically correct tripe of the worst kind. Nobody wants to improve or deepen the quality of my experience of Bristol Rovers, but now we are to have a chap with a little hat and a badge saying, "I can deepen your understanding of the arts—let me talk to you and help you to understand the arts." I have never read so much tripe. If that is the sort of rubbish coming out of central office, God help us.
The briefing also states that
"Conservatives have provided record resources for the Arts Council. Between 1979 and 1993, the Arts Council's grant increased by 45 per cent.—over and above inflation."
What a boast. What a record. Some of my constituents have a job to survive, yet we boast of giving the Arts Council increases "over and above inflation." What sort of society does that? Value added tax has been imposed on domestic fuel because of the need to overcome the Government's debts or the country's debts, yet we can fire off money to arty-farty people and the luvvies. The poor, the sick and the elderly would be offended if they ever bothered to read that. They would ask, "Why do we have to struggle?" Am Ito tell them, "If you cannot heat your flat tonight, I will put you in a car and take you to the Royal
904
Opera house, and the Government will give you £40 to get in—and that will keep you warm as well." That is the logic of this nonsense. How can we talk of making savings to get Government finances right when that sort money is sent down the plughole? It is a disgrace and a shame and I hope that common sense will take hold one day and that some of us will have a chance to put things right.
The briefing adds that although the Arts Council grant will fall in 1994–95 it will still stand at £186 million, which will still be
"£800,000 more than was originally planned in the 1992 autumn statement."
The luvvies will not like that. They will say that it is not enough. On the other hand, an extra £1.6 million will be provided in 1995–96—again, more money wasted.
I did not vote for the national lottery because 20 per cent. of the funds raised will go to the same gang of vested interests who seem able to bend the ear, neck and both legs of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is estimated that that 20 per cent. will be worth £75 million. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: give me that £75 million and I will make the life of some of my constituents a lot better. I could ensure that life was a bit easier for the many old age pensioners who have to live in those dreadful flats in Lambeth and who have to bar themselves in at night because they are unsafe. I would arrange a holiday for them—a cruise—instead of giving money to the plonkers in the arts world. Words fail me.
I have a new definition of the arm's-length principle.The arts world in general, and the luvvies in particular, should be at arm's length from taxpayers' pockets. Their grubby hands should be kept as far away as possible from taxpayers' pockets.
If the European Parliament can have Eurosceptic members, why cannot the Arts Council have "arts-sceptic" members? I am available when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants someone on the council to pull it apart and close it down or to close down his Department, which is costing the taxpayer £1 million.
7.40 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am still trying to absorb the fusillade of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). I did not expect him to finish so quickly, but I am glad that he did.
I offer my apologies. Like other hon. Members, I have tried to keep in touch with the debate, but I have treated it somewhat like a buffet—dipping in and out while electioneering elsewhere.
I register my support for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who, like others, complained that this important debate on the arts is being held today. We all know why that is so. If elections are going on in which we have a great interest—why should not we have an interest as politicians of sorts?—the House should rise for a day. We should get away from this nonsense. The last arts debate took place four years ago on the day of the European elections. No doubt the Government's business managers will be thinking of some other subject for 9 June.
Mr. Cormack: We are not here on 9 June.
Mr. Banks: Good. In that case, the Government will not have to think of a subject.
I am not criticising the Secretary of State—no doubt he takes the opportunity that he is given—but such

905
arrangements convince me that the Government use arts debates such as this as a throwaway, a chuckaway and a sort of filling. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a number of points that are worth dealing with, and it would be worth doing so at a time when the House could consider them properly, without its mind being fixed somewhere else or hon. Members hoping to get away as quickly as possible to do a bit of last-minute fanatical canvassing—not that we need to do so in the London borough of Newham, but I understand why Conservative Members might be panicking tonight.
I always know that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will attend the arts debate, as he knows that I will. He certainly could not be described as a luvvy. There is nothing luvvy about him. He is a sort of artistic anti-Christ who comes into our Chamber. He made a number of arguments, however, that we need to deal with. One thinks of Andy Warhol's dictum that everyone is famous for 15 minutes. It seems a pity that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington always chooses his quarter of a hour in an arts debate. One has the image at times that he would probably be happiest if he were out vandalising a Van Gogh, burning a book or bombing a ballet, but the question that he asked—what is art?—is an important one. Even the ramblings of a lunatic—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is a lunatic—contain the odd gem.
We addressed that question when the Labour party controlled the Greater London council. I was fortunate to be chairman of the arts committee and I looked at which organisations were receiving the money. I found that the money was going to the great institutions: the national theatre, English national opera, London Festival ballet and London orchestral concerts. I did not argue with that, but I wondered where the rest of the money was going. Why was not it going to regional organisations, community arts, ethnic arts or working-class activities, a description that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might prefer? Middle-class people, particularly white middle-class people, were determining what was art. They decided that art was what they liked most. The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on that subject. Often, one found that those people went to opera not because they appreciated the music but because it was a good place to be seen. It makes me want to throw up a bit when I go to an artistic event and see people posing because it is a good place to be seen. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because some of the people who attend such events could easily pay a much higher price for their tickets. Why should people in the London borough of Newham subsidise the arts for them?
I want to make opera, ballet and wonderful concert music available to the people of Newham. Subsidies are not targeted, as they should be, to expand audiences for those great art forms; they are targeted at a narrow group of people who have the fortune and economic ability to enjoy those art forms.
One must consider other factors when considering arts funding. In the GLC days, we said that we should not dismiss transport. If there is no public transport or scant public transport by the time concerts, opera and theatre performances finish, ordinary people who do not have cars will not be able to get home. That is another in-built disadvantage that they face and another in-built advantage that those with a higher economic mobility have in enjoying the arts. We must consider the arts in their totality.
906
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is right to point out that one needs to consider carefully who is defining what art is, because when that has been defined public money and investment can be directed to it. I am not arguing against such investment being made—this is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman—but we should ensure that those who could benefit most from investment in the arts do so and that those who could afford to pay somewhat more do so too.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but it would be almost beyond anyone to deepen the appreciation of Bristol City—
Mr. Dicks: Rovers.
Mr. Banks: Or, indeed, Bristol Rovers. That would probably be even more challenging than deepening an appreciation of Bristol City.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) spoke of the economic advantages of the arts. He has left the Chamber. I will forgive him doing that, but I could forgive him almost anything having sat at a concert in Smith square and having heard him play Mozart. It is fantastic to have such ability and talent, which I did not associate with the hon. Member for Twickenham. Given the way in which he jerks around all over the place, I thought it would be impossible for him to play Mozart, but he did so—and to concert-performance standards. I found that it was a wonderful experience and I am deeply grateful to him for it. I could forgive him anything because of that ability to enrich my life and the lives of others through that beautiful music. He is a talented guy in artistic, if not political, terms.
One should consider some of the arguments that the hon. Member for Twickenham advanced on the economic contribution of the arts. I should have thought that this was something that monetarists could grasp. Although we go over the statistics from time to time, they do not seem to sink in with the Government in the way that they should. London is the region about which I am most concerned. Some 11,700 organisations in the capital are involved in arts, culture and entertainment. They employ more than 200,000 people, which is equal to London's construction industry during the boom and to 6 per cent. of total employment. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington should think about those facts. A number of people from Hayes and Harlington may be employed in the arts industry —not just those who perform, but those who provide the background services, carpenters, scene painters and those who move the sets around. Thousands of people are associated with the arts. They do skilled and unskilled work. There are those who provide the food and so on.
So the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington must think a little beyond the "arty-farty" group, as he describes it, and realise that involved in and supporting the arts are many thousands of Londoners who work hard, not necessarily for large amounts of money, and contribute greatly to the economy of the capital city.
It is estimated that 40 per cent. of all artists in the United Kingdom are based in London. The estimated turnover attributed to all that activity has been put at £7,465 million. That is almost 6 per cent. of our gross domestic product. Public subsidy amounted to no more than £500 million of that. I assume that that is taking central Government and local government investment together. That is a wonderful return. I say that to the hon. Member for Hayes and

907
Harlington because he is the main, or indeed the only, sceptic here. Such arguments are worth bearing in mind, but he never touches on them during his 15–minute rants in our rare arts debates.
Overseas earnings from the arts were estimated at £3,800 million, against imports of £2,500 million, giving a net balance of £1,300 million to the economy of the capital and the nation. That is a significant economic contribution. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington dismissed the people involved in the arts as luvvies. I have some sympathy with him about some of the people involved in the arts. However, when one examines the people who enjoy the arts, one realises how significant the figures are.
It has been estimated that in 1990 there were 94 million attendances at cultural events, 27 million at the cinema, 21 million at museums and galleries, 17.5 million at clubs and smaller music venues, 12 million at theatre, opera and dance, 11.6 million at historic houses and 4 million at concerts.
I am an avid soccer supporter so I can perhaps say this to the hon. Gentleman more easily than anyone. Those figures are a hell of a lot higher than the figures for those who go to support football, although I take what he said about the fact that football and football supporters often get a rum deal.
Mr. Dicks: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman says. All that I am asking is why people want to attend arts events only if part of the cost is paid by someone else. If the hon. Gentleman went to Arsenal, he would have to pay the full cost. I cannot understand why one aspect of life receives a subsidy. I accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given, but I do not understand why the arts should expect to be subsidised by the rest of us.
Mr. Banks: I am a Chelsea supporter. I would rather die than go to Arsenal.
The reason why the arts expect to be subsidised is that there is a good return on the investment. We invest in education and we invest in the arts. The hon. Gentleman seems to have picked out one area of public investment. I do not like the word "subsidy" for the arts. I think that we subsidise defence, but we invest in the arts and in education. We invest in people's creativity—their manual and their mental creativity. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington should come to the Theatre Royal in my constituency in the London borough of Newham. It is heavily subsidised by the Arts Council, the London arts board and the local authority. It is difficult for us to do that. We have kept seat prices as low as possible because the theatre is in an area of economic deprivation. The hon. Gentleman should come to the theatre and see the pensioners and unemployed people who come and enjoy performances. He tends to confine his criticisms—as I do at times—to something like the Royal Opera house. If he came to the Theatre Royal at Stratford, he might see the type of people whom he would be happy with in Newham or Hayes and Harlington enjoying theatre and receiving the benefit of a seat subsidy. The subsidy costs us dear in the London borough of Newham because we are a hard-stretched local authority.
908
I should like to deal with local authority support for the arts. The Secretary of State praised local authorities and said what an excellent job they were doing. I wonder how much he appreciates how difficult it is for those local authorities to maintain that level of funding for the arts. During National Heritage questions I often ask—not recently, because I seem to be unlucky in getting into the frame and being called—how many times the Secretary of State has talked not to the Treasury but to the Department of the Environment about the arts provision that local authorities make.
Arts provision is one of the discretionary areas of local government expenditure. If hard-pressed locally elected councils face cuts in statutory areas of expenditure, it is not surprising that they chop away at the discretionary areas. I feel deeply annoyed that Newham and Waltham Forest —two Labour authorities—but mostly Newham, work hard to keep the Theatre Royal open while just down the road in Liberal Democrat Tower Hamlets the council has closed down the Half Moon theatre. It is easy for local authorities to talk about how they show up in terms of overall expenditure. If they shut out discretionary areas of expenditure, they can save money for people in their area, but those people simply move into areas such as Newham. They can use the facilities that the Newham charge payers have to keep going. That is parasitic. That is what is happening in London local authorities.
Newham tries to keep open its recreational facilities such as swimming pools and leisure centres. Other Tory and Liberal authorities close them down. People who live in Tory or Liberal areas cannot be prevented from coming to Newham. It is grotesquely unfair. It is made even worse if Ministers start slagging off my authority for being a high spender. We subsidise people around us in the arts, leisure and recreational facilities and we deeply resent it.
Mr. Brooke: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is one that we have discussed with some of the great city authorities in the context of their regional hinterland. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is possible for the process that he describes to work in the opposite direction—that Camden council tax payers can use Westminster facilities and that Westminster maintains a music library on behalf of the whole country?
Mr. Banks: Of course I acknowledge that. I was talking about the east end of London. In the spirit of friendship on this rare occasion, I will concede that point to the right hon. Gentleman. But I suggest that he examines the problem. We are talking about discretionary areas of local authority expenditure. Clearly, something has to be done. There must be some acknowledgement that when the Department of the Environment makes its standard spending assessments it looks at what services are provided, not what services are needed in discretionary areas. That is a matter that he could usefully discuss with his colleagues in other Departments.
It is true that in the past two years cultural provision has been seriously affected by the reduction in local authority expenditure on the arts in London. The further reduction of standard spending assessment allowances for London for 1994–95 will exacerbate the position. SSA settlements have seriously affected some of London's poorest boroughs, including my own of Newham, neighbouring Hackney, Haringey, Islington and so on. All those boroughs are associated with strong support for the arts.

909
I acknowledge that the City of London has increased its expenditure on the arts. That is good, but the City is in the unique position of being far and away the wealthiest local authority in the country.
It worries me that there is still so much uncertainty about arts expenditure. The cuts that the Department of National Heritage has announced for the next four years are worrying. We reached a good position when we had a rolling programme and some predictability about arts funding—not about cuts but about an increase. One must pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) for achieving that. Many people said that, for a Tory, he would have made a good Arts Minister. That was until he took the hands-on artistic policy rather too literally. That greater certainty about money for the arts was what was most needed.
I understand that a decision is due any day about the lottery. I am an agnostic on lotteries. I would also like to be seriously rich, so I shall undoubtedly buy some tickets when they come my way. If I win, you will not see my bottom for dust, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and others have said—the money generated by the lottery must be new money for the arts or whatever. Perhaps I am a cynic or suspicious, but I do not think that that will happen, because, when Treasury Ministers make their assessments, they will take into account the global amount of money available.
The Secretary of State, or whichever Conservative—or Labour—Member has the job, will find it difficult to argue that the Treasury should simply dismiss that money and not take it into account when deciding the arts settlement. It is all right to give an undertaking in the House and to set out with good intentions, but I can well imagine the sort of pressures a Secretary of State will be under when faced with that spending round. The Treasury will say, "But hell, you're getting an awful lot of money from the national lottery."
I should like a guarantee from the Secretary of State that Mr. Branson will not get responsibility for running the lottery. My suspicions about Mr. Branson are very deep. I feel that he injected £5 million into the county hall leisure complex recently to bail out the Japanese group Shiryama, which was due to hit the wall. I remain firmly convinced of that. His involvement might have saved the group's bacon and in doing so he has also saved the face of Ministers. If county hall—immediately opposite the Palace of Westminster—had ended up the sort of shell that Battersea power station is, imagine Ministers' embarrassment.
Am I being basely and groundlessly suspicious or could Mr. Branson have been given a nod and a wink that if he stepped in to bail out the county hall project he would get the lottery? I hope that that is not the case, but I shall be watching closely who gets the lottery and I hope that it is not Mr. Branson, or all my suspicions will be proved correct.
I also have a query on the funding for the London and regional orchestras as a result of the £3.2 million cut in grant aid to the Arts Council. I declare an interest as I am the parliamentary adviser to the Musicians Union—something that I thoroughly enjoy. Apart from the London symphony orchestra, London orchestras get a very rough deal and have additionally had to contend with the effects of the Hoffman review, which has caused additional
910
expenditure. They must provide necessary documentation, while sponsorship and future work prospects were blighted by six months' uncertainty over their future.
Dennis Scard, the general secretary of the union, has written to the Secretary of State and I have seen the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He uses the arm's-length principle to wipe his hands of any decision making, which is wrong. That is why I tend to agree with one of his predecessors —it is not good enough for Ministers to use that principle to avoid Government responsibility.
The fact that we cannot sustain our existing orchestras in London is a matter for national shame. Other capital cities manage to do so and it is a cause of enormous shame to all of us that we have not been able to do so in London.
Finally—you will be delighted to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I must return to the discretionary area of local authority spending. Some of my constituents—young unemployed kids, who happen to be black—have come to me because they have tried to get grants from the local authority for dance and drama training, but have got nowhere. Perhaps there is a reason. I do not want to be patronising, but some of our unemployed youth could find a way out of the ghetto through the arts. It is a way out and we have many ghettos—economic, intellectual and cultural—in our country today.
One in six local authorities has a policy of awarding no discretionary grants. The percentage offering full grants for dance and drama has fallen from 83 per cent. in 1987 to 44 per cent. in 1992. About 40 per cent. of dance and drama students are unable to take up the places that they have been offered, which is equivalent to 280 drama students and 590 dance students.
Most dance and drama schools are entirely funded by fees from students and there is a significant shortfall—at present £3,000 per year—between the mandatory grant and the full cost charged by the school. The Government really should decide to make that area of discretion mandatory because so much talent is being wasted. Those kids have no chance of taking advantage of drama and dance courses because they cannot afford them. They come from unemployed families and impoverished backgrounds and they are dealing with local authorities whose discretionary decision making and funding are tightly squeezed, as I explained. The Government must look into the matter and I plead with the Secretary of State to consider it carefully.
Mr. Brooke: As was said, that matter concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. My question arises from the speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Would the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) impose qualitative tests to assess the ability of those kids or is he trying to make the grant an automatic privilege?
Mr. Banks: I would like to think about that, but, having done so, I think that there would have to be some sort of qualification. One does not just walk into a university. One has to have qualifications that demonstrate certain academic achievements. One would need evidence that a person would benefit, so that would have to be the case.
What worries me is the fact that I have been advised that some incredibly talented kids have not got grants. Advisers have told me, "They've got it. They could make it." Unfortunately, they cannot give them the grant because they have not got the money. That problem was the subject of a BBC television programme on one of my constituents

911
recently. He has enormous talent. I suppose that, because of that fact, he might find a way out and become well known anyway, but kids with lesser talents are being deprived and it seems a waste of ability. I do not like seeing ability wasted.
Mr. Fisher rose—
Mr. Banks: Yes, there should be some demonstration of ability, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Mr. Fisher) who will undoubtedly have the responsibility for making such a decision in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Fisher: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should support the approach that would accredit a small number of schools—perhaps 10 dance schools and 10 drama schools. Any students accepted to their courses would automatically get a mandatory full grant and accreditation would be the quality control that he is after. That system would ensure that the most talented students got the grants that their talent entitled them to and it would end the system whereby only people with rich parents or those lucky enough to live in certain local authorities went to such schools.
Mr. Banks: That was straight from the horse's mouth. Exactly. That is how we are going to do it. I like the bold and decisive way in which my hon. Friend moved to the Dispatch Box to announce the policy and I look forward to sitting behind him on the Government side of the House in a few months' time and to seeing him announce that policy. What an excellent fellow he is.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has obviously gone off to vandalise that Van Gogh. Why the arts? Because the merits and worth of an age will not be judged by the efficiency with which it can kill people with bombs, bullets and bayonets. It will be judged by future generations on the quality of its architecture, literature, painting, poetry and musicians, such as the hon. Member for Twickenham who has just returned to his place. That is how we will be judged and that is the reason why we should be investing in the arts and why we should stand up and proudly declare so and not be bullied by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and the arts thugs he represent. I am glad to say that there are not many of them.
8.8 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: In view of what I want to say, I must declare an interest as a humble painter, who occasionally sells paintings, and, more particularly, as someone who writes the odd novel, for which I am the recipient of benefits from the public lending rights arrangement.
Like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) raised an important matter when, perhaps for the first time in this debate, he questioned what art is and what it is for. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was right to consider that.
I suppose that a possible definition of art is that it is a physical manifestation of the individual human spirit, which throughout history has invariably acted against the oppression of the state. To that extent, therefore, the arts and state interference are in many respects antithetical.
912
When, in history, the state has acted as patron of the arts, that is, it has supplied money to artists, it has done so most successfully at the behest not of councils, committees, quangos, royal commissions or even local authorities, but of individuals. The great Medicis, the best of the Doges, Louis XIV and even Prince Albert were, in different ways, artists themselves. They had their own eccentricities and, through their patronage, they expressed their spirit and sense of excellence. Their motivation may have been personal glorification or even the search for short-term popularity, but in their cases the nature of the relationship between the patron and the artist, even when that patron was using public moneys, was one to one. Pork barrel politics and compromises between extraneous sectional interests were minimal.
I hope that Lord Gowrie will display the individualism of a modern Doge, but, more probably, he will be constrained, as his predecessors were, by the paraphernalia of modern statecraft. When state committees, quangos and local authorities interfere, as they invariably do in the modern world, and manage state funds, not only is special pleading of the essence, but so is compromise between interests that have nothing to do with the arts, such as arise out of the regional distribution of moneys and the donation of moneys to sectional interests.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, for example, to ethnic art. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West offered a new set of criteria for the distribution of moneys, ranging from employment to exports and, I believe I heard him say, the rate of return on capital. The latter criterion was surprising coming from him. Such criteria may be admirable, but, intrinsically, they have nothing to do with the arts. They have more to do with political correctness, to use the words of the heir to the throne.
In such cases, the patronage of the arts becomes, frankly, an extension of social and economic policy and it has little to do with the pursuit of excellence in art. Worse still is when such patronage becomes an overt instrument of state propaganda. That was certainly the case in Nazi Germany and it is the case with the European cultural fund, which is currently running at 70 million ecu or about £50 million—it has increased by almost 50 per cent. in the past two years.
The aim of that fund has nothing to do with the expression of individual spirit, but everything to do with the pursuit of European federalism. A classic recent example of the misuse of those public funds was the financially disastrous sponsorship of the Euro-soap "Riviera", which has proved to be the most expensive and least popular programme of its kind. It was not, luckily, shown in this country. The ratio of money invested to the number of people who watched the programme—to use the return on capital argument of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—was the highest in the history of television.
Another example of the misuse of that so-called cultural fund was the 10 million ecu given towards the Barcelona Olympic games. That funding had absolutely nothing to do with sponsorship of the arts and everything to do with pursuit of a political ideal.
There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule that the arts and artists are best left alone. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, it was only when the French impressionists were left alone that they expressed their human spirit

913
effectively. The same was true of the expressionists. That expression was, invariably, directed against the establishment of the day, which, quite probably, was much the same as the will of the state committees and quangos of the day.
The first important exception to the general rule is when intervention is directed towards the preservation and protection of a cultural heritage, for example, buildings and, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, particularly church buildings. There is, for example, a case to establish a centre for the study and propagation of English music. No such centre exists and I believe that Malvern in my constituency would be an excellent place for it, given that it was the home of Elgar.
As several hon. Members have said, there is a weaker case for vast amounts of money to be given to the pursuit of a 16th century and 17th century Italian art form, opera. I always find it surprising when I study the relevant figures. Of the current planned budget of moneys for the arts, for example, which I understand stands at £195 million, more than £30 million will be given to opera—almost one fifth of the total.
There may be a case for some state sponsorship of certain arts with a limited public appeal, the performance of which incur large overheads. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, in terms of preserving our heritage, it would be unsatisfactory if the quality and essential excellence of Royal Shakespeare company productions were lost to our country. I was delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the Allied Lyons tie-up with the RSC, which must be a good thing.
The objective of support from the taxpayer should be to provide a bridge towards funding by those who enjoy the artistic creation in order to ensure, among other things, maximum public participation. The emphasis behind the use of state money should be directed towards promotion, making a work intelligible and ensuring the widest possible display of it. What is less acceptable is that state funds should be focused on subsidising the entertainment budgets of corporate business. One must admit that that seems to be the case at Covent Garden. I was extremely encouraged to hear today that Glyndebourne has been extensively developed at no expense to public funds.
The value and development of culture depend on the efforts and the talents of individuals, not on the injection of state funds. Genuine art will die if it is merely the product of a collectivist state programme, which, as I understand, is the essence of the Labour party's position on that matter —I think that the words that it uses are "cultural policy". I think that that is what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said.
Mr. Fisher indicated assent.
Mr. Spicer: Culture is no more and no less than the sum of its creative parts. I suppose it is because I believe that that I am a Conservative and not a socialist. It is why I believe that the state's role has to be a permissive and generalised one, especially in the context of a state that is giving the money through a network of bureaucracy and committees. It should not have a directional and interventionist role. Its emphasis should be on publicising and promotion rather than on picking winners.
The state bureaucracy is not much good at running businesses. It is even worse at painting pictures or at
914
composing music and it is worst of all, as has been pointed out today by implication, at building buildings. The Department of the Environment building in Marsham street is perhaps a living testimony to that.
The hand of the state, especially its bureaucracy, should be as far removed as possible from the creation of artistic work. Art and government are in many ways opposite ends of a pole. Potentially, the most damaging situation of all arises when they are regarded as inseparable.
8.21 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: The speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was very interesting. I was in his constituency only a few weeks ago, at the birthplace of Sir Edward Elgar. I wonder whether, if local government had not made it possible for me to have the opportunity to listen to and appreciate the works of Elgar, I would have been in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
This excellent debate has been extremely interesting. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the fact that the timing has been unfortunate: given that four years have elapsed, one might have hoped that we would have been able to debate these matters when more right hon. and hon. Members were able to take part.
The standard and quality of speeches on both sides of the House, with the notable exception of that of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), have been high. The hon. Gentleman's speech reminded me of Disraeli's commentary on Gladstone—about the difference between a disaster and catastrophe. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington fell into the Thames, it would be classified as a disaster; if one pulled him out again, it would be a catastrophe. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's majority is something approaching 53. I hope that there are 54 or 55 Conservative opera lovers in Hayes and Harlington who may read Hansard and that the House will be rid of the hon. Gentleman by the time of the next election.
The debate has illustrated that the arts and culture—I do not think that there is anything wrong with the word "culture"—play an important role in continually renewing our society. For many of us, the way in which we express ourselves culturally is among our most important experiences; but there is more to it than that. As several of my hon. Friends have said, the cultural industry, if we may call it that, employs a great many people in this country —perhaps 500,000 and has a turnover of about £14 billion, in publishing, broadcasting, film and recording as well as in what one might call the straightforward artistic industries.
I stand at the Dispatch Box tonight because I am the Opposition spokesman on the arts in Wales. In the Principality, at least 5,000 people are employed directly as a result of their involvement in the arts world. In invisible earnings, only banking, travel and shipping earn more than the arts. More than £3 billion has come to this country as a result of invisible earnings from the arts industries.
Cities such as Edinburgh prosper as a result of investment in the arts. Only last year, that city gained £44 million as a result of the Edinburgh festival. In Cardiff, the Welsh national opera, St. David's hall and the Sherman theatre have all brought distinction and prosperity to our city.

915
A number of Conservative Members said that the Opposition should not criticise the Government's arts policy; that was not quite right. It is the job of an Opposition not only to oppose and to highlight such matters but to ensure that there is a proper balanced debate.
This country's spending per person on the arts is less than that of other major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. This country spends about £10 per person, whereas Germany spends £24; France, £21; Canada, £17; Sweden, £27; and the Netherlands, £20.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was right to say that some of the criticisms concerning the failures and problems of art and arts policy have not been expressed in the House for about four years. There have been failures in investment. Underfunding has led to disrepair, closures and cuts, increased charges in museums and so on. An Arts Council survey showed that, of 32 theatres, 30 were now in deficit.
The good news about which the Secretary of State spoke is the work of local authorities, which spend perhaps £200 million to £300 million a year on promoting artistic ventures of one kind or another in Glasgow, Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow, Sheffield and other places helping to regenerate those cities.
However—and I know that this is the direct responsibility not of the Secretary of State for National Heritage but of the Secretaries of State for Education, for Wales, for Scotland and for the Environment—there have been substantial cuts in council funding in the past few years, which have inevitably meant that our local authorities' arts budgets have been cut. That has meant that many arts organisations are now confronted with financial insecurity because they have no guarantee of continued revenue support.
There is also the problem of compulsory competitive tendering. However important that may be in terms of local government, it means that the emphasis has to be on the commercial rather than the artistic side. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly pointed to the problem of discretionary grants. In Wales, such grants have virtually disappeared: our young people no longer have the grants that enabled them to train in ballet, dance, music and so on. That means that an area of activity is now denied to our young men and our young women—or at least to those from less privileged families.
Most arts organisations expect their grants to remain static or to fall in real terms in the coming year. There is a huge variation in what our local authorities now spend on the arts. Clwyd, for example, spends £1.5 million on theatres and concert halls alone; West Glamorgan spends only 23p per person on the arts.
The biggest restriction, which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) mentioned, was on the arts in education. Music teaching in many schools has been reduced or almost entirely cut. In South Glamorgan, 36 peripatetic music teachers have been made redundant. There has been a severe decline in visits to museums, theatres and concerts, and school orchestras in some areas no longer exist. We have to consider also that, as a result of the reform of local government, which is partly happening in England and is rapidly happening in Wales and in Scotland—in a sense, those two countries are guinea
916
pigs and pointers to what might occur in England—the impact of the move to unitary authorities could well have a damaging effect on our arts, music and other ventures. For example, Wales now has eight large county councils, all of which are due to disappear. They will be replaced by 24 unitary authorities, inevitably much smaller and without the resources. Will those unitary authorities in Wales—and later also in Scotland and England—have the same commitment to financing, bolstering and supporting artistic ventures that now depend heavily on county-wide funding? There are geographical restrictions, as a small borough council may not feel inclined to support the arts in an area many miles away and may not have the money to do so. We have already seen the consequences of the abolition of the metropolitan counties—a reduction in expenditure on the arts of nearly £9 million.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) rightly referred to the importance of orchestras. We should be concerned not only about those important orchestras with which London is blessed—we can walk from this House to the south bank or catch a tube to the Barbican and listen to them—but with orchestras in the regions and counties of Britain, such as the Welsh national orchestra and the Bournemouth symphony orchestra, about which we have heard today. Many other orchestras that depend on local government support could disappear, including county and youth orchestras.
Even more significant is the future of those now training to be members of orchestras. Where will their training come from if peripatetic teachers disappear? Young men and women will lose the opportunity to join school orchestras, move to county orchestras and then join the main orchestras in London and the regions. The talent that undoubtedly exists will not be tapped; it will be lost as a direct consequence of local cuts in finance and the reform of local government that now faces the whole country.
In Gwent, 52 peripatetic staff teach music; 40,000 lessons are given every year; 5,000 pupils are taught; 1,200 music exams are taken, with a 95 per cent. pass rate; there are 23 music groups; and, on 18 April in St. David's hall in Cardiff, 350 young people from Gwent performed in a Gwent showcase concert. The possibility of that happening after the reform of local government, once our counties have disappeared, will become increasingly remote.
Another problem is that small arts centres, which now depend heavily on county funding, could disappear. The director of the Llantarnam Grange arts centre in my constituency, Sara Bowie, sent me a letter saying:
"our main problem always remains that of insufficient core funding—a problem which faces many of the arts organisations today.
it is… almost impossible to plan to grow and develop when our funding is so hand to mouth and not consistent from year to year."
The Wales Association for the Performing Arts has also written to us, saying that it is deeply troubled about theatre in Wales because of local government reform:
"This unique provision in Wales is held up as an example of outstanding success in theatre in education services throughout the British and European arts community and unless this central funding is provided, the education resource element of the service, for example the wide range of workshops, teachers packs and follow-up study services, will be severely endangered and possibly lost."
The danger that the whole country faces because of the move to unitary authorities is substantial, and I hope that the Secretary of State will argue with his Cabinet

917
colleagues who represent Wales, Scotland, the environment and education that it is vital that we do not lose that element of funding for the arts as a result of the reform of local government.
May I mention two other matters in Wales? The first concerns the national museum of Wales, of which I am a governor. At our last annual meeting, shortly after the Queen opened the new addition to the museum, we were told that, at the same time as that superb development was taking place in Cardiff, the schools' museum service was seriously at risk as a consequence of cuts in local government funding.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, the Welsh Arts Council received an increase in relative terms. Strangely enough, however, the reduction in the English Arts Council's budget has meant that the Welsh national opera, which toured in England, has had its budget considerably reduced. In common with other opera companies, it has had to make a cut of £500,000, to make singers, musicians and skilled technicians redundant, and to put on fewer performances and productions.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, opportunities for new composers—and especially for new commissions by living composers—are now severely reduced. Obviously, the opera companies put on the most popular operas which bring in the most money, with the result that new commissions are denied.
The director of the Welsh national opera company, an American of great distinction, Matthew Epstein, who brought a great deal of dedication to his job and a great deal of commitment to Wales, has resigned as a direct result of cuts in the money going to the Welsh national opera. In a letter to Lord Davies of Llandinam, the chairman, he wrote:
"This lack of funding cannot be seen as a fault of the Arts Councils, regularly vilified by many in the public and press, but rather as a result of inadequate funding and support of these Councils at the very highest level of government, as it is expressed through the Department of National Heritage.
The arts in the U.K. are under the greatest threat and siege, and the situation must be improved if the entire public of cultural life is to survive.
While understanding the fiscal reasons that these decisions must be taken, in a sense … I make myself redundant."
I fear that his retirement is a loss not only to the Welsh national opera but to England and Wales.
Mr. Alun Michael: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's references to the Welsh national opera. He knows of my interest not only personally but because the opera's headquarters is in my constituency and I am a trustee to the proposed opera house. Does he agree that the strong cross-party support of the Welsh national opera is twofold? First, the fact that it is a flagship and provides an image of Wales at home and abroad is extremely important economically as well as in arts terms. Secondly, it has sought to reach every village, town and community in Wales—I pay tribute to Matthew Epstein for that, too—and inner-city communities such as Splott, so that opera is taken to the whole community rather than remaining remote and for the few.
Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A great aspect of the Welsh national opera was not simply that it put on opera productions in the new theatre in Cardiff—I hope that it will do so in the new opera house in Cardiff in the years ahead—but that it went out to the
918
valleys of south Wales, for example, and the valley in my constituency, where it put on the great production of "Noye's Fludde" involving many school children in my constituency.
Oddly enough, the Welsh national opera also went to Bristol, the home of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Indeed, it went to one of the most deprived parts of that city—a housing estate with high unemployment and no bank or launderette, where 22,000 people live. Its director received a letter from a teacher from Hartcliffe school in that part of Bristol, who wrote:
"It is with some shock that we read that you will leave W.N.O."
She said that his Cinderella project on the Hartcliffe estate was admirable and that
"Above all, it showed Bristol and the S.W. that despite the riots, poverty and surrounding difficulties, children and parents of the area could work together to deliver a 'real gem' of a production."
The letter explained how the production had affected people from that part of Bristol. For example, a young lad called Paul Hands was going to the royal opera house for a week and to drama school; 100 students were working with D'Oyly Carte; and 25 students were working with professional musicians. Matthew Epstein and the Welsh national opera company were excellent at taking opera to the people, but that has stopped happening as a direct result of what has happened to the funds.
Mr. Renton: Is not the hon. Gentleman telling us only one side of the story? I say that although I have great respect for the achievements of Welsh national opera and the artistic knowledge of Matthew Epstein, whom I remember with great pleasure meeting two or three years ago. But Mr. Matthew Epstein has been in the job for only two or three years and I can remember a substantial subsidy being given by the Welsh Office to Welsh national opera in either 1989 or 1990 to wipe out its accumulated debt. That subsidy was the successor to a similar one given to Welsh national opera about five or six years before—again, to wipe off accumulated debt. That is the other side of the picture. While I sympathise with the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman makes his case, there is another side. Perhaps Welsh national opera has been regularly living beyond its means despite special subsidies from the Welsh Office. Perhaps its financial organisation has not been that good.
Mr. Murphy: The financial organisation of Welsh national opera has been superb—there has been no great problem there. There has been a long-running saga of underfunding, which it has taken a long time to wipe out. The problem was caused by the cuts in money from the English Arts Council rather than the Welsh one. We are all agreed that the money that has come from the Welsh Office has been admirable, but it has been insufficient to allow the company to do what many of my hon. Friends want opera companies to do—to take opera out to the people and communities so that everyone can enjoy it.
I recall going to an opera in Cardiff some years ago when there was a different director; so bad was the production that 50 per cent. of the audience walked out —I was one of them. Times have changed considerably since then. What has happened to opera is sad news for Wales.
Mr. Michael: I must tell the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that, although there have been

919
generous contributions from public funds to assist the development of Welsh national opera, it was made clear at a recent meeting of parliamentary friends—not only by Matthew Epstein, but by others involved in the company —that the tightening of the budget and the demands that come with different contributions, particularly those from England, require additional performances. That requirement creates a constraint. If we are not to lose the additional productions that will be necessary for the success of the new opera house or the community-based contributions, we must ensure that the screw is not tightened. But that is what is happening.
Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree—the issue is one of access. Some 51 per cent. of all adults in Wales went to some sort of artistic event last year—a staggering percentage, especially when we consider that in Wales, with its rugby and other sporting traditions, more people attend sporting activities. I understand that in the 1980s, more than 37 million people in Britain went to the theatre every year.
We must widen access, and we have the opportunity to do so because of technology. The hon. Member for Twickenham talked about the increased technology that will come to this country over the next few years. Technology and videos can be used to widen audiences dramatically. We must ensure that we try to make the arts more accessible to young people. There is a strong demand for live music venues. Libraries should be protected and safeguarded as much as possible.
Although there is inevitably a role for sponsorship, that alone is not enough. Sponsorship is strongly influenced by the prevailing economic climate. It tends to favour large and well-known companies and venues and is certainly biased towards London—42 per cent. of sponsorship occurs in London, whereas there is 5 per cent. for Northern Ireland, the east, the east midlands and the south-west of England put together. Sponsorship is rarely long term.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State talk about the national lottery in terms of additionality. We are all concerned that any money from the national lottery that goes to the arts should be in addition to finance already provided by the Treasury to the National Heritage Department, to the territorial Departments and to the Department for Education.
I stress that it is Opposition policy that local authorities should have a statutory responsibility for the promotion of the arts in their area. That is a commitment that the Labour party will give at the next general election. Similarly, we believe that there is a role for regional government—we shall set up a Welsh Assembly in Wales, a Parliament in Scotland and regional government in Britain. Those organisations, like their counterparts in the rest of Europe, will have a great influence and will strongly support the regional arts up and down the country.
Wales has a serious potential crisis in arts funding. I hope that the message will be returned to Ministers in the Welsh Office—as it will to members of the Standing Committee on the Local Government (Wales) Bill—that there must be some interim support for artistic ventures in the next couple of years. If that is not forthcoming, the Principality will be seriously disadvantaged.
This debate has been extremely interesting. We have not had the time or opportunity to touch on other sectors in
920
which the arts impinge on everyone's lives. More than 3 million people are involved in the non-professional arts sector. We could also discuss conservation and heritage, and educating and training artists. We lose graduate designers to other countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said, we certainly lose our best film makers, often to the west coast of the United States of America.
Mr. Jessel: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman aright? Did he say that his party proposed to set up regional bodies for England as well as for Scotland and Wales? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever mixed feelings there may be in Scotland and Wales, there is bound to be hardly any support for the idea of setting up enormous and hugely expensive regional bureaucracies all over England—adding another tier to existing bureaucracy, interfering with people's lives and taking begging bowls to Brussels?
Mr. Murphy: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman obtained his evidence that there is no feeling for regional government in parts of England. If he travels to Newcastle and the north, he will find that there is a strong feeling that, if Scotland has some sort of national government, the same must happen to the regions of England. There is no reason why those governments have to be similar in form all over the country; that is not the case in Spain. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that, at the last general election, the Labour party gave a commitment—which it will reassert at the next election—that there will be regional government throughout Britain. If that regional government is set up, one of its major functions will be to sponsor the arts in the regions of England as well as in the countries of Wales and Scotland.
The debate has been interesting and useful. I hope that the artistic community in Britain will have an opportunity to listen to, and read, the debate. In my valley I have five male voice choirs, three brass bands, ladies and mixed choirs, a lively theatre company, a local authority theatre, an arts centre, two museums and an enormous range of cultural societies. In addition, we produced Janet Price and Gwyneth Jones. All that came from one relatively small valley of south Wales, which is not full of "luvvies"— whatever they are supposed to be—as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington would say. We produced all that from one valley. Perhaps not every constituency is as good as mine in producing that sort of artistic development and activity, but most are. The potential exists for every part of this country to develop artistic strength and an artistic wealth of experience among men and women. I fear that such development is threatened by the uncertain future of local government changes, central Government cuts and budget restrictions in schools.
At the last election, the Conservative party said that it would maintain support for the arts. I am not sure whether it has kept that promise completely, but unless it takes that statement seriously it will let down not only this generation, but generations to come.
8.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who has wound up the debate for the Opposition. This has been an extremely interesting debate. Those who doubt the

921
civilising quality of the arts might change their minds, as there has been a certain civilised quality about the evening which is not always evident in our debates.
I will try to answer some of the points that were raised. I start with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I acknowledge absolutely the genuine fervour and passion of his support for, and commitment to, the arts. I do so wholeheartedly and without qualification. But I think that it probably does not do the cause that we both have at heart—that of helping the arts world—any good to paint the current situation so black.
Of course we wish that things were better in many areas —although we might disagree about what those areas are. Everything is not as we would wish. But the fact is that the Government have said that they believe strongly in the arts. The Government have put their money where their mouth is, in that they have increased spending for the arts.
One can quibble about the percentage points—whether it is 45 per cent. for 1992–93, or 38 per cent. because of the cut which has just been made in the Arts Council grant and the filching away of Greater London council money. But, in spite of all that, we are still talking about a 35 per cent. increase in real terms in Government spending on the Arts Council.
I think that it is also very important to emphasise the money—another £200 million—that has been spent by local authorities. There has been a huge increase in business sponsorship of the arts. Although it is true that there is a blip in sponsorship at the moment, it is not as big a blip as it might appear. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that there was a 13 per cent. fall in sponsorship of the arts last year. But that was a fall on the previous year, when we had a huge increase in sponsorship from the Japan festival. Someone else said that Glyndebourne raised £38 million over a few years. That has certainly increased the base upon which the percentage was judged.
We have come from the point of £500,000 in sponsorship of the arts almost 20 years ago to something approaching £60 million in business sponsorship every year. That sponsorship has done a great deal for the arts. Although we might wish that it was more, I think that it would be wrong to underestimate the increases in this area.
Of course, the funds from the national lottery are still to come. At this stage, I can give the assurance for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked: lottery spending will be additional to spending which the Government would otherwise have made. The hon. Member for Torfaen asked for that assurance at the end of his remarks, and I can tell him that that is the case.
Although I do not wish to make too much of the speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I think that it may be damaging, because many people who have listened to the speech or who will read about it in the newspapers tomorrow will think that the situation is much gloomier than it really is. The fact is that the cut in expenditure for the British Arts Council is 1.7 per cent. A cut of only 1.7 per cent. during the worst recession that anyone can remember is not a ferocious cut.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the arts had been singled out for cuts. I think that many people in the House would say, would that it had been the only area to be hit. I wish it were not so, but the English tourist board, the Sports Council and the national maritime museum have had spending cuts. The hon. Gentleman should not say that the arts have been singled out for cuts.
Mr. Fisher: While we can debate and discuss the global figures—we have done that, and will continue to do so—will the Minister not accept that what is important for individual regional theatres, orchestras and galleries is the money that they receive? Will he not accept simple, basic, factual statements, such as that purchase grants to the national museum have been frozen since 1985? Most regional theatres have to produce fewer productions with smaller casts. Almost every regional theatre is reducing its rehearsal times and casts, because its grants have become less in real terms in the past 15 years.
The Minister must acknowledge that galleries, theatre companies and orchestras which are playing to full houses are in deficit. The reason is that, leaving aside the macro figure, their grants are smaller now than they were.
Mr. Sproat: I do not wish to hide behind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) called the "humbug" of the arm's-length principle—hon. Members opposite repeated this afternoon that they believe in the principle—but the downside of the principle is that the people that you and I might like to fund, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not get funding because the decision is made by the Arts Council. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
The Albert memorial was referred to in the debate, and there was a misunderstanding about it, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tried to clear up. The £1 million that will be spent on refurbishing the Albert memorial this financial year did not come from Arts Council funding from the National Heritage Department; it came from English Heritage, which squeezed the money from its own bureaucracy. It is true that, in future years, some 50 per cent. of the money that we believe will have to be spent on the Albert memorial will come from the Department of National Heritage, but this year, as it happens, not one penny has come from that source.
I now come to the very dullest part of my speech, for which I apologise. Hon. Members have referred to spending by the Department of National Heritage on itself. I am glad to say that it is not as was charged. I will quote from this helpfully copious note, which says:
"DNH central running costs and capital show a real terms decrease of almost 12 per cent.… in the period 1993–94 to 1996–97."
It has been reduced.
"There have been significant capital costs associated with setting up the new department and those are set to continue reducing. The running costs are not an additional burden on the public purse, because they are saved in the departments which used to house DNH responsibilities."
I apologise to the House for that tedious piece of information, but it is important to get it on the record.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) very courteously apologised for having to leave the Chamber—we all know what is going on in the country at the moment. Various other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), also apologised for having to leave before the wind-up of the debate.
My right hon. Friend made a number of very important points which I will touch on briefly. First, he mentioned the decline of music in schools, which a number of other hon. and right hon. Members also mentioned. It is a very worrying problem. It is mainly a matter for the Department

923
for Education, but my right hon. Friend and I are in close and helpful contact with that Department to see what can be done about what is undoubtedly a serious problem.
My right hon. Friend also talked about the difference in tax regimes between the United States and Britain. In the United States, if they give money it helps them, but here, if we give money it helps the recipient. There is a balance to be struck, but he was urging that we move towards the American way. It is an important argument, and we shall certainly look at it.
The figures that my right hon. Friend gave about the money spent on orchestras were very striking. He said that about £22 million per year is spent on the Chicago symphony orchestra. He did not say it, but I believe that the leader of the Chicago symphony orchestra gets a salary of about $250,000 a year, which also goes some way to explaining why people are so keen to work there.
Last night, thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), I went to hear the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra—which has an income of about £4 million a year, yet manages to be a world-class orchestra—in that wonderful philharmonic hall which is a credit to Liverpool and the whole country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex quoted Lord Gowrie's excellent sentence about the Arts Council seeking to
"nurture the arts, not spoil them."
Both sides of the House will agree that that is a good motto. My right hon. Friend raised a point that he has quite properly raised on other occasions: whether or not we ought to fund more directly certain recipients of Arts Council money. That is an extremely important issue that we all take extremely seriously.
We should take a long view of our institutions. The Arts Council, which is coming up to its half-century, has served the nation and the arts well, and one should look at the heart and principle of a institution rather than its incidental vicissitudes. By raising the profile of the arts in those near 50 years, under all Governments, public funding of the arts has risen by more than 5 per cent. compound—if I gave the figures, we could quibble about the little points, but funding has increased very greatly indeed.
Our spending has not been lavish by continental standards, but to judge by the fruits our investment has been remarkably shrewd, and we have gained through a continuity which chopping and changing Ministers could not sustain. On balance, that might be my argument against my right hon. Friend's extremely important and cogent points.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), as so often, made a thoughtful and profound speech. I associate myself with the credit and sympathy which he handed metaphysically to Lord Palumbo, who had a hard row to hoe and did it extremely well. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to him.
I agree with him about the need for a combination in funding of private patronage, public funding and sponsorship. It is a stool with three legs, and we want to keep it that way. He also talked about music in schools, and I have already answered that point.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to young people going to drama and dance conservatoires. It is a serious problem. I am not sure
924
whether I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I thought he said that the figure had fallen to 44 per cent. The figure is 54 per cent. I agree that it is a serious decline, but it is not as bad as that. It is extremely important, and we are looking at the matter at this moment to see whether anything can be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made the point that national lottery spending should be additional, and I am glad to confirm again that that is so. He gave a moving catalogue of the breadth, depth and beauty of the national heritage and his own constituency. I agree that in Britain we tend to play down our achievements in the arts, and we should not do so.
I join the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in saying that I also heard that marvellous performance by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham of Mozart's piano concerto No.21 in C major, played by the Mozart Players. It was a very moving occasion.
Mr. Tony Banks: Going back briefly to the point that the Minister made earlier about the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) and the lottery, I also raised that issue. Can the hon. Gentleman take me through how it will be done? When Treasury Ministers look at the spending requirements of a Department and the resources that they are going to allocate, they must look at the income being received from all sources. I cannot see how the Treasury can tell the Secretary of State for National Heritage that they will forget that money entirely. Knowing Treasury Ministers as I do—the Minister knows them far better—can we believe that they really take that position? Is that a realistic assumption? I can accept the Minister's good intentions, but will the money genuinely be set aside for this purpose?
Mr. Sproat: It is my understanding that it will be. I offer the hon. Gentleman one further thought: the money from the lottery is, by and large, expected to be spent on capital projects. The money that we give the Arts Council is largely spent on revenue projects. I agree that no Parliament can bind its successor, but I can only reiterate what I understand to be the Government's sincere and definite intention in the matter of the lottery spending.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham raised two important points, of which the first was the funding for choral societies. I shall certainly check that and let him know what the situation is. If anything needs to be done, I shall ask him to come and have a talk with me so that we can work out what he thinks should be done.
My hon. Friend's second point was about the preservation of ships from the second world war. I do not know too much about that, but it is a good objective, and I shall look into it and let my hon. Friend know what I discover. The same procedure can then apply.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) courteously let us know that he would have to leave early. I agree with him that brass bands are an extremely important part of our culture. In all the talk about opera, symphonies and so on, we should not forget that. I shall come to the lower end of the market in a second or two, when I refer to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), but I certainly take seriously what the hon. Member for Hemsworth said.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether I enjoyed myself on Saturday at Wembley. We both enjoyed the match very much. I agree, too, that we should put on record

925
the fact that, at Wembley on Saturday, there were 78,384 people but not one arrest. That is greatly to the cntdit of rugby league.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth also asked me whether I would visit the sculpture park near Wakefield. I was also invited to do that on Saturday by Rodney Walker, the chairman of rugby league. I certainly hope to visit the park—it is just a case of finding the right day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in his usual authoritative and informed way, used what I thought was a good phrase—the incredible artistic riches of this country. I agree with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham that we should never play down the marvellous artistic heritage we have.
In response to my hon. Friend's call for vigorous action by the Department of National Heritage, I can promise him that my right hon. Friend will fight extremely strongly for the arts. My hon. Friend will no doubt have noticed that, even after the settlement last year, the Secretary of State managed to find an extra £800,000 for the Arts Council —money that was not in the original indicative budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South also made the important point about the lottery money being additional, and I can confirm again that it will be.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was going to provide a sort of one-man opposition—until I heard the profound speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who argued an important case very well. It is only healthy in these debates that what one might call the arts lobby should not get everything its own way. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on what he said.
There is a view that needs to be considered here. If we are telling the poor, the sick and the elderly that we are going to spend £75 million from the lottery on the arts, over and above the £186 million that we are about to spend on the arts in England, we must always be very clear in our minds that we are spending the money properly. It is a great deal of money, and there are many people who need a lot of money which they are not getting. We should therefore not laugh at the ways in which that idea may sometimes be expressed.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about Richard Branson. I have not the slightest idea whether Mr. Branson will run the lottery. I shall have no influence whatsoever on the decision. One man, and one man alone, will—Mr. Peter Davies, who is the director-general of Oflot. The Government will play no scintilla of a part in the decision. The hon. Gentleman asked about the conservatoires. I agree that this is a very serious matter, and we are considering it seriously.
I should like, in conclusion, to summarise what my right hon. Friend and I have said: that the Government are committed to continuing their policy of creating conditions in which the arts can flourish. It is a successful policy, for, while I accept that the arts world is subject to financial and other pressures, there can be no doubt that the arts in this country are very healthy indeed. Long may they remain so.
Mr. Derek Conway: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Drug Misuse (West Suffolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
9.10 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I am glad of the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), for being here to reply.
In November 1992 general practitioners in Newmarket, which is in my constituency, asked me for a meeting to discuss the rising incidence of drugs abuse in the town and their resulting considerable anxieties. I should say immediately that there is little difference between drugs misuse in Newmarket and drugs misuse in other East Anglian towns. However, there is a history of drug taking in the horse racing industry, which gives it a special twist. I spoke to the police and to the West Suffolk drugs advisory service, and so began a personal odyssey for me, culminating in tonight's debate.
My local campaign to highlight the dangers of substance abuse was helped by the extremely supportive stance taken by the Newmarket Journal. In the spring of 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) visited my constituency and spoke most persuasively about substance abuse to the pupils at Newmarket upper school. Today, the Newmarket drugs task group comprises representatives from the district council, the police, probation officers, the clergy, schools, the racing industry, community education and the drugs advisory service. I am most grateful to Forest Heath district council—in particular, to its chief executive—for its financial and moral support of our efforts.
Professor Howard Parker of Manchester university has carried out research showing that 47 per cent. of 16–year-olds in Manchester and Merseyside have taken drugs. However, drugs abuse is no longer a feature of urban areas alone. A report commissioned by the Home Office and the East Sussex Drugs Advisory Council—ESDAC —produced the alarming statistic that the incidence of drug taking in the North Wealden district of East Sussex was almost identical to that in Brighton. More than one fifth of 14 and 15-year-olds had tried an illicit drug, and, of those, 5 per cent. are likely to develop problems owing to drug usage.
There is an additional danger in rural areas like west Suffolk. The more erratic supply of drugs results in the temptation to try yet harder drugs or lethal so-called cocktail mixes, with all the attendant consequences. ESDAC is probably the most sophisticated body of its sort in Britain. This is due largely to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who, both in the House and outside, has highlighted the dangers of substance abuse.
There is clear evidence that drugs abuse is now a problem in every part of Britain. Unquestionably, the rise in juvenile crime can be traced to rising levels of drugs use nationally. Until recently there has been a misconception that crime is a real problem only in metropolitan areas. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has changed that perception by sponsoring the parish constables initiative and by encouraging chief constables to use new and more effective rural policing methods. The fruits of that are already apparent in my constituency.

927
Every Member of Parliament who represents a rural constituency should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what has already been achieved.
The bulk of drug taking in Britain is confined to cannabis. In 1992, 488 people in Suffolk—that is up from 177 in 1989—were found to be in possession of cannabis, and 76 per cent. were cautioned. Cautions are generally regarded as successful because there is a low re-arrest rate. The Home Office initiative on drugs usage and drugs prevention in December 1993 dealt with the question of whether soft drug users moved into harder drugs. It pointed to a link between the use of cannabis and some other drugs, but not very dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine and crack. There was a clearly observed link between cannabis, alcohol and tobacco. In any event, the number of registered addicts grew by 17 per cent. last year.
I say bluntly that I am opposed to the decriminalisation of cannabis. Even some policemen believe that prosecuting users of cannabis is a waste of their time. Some people regard cannabis as simply relaxing and recreational, but perhaps it is not widely known that it can stay in the body system for up to 30 days. One of the most respected professionals in substance abuse studies graphically likened cannabis to pouring boiling water into a crystal glass: a tiny flaw could cause the glass to break. In his professional experience, and that of others, cannabis usage can trigger considerable mental disorder in those suffering from even mild forms of schizophrenia, phobias and depression.
Additionally, the strength of cannabis has greatly increased. One variant, skunk, can cause hallucinations. The legalisation of cannabis would send entirely the wrong signal to young people. Those with a more daredevil mentality would be tempted into more dangerous drugs just for the added thrill of trying something illegal. Drug pushers increasingly offer a full spectrum of drugs merchandise. Those seeking to buy only cannabis are usually offered harder drugs too. Users of cannabis should know that they run the risk of getting a criminal record.
In the past year there have been no fewer then 9,000 major drug seizures. The police and customs now believe that the drugs market in Britain has a street value of £3 billion. That is big business. Ruthless, well-armed and determined gangs, ranging from Chinese triads to Jamaican yardies and the new eastern European mafias, are muscling in on the British drugs market, according to the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Of course, money from drug smugglers can be seized and confiscated but murder, even of policemen, is a feature of their existence. The director of intelligence of the Metropolitan police believes that one in four burglaries is drug related. Police studies in Liverpool, Manchester and the Wirral suggest that 85 per cent. of heroin addicts support their dependence through property crime. There is undoubtedly a direct link to both the rise in criminal activity and the mental disorder among young people and substance abuse. That is truly a cancer in our national life.
Since 1989, there have been more than 400 deaths just because of glue sniffing. A campaign launched earlier this year by the Department of Health and aimed at parents sought to help them to talk more easily to their children and to watch out for signs of misuse. That was greatly welcomed.
928
Substance abuse destroys lives and causes death, grief and misery to families and loved ones. Parents must be at the heart of the fight against abuse, not only because it is their responsibility as parents but because it is they who so often have to pick up the pieces when their children become addicts. The Government's appreciation of the horrors of drug misuse is now high. However, until recently there was no attempt to co-ordinate various departmental anti-drugs activities. The Government spend £535 million each year on combating drugs abuse. Yet it is plain that we have not been making the best use of that tremendous sum of money. Of course we need international co-operation. Some 40 per cent. of drugs seized come from other European Union countries. Recent initiatives include a Europe-wide drugs intelligence service and the permanent stationing of a drugs officer at Interpol headquarters in Lyon.
Welcome though that is, the main thrust of our attack on drugs misuse must come at the local level, but under an umbrella of nationally agreed priorities. The overall conclusion of "Across the Divide", a report to the Department of Health that was published early this year, is that a new shape needs to be given to local collaboration aimed at curbing drugs and misuse. The emphasis is on involving local communities in prevention. It advocated drugs misuse community partnerships as a strategic focus to assess the needs, to monitor the extent of drug misuse and to develop and co-ordinate an appropriate strategy. The local community partnerships should comprise commissioning bodies such as the police and the health authority, local government representatives, local businesses and other community representatives.
That accords very much with what we are embryonically trying to do in Newmarket. In many respects, it parallels the existing Home Office safer cities programme. Crime prevention activity is co-ordinated locally with co-operation at a number of levels. It is a nation-wide attempt to cut criminality, through policies carried out at a local level. Participation by local people is a clear pointer to what can be achieved by partnership, and the results have been impressive.
A number of countries have introduced a national drugs strategy. There is no perfect role model of success. Canada has, however, the one that is of perhaps the greatest interest. It was launched in 1987 and 70 per cent. of funding went to reducing demand for drugs via prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Specific groups at risk, such as young people, have been targeted. The Canadian Government believe their anti-drugs strategy to have been a success. For example, the number of first-time teenage users of cannabis has dropped from 47 to 29 per cent. Some 790 community action projects are active in reducing the harm from substance abuse. Prevention is regarded as critical and the strategy aims to assist communities in their fight against substance abuse. Therefore, I applaud the establishment of the central drugs co-ordination unit under the safe hands of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. I welcome its remit to establish a clear strategic framework. Importantly, it will take the lead in devising plans for local co-ordination in tackling the drugs menace.
In years to come, it will be seen that one of the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was his determination to cut red tape and bureaucracy. The appointment of a Minister for deregulation, and his remit to cut across all Government Departments, will be

929
regarded as an important policy decision. Once the drugs co-ordinator makes her report and recommendations in September, I urge my right hon. Friend personally to give support to a national plan of action that will not be impaired by any interdepartmental blockages. I urge him to appoint a specific Minister to see that the strategy is fully implemented.
The role of teachers and general practitioners in the drugs issue is pivotal. Many doctors do not like prescribing drugs for addicts in their surgeries, and we need to be sensitive to that. Additionally, many teachers do not feel comfortable about the issue of drugs abuse. I welcome, therefore, the proposed revision of science within the national curriculum to emphasise substance abuse and its effect on the body. Programmes specifically designed for schools, such as that devised by Turning Point in London, have the effect of raising pupils' awareness of drugs in a creative and informative way. As the Government consider possible changes to initial teacher training, drugs education should be highlighted in the context of overall health education. Similarly, GPs should attend courses dealing with drugs issues.
Recently, I visited Highpoint prison in Suffolk, where concern was expressed to me about growing drug usage. I urge more rigorous screening of inmates and visitors. As to prevention, short-term prisoners should be required to attend a drugs programme. There are real grounds for alarm that our prisons are being overwhelmed by the drugs problem and are breeding grounds for greater usage.
I refer finally to the role of employers. In the United States, workplace drugs testing is a £400 million business. The US Government require alcohol and drug tests for workers such as truck drivers, airline pilots and oil tanker captains. Increasingly, anybody applying to an American pharmaceutical, engineering or chemicals firm is required to undergo a drug test. I applaud the fact that British Rail has a comprehensive screening policy for drugs and alcohol, stemming from the requirements of the Transport and Works Act 1992. Other employers followed suit.
I urge that that practice be followed more widely. Nothing is more likely to concentrate the mind of a young person leaving school or university and seeking a jot) than obtaining a clean bill of health. That will act as a disincentive to drug taking. I wish to persuade employers to undertake routine random drug screening of employees for the sake of them both. 1 urge the Government to set an example and to give encouragement to the private sector.
In combating the drugs menace, we have not given sufficient considered attention to the preventive side. That is difficult to measure and evaluate but must be done, as we draw up a coherent strategy for prevention, rehabilitation and enforcement. Statutory and voluntary bodies dealing with substance abuse, including alcohol, work best when they work together.
It is tempting for those of us who are practitioners of politics to sloganise about drugs. It is easy to talk exclusively of enforcement. That is vital but only part of the picture. Similarly, the chattering classes, in seeking to decriminalise cannabis, only demonstrate their superficiality and distance from the horrific reality of the drugs problem.
West Suffolk has made a start in the battle for minds and bodies against drugs. It is a small step in the right direction. By the end of the decade, I hope to see a multitude of community task forces pushing back the tide of substance abuse under the umbrella of committed and clear national
930
parameters. If Parliament can put such a programme in place, it will be a worthy memorial to those whose lives have been destroyed or terminated by the scourge of drug taking.
9.27 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for initiating this Adjournment debate on drug misuse in west Suffolk, as it provides another opportunity to discuss one of the most serious threats facing society today. My hon. Friend's speech demonstrated his deep concern and the great effort that he has made in investigating the problems involved —particularly in his part of the country, but drug misuse is global. There are few countries in the developed or developing world that are not affected.
In this country, all the indicators suggest—as did my hon. Friend—that drug misuse continues to rise, although measuring the extent of the problem is notoriously difficult. Drug misuse knows no social barriers. It can affect those living in inner cities, suburbs and rural areas —no part of the country is immune.
Where rural areas are concerned, such as some parts of my hon. Friend's constituency, the picture is only beginning to come into focus. We need to know considerably more. I will mention briefly some relevant research projects funded by the Home Office.
An exploratory study has been conducted by Dr. Russell Newcombe into drug misuse in rural east Sussex, with a view to developing local community-based drugs prevention. Findings showed that cannabis use in rural areas was lower than in urban areas. For other drugs, the picture was less clear. The published report provides recommendations for the development of a local drugs misuse strategy and drugs prevention work of the kind that my hon. Friend particularly recommended. That work is currently being taken forward by local agencies. We have also funded a telephone survey in Greater Manchester that aims to compare self-reported drug usage and attitudes of rural and urban residents.
Another example of research that we are funding is the Somerset county youth service project, which is carrying out research to estimate the prevalence of drug misuse among the local population and the transient population of young holidaymakers.
I want to mention the Government's national strategic framework for tackling drug misuse, to which my hon. Friend referred with a note of criticism in his voice. It has been in place since the mid-1980s. It involves simultaneous action on five main fronts: improving international co-operation to reduce the influx of drugs from abroad; increasing the effectiveness of police and customs enforcement; maintaining effective deterrence and tight domestic controls; developing measures to prevent the spread of drugs misuse, including publicity and education; and improving treatment and rehabilitation.
The strategy aims to reduce both the supply of and demand for drugs. It is as much concerned with prevention and treatment as it is with enforcement action against drug trafficking. The issues that it addresses cover a range of policy areas, which are the responsibility of a number of Departments and involve expenditure, as my hon. Friend said, of more than £500 million a year.

931
I want to clarify one point for my hon. Friend: the strategy has been co-ordinated and monitored since its inception by successive ministerial committees. It is now being overseen by a committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President.
The strategy, however, has been in place for several years. It is timely, therefore, to review it. That is why the new central drugs co-ordination unit was announced last December, which my hon. Friend particularly welcomed. The unit has been given two major tasks: first, to ensure that departmental policies are planned, developed and implemented in England with a clear strategic framework; and, secondly, to take the lead in devising an effective basis for local co-ordination of action to tackle the drugs problem. Both are vital tasks. We need to ensure that the strategy is really addressing the areas where the problem lies and that resources are targeted where they are most needed.
We must also ensure that at ground level there are clear and coherent structures for delivering the strategy. In both respects, particularly the latter, there are no doubt improvements to be made. Part of the purpose of setting up the central unit is to get from those who work in the drugs field ideas for those improvements. I know that the director of the unit and her colleagues have consulted widely during their work.
The unit has seen a number of written proposals, including a consultant's report commissioned by the Department of Health, to which my hon. Friend referred. I am glad that he has already met the director and put his views to her on these matters. All that will inform the unit's review of the strategy, which will be published later this year. I am sure that there are lessons to be learned from some of the local initiatives in place such as the excellent work being done by the drugs task group in west Suffolk. The way in which that group is seeking to mobilise the whole community to fight the problem of drug misuse is one of the features underpinning the Home Office's drug prevention programme.
The initiative ensures that people are properly informed, encouraged and supported in their resistance to drug misuse. Since being launched in 1990, the 20 local drug prevention teams have been working with local agencies and communities to find effective ways of preventing the spread of drug misuse and considering how effective local action can be organised with the aim of enabling drugs prevention to become a self-sustaining activity. One of the assumptions made very early on was that if all the many social and other influences on people at risk could be marshalled, organised and concentrated, there would be a very much better chance of making a lasting community impact on the incidence of the problem.
The local teams were placed in areas—mostly urban—which were known to have drugs problems. As we know, other areas, including rural areas, have drugs problems, too. Our aim is to use the experience of the 20 areas with teams to learn what works best and how we may find the best way forward in community-based drugs prevention.
There is little doubt that the solution to the problem of drugs misuse, wherever it occurs, is neither straightforward nor short term. The drug prevention teams have supported more than 1,000 projects in an attempt to ensure that the
932
community is properly informed, encouraged and supported in its resistance to drugs misuse. The emphasis is on stopping young people taking drugs in the first place, and on getting them to stop if they have already started.
There is some evidence of success. Independent reviews have shown that good progress has been made in providing preventive action that is strong, consistent and well co-ordinated. It is, however, too soon to say whether there has been a long-term, lasting impact. Only time will tell. But, in the meantime, the effort must continue and develop. So we shall make an announcement soon about the future of the drugs prevention initiative and how we intend to develop from the start that has already been made.
We should also recognise the importance of the availability of effective treatment services. We need a comprehensive range of locally based services for drug misusers, from detoxification and counselling to after care and rehabilitation. Specific funding has been made available to health authorities as a contribution towards the costs incurred in developing such services. This amounts in total in England to more than £25 million for 1994–95. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, of this, more than £1 million has been allocated to health authorities in the East Anglian area, of which £125,000 has so far been allocated to Suffolk health authority.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced this month a review of treatment services for drug misusers. The aim is to determine how effective such services are in helping misusers achieve drug-free life styles and reduce drug misuse and the harm associated with it. The review will be conducted by a task force chaired by the Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, President of Queens' college Cambridge, and it is due to report next year.
My hon. Friend raised several other points in his wide-ranging review. As he said, legalisation of drugs is proposed from time to time as a solution to the drug problem. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend declare his opposition to any such proposal. There is in any case little or no support for it in the international community. A recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs adopted a resolution which urged Governments not to derogate from full implementation of the international drug control treaty and to continue strictly to limit the use of narcotic drugs to medical and scientific purposes. The Government agree with my hon. Friend. We believe that legalisation would simply lead to wider misuse.
I readily accept my hon. Friend's point about the need for effective international co-operation in the fight against drugs. We attach great importance to that element in our strategy. The Government also recognise the need to deter international drug traffickers and dealers by providing the courts with maximum penalties and depriving offenders of the proceeds of their crimes. The maximum sentence for trafficking in class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine is life imprisonment. United Kingdom laws for getting at the profits of drug dealers are among the toughest in the world. We have negotiated bilateral agreements with 30 countries to facilitate the confiscation of assets.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the problem of glue sniffing. As he has said, parents must warn their children of the dangers and watch out for the warning signs of misuse. The campaign to which my hon. Friend referred was launched at a cost of £5 million in January of this year by the Department of Health. The publicity material is designed to encourage and help parents to talk to their

933
children about drugs and solvents. So far, more than 1 million copies of the booklet "Drugs and Solvents—Why You and Your Child" have been issued.
We recognise that, as my hon. Friend says, the education service has a vital part to play in ensuring that young people are made aware of the harmful effects of drugs and are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes that they need to resist pressure to use or misuse them.
Until comparatively recently, drug education in schools was very much an optional extra. However, under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, all maintained schools are now required to provide education about drugs as part of the national curriculum.
I noted my hon. Friend's concern about drug misuse in prison as a result of his visit to Highpoint prison in Suffolk. I assure him that the Prison Service takes the problem extremely seriously and has made reducing drug misuse one of its major corporate objectives. It is developing a strategy that will tackle problems associated with both reducing the supply of and demand for drugs. The strategy will also involve improving the provision of treatment for
934
prisoners during their sentences and the treatment and support being carried through on their release to the community. New measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will also allow testing of prisoners' urine. We believe that that will act as a deterrent to those tempted to use drugs while inside.
Finally, on workplace drug testing, my hon. Friend mentioned those employers who feel that their business demands it. They have already used the opportunity afforded by collective or individual bargaining to introduce testing provisions into contracts of employment. I am sure that that development is to be welcomed. The Department of Employment recommends that any testing be done in the framework of a policy that aims to rehabilitate misusers and prevent risks to others from their actions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I hope that what I have been able to say in response has given him some encouragement, for there is a great deal to be done, as he made so clear in his speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Homosexual Service Personnel
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) men and (b) women were discharged from (i) the Royal Navy, (ii) the Army and (iii) the Royal Air Force in (A) 1992, (B) 1993 and (C) 1994 because they were homosexual; and in each case what proportion this was of the total discharged and what proportion of the total employed;

  (2) in which rank were each of the people discharged from (a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Air Force because they were homosexual in each of the last five years.

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

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military search and rescue missions flown from RAF Brawdy and RAF Valley between 0001 hours and 2350 hours on Tuesday 19 April including time of call and time of arrival on scene.

  Mr. Hanley
  Neither the search and rescue helicopter flight at RAF Brawdy nor that at RAF Valley was called out on any military search and rescue missions on the day in question.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what way his Department's operations in the Irish sea require drilling for oil and gas to be postponed until 1996–97; and what effect this has on military installations in Wales.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has requested that oil and gas exploration in a small number of MOD ranges and exercise areas in the Irish sea be delayed until 1996–97 to enable defence activities to be rescheduled. It is too early to say what impact any subsequent exploitation activities may have on defence installations in Wales.

  Services Review
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is yet in a position to give details of the full team which will conduct the independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service.
  588
  Mr. Hanley
  Further to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 30 March,Official Report, columns 752–53, which announced the appointment of Mr. Michael Bett, a former deputy chairman of British Telecom plc, to lead the independent team conducting this review, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided to appoint the following as team members: Mr. Anthony Vineall, who has had a career as a senior personnel executive with Unilever plc; Mr. Michael Garner, who was recently a director of TI Group plc; and Admiral Sir John Kerr, who retires shortly from the Royal Navy.

TREASURY

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if it is his policy under article 3(3) of directive 92/12/EEC to apply excise duty to orimulsion for electricity generation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if it is his policy to levy excise duty on orimulsion for electricity generation at the same rate as heavy fuel oil;

  (3) when he expects to lay regulations to apply excise duty to orimulsion.

  Sir John Cope
  Provision was made in the Finance Act 1993 to levy an excise duty on products falling within harmonised system heading 27.15. Following the recent decision of the harmonised systems committee of the Customs Co-operation Council, orimulsion no longer falls within this heading and no regulations will therefore be laid concerning it. We have no plans to use the provisions of article 3(3) of directive 92/12/EEC to impose excise duty on orimulsion.

  Foreshore and Seabed Leases
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions he has given to the Crown Estate Commissioners under section 1(4) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 as to the charging of rents for the lease of foreshore and seabed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: I have given no directions.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid as a maximum each rate of tax, including those paying no tax at all, for each year since 1970; and what percentage of total taxpayers each number represents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: Available information on income tax payers is given in the table. Estimates of taxpayers by marginal rate are not available for years prior to 1973–74.
  589

  Taxpayers1 by marginal rate: Numbers

  (thousands)

  Marginal rate2

  1973–74

  1974–75

  1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,120

  2,670

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  19,300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,300

  20,200

  19,700

  19,800

  19,400

  33

  —

  19,600

  —

  —

  —

  17,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  19,500

  —

  19,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  19,800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  —

  175

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  114

  —

  324

  338

  374

  235

  302

  334

  445

  435

  355

  43

  —

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  70

  —

  378

  444

  221

  158

  168

  216

  305

  245

  245

  48

  —

  96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  44

  —

  161

  194

  110

  86

  108

  129

  170

  155

  140

  53

  —

  72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  56

  —

  99

  106

  71

  84

  43

  52

  75

  65

  55

  58

  —

  74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  33

  —

  115

  103

  95

  54

  53

  65

  95

  83

  65

  63

  —

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  28

  —

  58

  76

  51

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68

  —

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  19

  —

  48

  57

  30

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  18

  —

  34

  42

  41

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  26

  29

  36

  41

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  19,7,00

  20,400

  20,800

  21,200

  20,600

  21,400

  21,600

  21,000

  20,800

  20,800

  20,300

  1 Single people are married couples for years up to and including 1989–90; individuals from 1990–91.

  2 Tax rate applicable to earned income. This excludes any liability to the investment income surcharge for years up to 1983–84.

  Taxpayers1 by marginal rate: Numbers

  (thousands)

  Marginal rate

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  21992–93

  21993–94

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,900

  4,800

  25

  —

  —

  19,300

  19,600

  19,900

  20,000

  24,400

  24,100

  19,400

  18,400

  30

  19,300

  19,300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  380

  380

  400

  360

  1,350

  1,500

  1,700

  1,620

  1,800

  1,900

  45

  255

  250

  300

  320

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  145

  150

  210

  240

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  65

  70

  90

  110

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  85

  100

  120

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  20,200

  20,200

  20,400

  20,800

  21,200

  21,500

  26,100

  25,700

  25,100

  25,100

  1 Single people and married couples for years up to and including 1989–90; individuals from 1990–91.

  1 Provisional estimates projected from the 1991–92 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Taxpayers1 by marginal rate: Percentages

  (thousands)

  Marginal rate2

  1973–74

  1974–75

  1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  85

  96

  95

  95

  96

  33

  —

  96

  —

  —

  —

  82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  94

  —

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  43

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  48

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  590 591

  Marginal rate2

  1973–74

  1974–75

  1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Single people and married couples for years up to and including 1989–90; individuals from 1990–91.

  2 Tax rate applicable to earned income. This excludes any liability to the investment income surcharge for years up to 1983–84.

  Taxpayers1 by marginal rate: Percentages

  (thousands)

  Marginal rate

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–932

  1993–942

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  19

  25

  —

  —

  95

  94

  94

  93

  93

  94

  77

  73

  30

  96

  96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  2

  2

  2

  2

  6

  7

  7

  6

  7

  8

  45

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Single people and married couples for years up to and including 1989–90; individuals from 1990–91.

  2 Provisional estimates projected from the 1991–92 Survey of Personal Incomes.

TRANSPORT

  "Establishment News ENT/2/94"
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will define the term "financial area of work" as used in section 7(IV) of his Department's "Establishment News ENT/2/94".

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's redundancy arrangements for non-industrial staff—set out in ENT/2/94—contain no such reference. Section 7(iv) refers to"the functional area of work".
  This means an area of work identified by the particular function or type of work which is performed.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the compliance, in respect of the overall approach to redundancies and the principal of how to handle them, of "Establishment News" ENT/2/94 with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1993 as amended by section 32 (2)(b) of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's redundancy arrangements for non-industrial staff—set out in ENT/2/94—contain an assurance that, in handling redundancy 592
  situations the Department or its agencies will act in accordance with statutory requirements as embodied in employment and other legislation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reference to section 34(2)(b) of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 appears in "Establishment News" ENT/2/94.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department's redundancy arrangements—set out in ENT/2/94—contain an assurance that, in handling redundancy situations the Department or its agencies will act in accordance with statutory requirements as embodied in employment and other legislation. Since this assurance is all-embracing, no reference to particular sections of specific Acts is necessary.

  British Transport Property (Trespass)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many hunts have been prosecuted for trespassing on British Transport property since 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  The BTP charged one person with trespass following an incident at Brent Knoll, Somerset on 9 November 1991 involving the Weston and Brean hunt. The case was heard at Bridgwater magistrates court on 11 May 1992 and the offender was given an absolute discharge.

  A second prosecution for trespass near Oxford in November 1993 involved the Bicester with Whaddon

  593
  Chase hunt. Two charges of trespass were brought against a member of the hunt who was summoned to appear before Bicester magistrates on 24 January. The case was subsequently withdrawn by the Crown Prosecution Service in the public interest.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; and how many were referred on to an agency chief executive.

  Mr. Norris
  The number of questions answered between November 1992 and March 1993 with a disproportionate cost reply was 13.

  The number of questions referred to an agency chief executive during the same period was two.

  M11 Link
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many dwellings were demolished in the Wanstead area solely for the purpose of facilitating the construction of the M11 road link; how many dwellings were demolished for other purposes; with whose agreement and with whose authority demolition took place; what was the cost of rehousing those displaced and who funded that expenditure; in what locality those displaced were rehoused; and what other plans there are for the future use of the land now vacant consequent on demolition.

  Mr. Norris
  This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the agency's chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 May 1994:
  As the question you tabled in the House about the demolition of dwellings in Wanstead for the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road relates to operational matters for the Highways Agency, I have been asked to reply to you direct.
  The first of four main contracts for building the Link Road started in the Wanstead area last September. A total of 19 dwellings had to be demolished to make way for the construction. All were included in the made compulsory purchase Order for the scheme, together with other land and non-residential property needed in connection with the works. The only exception to this were areas of Epping Forest land, the acquisition of which was sanctioned by Act of Parliament. At the time of demolition, all the dwellings had been conveyed to the Secretary of State for Transport, many of them some considerable time ago under the provisions for planning blight. No dwellings in Wanstead have been demolished other than for the road; and no authority was needed for demolition beyond the statutory Orders for the new road.
  For completeness, I should explain that up to 24 other dwellings in the Cambridge Park area of Wanstead had been demolished more than a decade ago: they had also been acquired under planning blight resulting from earlier proposals to widen this part of the A12.
  Under the Land Compensation Act 1973, any responsibility for rehousing those displaced by compulsory purchase falls to the local housing authority. To date, no rehousing costs have been incurred by the Highways Agency, but the Act's provisions allow the relevant authority—for Wanstead, the London Borough of Redbridge—to make a claim in due course. Those rehoused were
  594
  mostly tenants of either the Department, that Borough or a Housing Association. Some found alternative premises with the assistance of their landlords; others made their own arrangements. I am not privy to where they may have moved to.
  You may wish to note that dwellings have also been demolished in the Leyton and Leytonstone areas either for works in advance of the further main contracts or in preparation for those contracts. In addition, two not strictly required for the works have had to come down for structural reasons. Other dwellings bought in connection with the road under planning blight or discretionary purchase provisions, but not needed for it, will ultimately be sold, as will any surplus non-residential property or marketable pockets of land.

  Ship Registration
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on the formation of a European Union ship register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Commission first put forward proposals for an additional register for Community vessels in 1989. There have been various discussions between the Commission and member states since then and I understand that the Commission is now considering whether to make further formal proposals.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the minimum number of nationals in its crew required for a ship to be registered under the national flag in each of the appropriate member states of the European Union.

  Mr. Norris
  The information that we have about other member states indicates that they require the following minimum numbers of nationals for vessels on their register:

  Belgium—Master

  Denmark—Master. On vessels 9000 grt or more—Master, plus three ratings

  France—Master plus one officer

  Germany—Master

  Greece—All officers and 60 per cent. of total complement

  Republic of Ireland—All crew above deckhands must have Irish certificate of competency or recognised equivalent

  Italy—EU nationals only

  Luxembourg—Master should be EC national

  Netherlands—Master

  Portuguese—All

  Spain—Master and First Officer

  The United Kingdom currently requires that the master, chief mate and chief engineer must be British, Irish or Commonwealth citizens.

  Public Service Vehicles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the President of the Board of Trade to discuss the exclusion of the continuous operator licence proposal for public service vehicles and heavy goods vehicles from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.

  Mr. Norris
  No. Continuous licences for operators of goods and public service vehicles would remove unnecessary bureaucratic procedures from the licensing systems and should remain part of the Bill. The proposal was debated at length during the Standing Committee's consideration of the Bill and the House will have the opportunity for further discussion on this topic during the remainder of the Bill's passage.

  School Transport
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve safety standards on buses and coaches used to transport children to school; if he will specify the regulations which govern the transport of children to school; what proposals he has to amend these regulations; what plans he has to introduce a capping disregard for additional current expenditure in 1994–95 in respect of the additional cost to a council of dropping the three for two rule on dedicated school transport contract vehicles and requiring the fitting of seat belts on all contract minibuses and school minibuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We are currently considering the full technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in all minibuses and coaches. We hope to publish the conclusions shortly.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has advised me that school transport is governed by section 55 of the Education Act 1944 and there are no plans to amend this legislation.

  Independent consultant

  Consultancy firm

  Other

  Total applications

  Total applicants

  1986

  3

  0

  18

  21

  21

  1987

  7

  1

  14

  22

  21

  1988

  6

  4

  14

  24

  24

  1989

  6

  3

  18

  27

  24

  1990

  7

  6

  17

  30

  29

  1991

  15

  4

  9

  28

  21

  1992

  6

  14

  10

  30

  25

  1993

  7

  7

  15

  29

  28

  1994

  6

  0

  3

  9

  9

  Total

  63

  39

  118

  220

  202

  Three of the cases shown were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, in 1986, 1990 and 1991.

  All applications submitted have been approved.

  Lowestoft Relief Road
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement clarifying the position on the Department's requirement of the home of Mr. and Mrs. J. C. Howard, 4 Blackheath road, Lowestoft NR33 7JG, for the A12 relief road, Lowestoft; and what is their entitlement to compensation.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: I have written to my hon. Friend in response to his letter of 26 April on behalf of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Howard of 4 Blackheath road, Lowestoft.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Photo-chemical Oxidants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Government will adopt as a result of the report from the photo-chemical oxidants review group in relation to pollution control measures; and if he will make a statement.
  596
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has determined his principles for capping for 1994–95. These principles do not include any disregard in respect of expenditure on school transport.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986, through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Since 1986, the Department of Transport has received 220 separate applications from 202 civil servants under the business appointment rules system; 63 applications have been to seek work as independent consultants, 39 to join a firm of consultants, and 118 to undertake other types of work. On a year-by-year basis, the detail of the applications is as follows:

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The publication of the report of the photochemical oxidants review group was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside on 19 April 1994. In his announcement, my hon. Friend referred to the pollution control measures taken by the Government and indicated that he shortly expects to receive recommendations from the expert panel on air quality standards on a standard for ozone based on effects on human health. The Government will be considering the need for further reductions of ozone precursors in the light of these recommendations and discussion at European and international level.

  Ozone is one of the pollutants monitored in Northern Ireland as part of the national urban air quality monitoring network. The results measured show that ozone levels in Northern Ireland are well within national and international standards and indeed, are among the lowest in the United Kingdom.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland for the period 1944 to 1997.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The following targets have been set:

  1. To increase the number of companies developing their management and work force skills through the company

  597
  development programme from 300 at April 1994 to 350 by March 1995 and to maintain this number until March 1997.

  2. To assess companies on the company development programme—CDP—against the national standard "Investors in People" and to encourage commitment to the standard from the wider private sector with the aim of having 120 organisations—including 70 CDP companies—receiving recognition by March 1997.

  3. To offer every company referred to the agency by the Industrial Development Board relevant information, advice and customised training.

  4. To increase the proportion of youth training programme leavers who achieve a full qualification at national vocational qualification level 2 or above from 20 per cent. in 1993–94 to 45 per cent. in 1996–97.

  5. To increase the proportion of job training programme leavers who achieve a full qualification at national vocational qualification level 2 or above from 17 per cent. in 1993–94 to 30 per cent. in 1996–97.

  6 To provide an average of 9,200 temporary employment places with training through the action for community employment—ACE—programme with the aim of placing 36 per cent. of ACE leavers in jobs, training or futher education within three months of leaving.

  7 To place 33,000 people into jobs in 1994–95.

  8 To maintain the high levels of customer satisfaction and where possible, increase them.

  9 To reduce administration costs by more than 3 per cent. in 1994–95.

  10 To have the agency meet the national "Investors in People" standard for employers by September 1995.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Attendants
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many attendants are currently employed in the House and its outbuildings; how many were employed in each of the last five years; what is the current ratio of attendants to other staff working in the House and its outbuildings, hon. Members, their staff and staff of the House; and what was the ratio for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Beith
  The numbers of attendants employed in the House and its outbuildings in the years requested are as follows:

  Number

  1994

  56

  1993

  56

  1992

  59

  1991

  157

  1990

  149

  1989

  149

  1 These figures are the staff complement. Actual numbers employed may have varied slightly from these figures.

  It is not possible to make an exact calculation of the ratio of attendants to other occupants of the parliamentary buildings because no record is kept to identify which Members' staff work at Westminster on a regular basis.

  Cleaners
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer to the hon.598
  Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) of 20 April, Official Report, column 521, for what reasons the number of House of Commons cleaners is being reduced.

  Mr. Beith
  I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to the hon. Lady. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Loans Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average processing time to approval of a guarantee under the small firms loans guarantee scheme; and how his Department finances the transaction costs in such approvals.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no information available on the time taken to process an application while with a lender. Once received by the DTI loan guarantee section, the average time taken to process an application in 1993–94 was 1.9 days.

  None of the lenders transaction costs are met by the DTI. The cost of the small team of DTI staff involved in processing applications is met from the Department's running costs.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications under the small firms loan guarantee scheme have been made in each financial year since 1990–91; how many have been approved; and what have been the sums guaranteed and the cost to his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of applications made, guaranteed, their value and the net cost to the DTI in each year since 1990–91 is shown in the table:

  Applications received by DTI

  Applications guaranteed

  Sum guaranteed (£ million)

  Net cost (£ million)

  1990–91

  3,676

  3,387

  84.56

  16.5

  1991–92

  3,124

  2,933

  69.48

  27.5

  1992–93

  2,408

  2,342

  52.35

  19.2

  Application figures for 1993–94 will be available shortly and are expected to show a significant increase in applications guaranteed. Fewer applications are guaranteed than are received. Rejections represent only a quarter of this difference. The rest is due to withdrawal by the borrower.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends publishing the report drawn up by the inspectors from his Department into the affairs of Guinness plc following their appointment by his predecessor in December 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors have not yet completed their inspection, which was recommenced after the conclusion of the Guinness criminal trials. When their report has been submitted, consideration will be given to its publication.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of his staff are assigned to the current review of cross-media ownership; and what is the cost to his departmental budget of the cross-media ownership review.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A number of staff combine work on the review of the cross media ownership with other duties. At present it forms the main duty of two full-time members of staff and occupies a significant part of the time of three others. The cost this year of the individuals most involved, allowing for time spent on other duties, is likely to be around £184,000.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the total sums of public money invested in the nuclear power industry since 1963 in cash terms and at 1993 prices; and what percentage of the United Kingdom's electricity is now produced by nuclear energy.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The main public sector companies in the nuclear power industry are Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear. An indication of past investment in these companies is provided by the gross value—before depreciation—of tangible fixed assets stated in their published accounts. At 31 March 1993, the historic cost value of these assets was about £10 billion and the current cost value was about £15 billion. In accordance with standard accounting conventions, asset values are stated at the lower of cost—replacement cost in the case of current cost accounts—or value to the business.

  In 1993 about 26 per cent. of electricity available from the United Kingdom public supply system was produced by nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.

  Source: Energy Trends, Tables 18 and 19.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) of 25 April,Official Report, column 7, if he will list the organisations or individuals that have made representations on the nuclear review; and what response he gave to these representations.

  Mr. Heseltine
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Coal
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many miners are currently employed by British Coal.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The number of wage earners on British Coal's colliery books at the end of March 1994 was 10,400.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek the advice of the panel on sustainable development, on the subject of the programme of work of the Trade and Environment Committee of the World Trade Organisation.
  600
  Mr. Heseltine
  The members of the proposed World Trade Organisation have agreed that a work programme considering certain important trade and environment issues will be carried out by a committee of the WTO preparatory committee, and then almost certainly by a committee of the WTO itself. The Government will continue to take a close interest in this work.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department and the Department of Energy have been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: A reply would incur disproportionate cost in view of the number of privatisations since 1980.

  Consumer Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Lady Wilcox, chairperson of the National Consumer Council for Great Britain, in relation to the proposed re-appointment of Miss Beata Brookes as chairperson of the Welsh Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The views of the chairman of the National Consumer Council were sought on the reappointment of Miss Brookes as chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council and these were taken into consideration.

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the post-tax profits of the(a) gas, (b) electricity and (c) water privatised utilities was paid out in dividends in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows the percentage of post-tax profits paid out in dividends by the privatised companies in the industries concerned. All the data are for financial years ending 31 March 1993 with the exception of British Gas plc, whose data are for the year ending 31 December 1993.

  Privatised utilities' dividends

  Industry

  Proportion of post-tax profits paid in dividends Per cent.

  Gas

  1-117.2

  Electricity (England and Wales)

  33.6

  Scottish Electricity companies

  41.3

  Water and Sewerage companies

  32.2

  1 British Gas plc made a loss. Dividends paid from reserves.

ENVIRONMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many parliamentary questions, in the period November 1992 to March 1993, were answered
  601
  with the response that the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; and how many were referred on to an agency chief executive.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of answers given to parliamentary questions between November 1992 and March 1993 recorded in the POLIS database as including a reference to part or all of the information being available only at disproportionate cost or because the information was not held, collected or recorded centrally was 41 out of a total of 2,264 questions answered during this period. During the same period, seven questions were referred to an agency chief executive for reply.

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will change the rules to enable an applicant's mortgage to be taken into consideration when assessing an application for a housing renovation grant.

  Sir George Young
  We are currently reviewing the future of the private sector renewal programme following last year's consultation exercise and will announce the conclusions in due course.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of gross expenditure is to be spent on staff and administrative costs by(a) the Leeds development corporation and (b) the Central Manchester development corporation in 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 April 1994,Official Report, column 206.

  Beckenham Place
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will determine the appeal on the planning application for the proposed development at Beckenham place, Beckenham, Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A decision on the proposals will be made soon.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was allocated to living over the shop schemes under the flats over shops funding programme in 1993–94, how much has been spent; and what was the average length of lease obtained by housing associations involved in such schemes.

  Sir George Young
  Ten million pounds was allocated to the flats over shops programme in 1993–94. Early indications are that 97 per cent. of this has been spent. However, we are unable to confirm this until the final claims for supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—have been received from local authorities. SCAs are issued retrospectively, following the receipt of a certified claim giving details of expenditure. Local authorities have six months following the end of the relevant financial year in which to submit claims. Data on the average length of lease obtained by housing associations in 1993–94 are not yet available. For the first year of the programme, 1992–93, an average lease length of 13 years was obtained.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given in regard to the effect of opencast mining on greenfield sites, in regard to agricultural production and other matters, following the conclusion of such projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has provided advice on how the quality of existing agricultural land should be taken into account in determining opencast mining proposals on greenfield sites in Mineral Planning Guidance Note 3—"Opencast Coal Mining", and Mineral Planning Guidance Note 7—"The Reclamation of Mineral Workings".

  MPG3 is being revised, a consultation draft was published in December and the comments are currently being considered. MPG7 also provides advice on mitigating any adverse effects of opencast working and of the standards to be achieved at the end of restoration and aftercare, following conclusion of working. The standards are defined either by the restoration of the pre-existing physical characteristics, or by "fitness for use", which determine agricultural production.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he was consulted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding trade and the environment before the Chancellor addressed the recent meeting of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have set out their views on trade and the environment in "Sustainable Development, the United Kingdom Strategy", published in January.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he has taken following the curtailing of local authorities' ability to charge for services as a result of the 1991 McCarthy and Stone judgment;

  (2) what progress has been made since the publication in 1986 of the Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government", to give local authorities powers to charge for providing services to individuals or companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Secretary of State may make regulations providing that local authorities may charge for activities not already covered by a specific charging power or duty, with the exception of functions listed in section 152.

  Two new charging powers have been introduced under section 150—the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Charges for Registration Schemes) Regulations 1991 and the Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993. My right hon. Friend intends to make further regulations soon which would enable authorities to charge for dealing with supplementary land search inquiries in respect of proposed property transactions. We will consult the local authority associations shortly on a number of other proposals for regulations under section 150.

  Special Grants
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenditure is planned for 1994–95 under the special grants programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the current financial year—1994–95—the full allocation of £1.262 million is planned to be expended on the special grants programme.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those community-led urban regeneration schemes assisted or funded from these programmes in the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make available in the Library a copy of the bidding guidance notes.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information sought cannot be produced in the form specified. In previous years a number of Government Departments, in addition to the Department of the Environment, have contributed to community-led urban regeneration through different programmes. From 1 April 20 of these programmes have been included in the single regeneration budget. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 13 April 1994,Official Report, column 174.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre executive agency for 1994–95.

  Sir George Young
  The agency's key target for 1994–95 is to reduce its net operating deficit—exclusive of rent1—from an expected £0.711 million in 1993–94 to £0.382.

  The agency will also aim to increase total revenue from the centre's activities from an expected £5.129 million in 1993–94 to £5.616 million; to increase the number of calendar days with events at the centre from an expected 285 days or 78 per cent. in 1993–94 to 299 days or 82 per cent.2; and to improve its revenue to cost ratio from an expected 1:1.14 in 1993–94 to 1:1.07.
  1 An annual rent of £6.4 million was charged for the agency's occupation of the centre with effect from 1993–94.
  2 This target is based on an industry standard agreed by the International Congress and Convention Association. It compares with increasing overall occupancy for the main letting areas from an expected 41 per cent. in 1993–94 to 45 per cent. based on a previous measure which was unique to the centre.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum council tax chargeable by Liverpool city council; and what provisions exist for raising it.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Council taxes must be calculated and set in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the relevant secondary legislation. Central Government have no direct control over the rate of council tax charged by an authority: capping constrains an authority's revenue budget rather than council taxes per se.

  Urban Policies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list every urban policy that has been instituted or operated from 1979, the date that each scheme began operating, where appropriate when they ceased operating and the funds available on an annual basis at current prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  Economic, social and physical regeneration is supported through main programmes by several Government Departments and by targeted initiatives. My reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 25 April,Official Report, columns 36–37, contained detailed information about the latter programmes, including spending from 1981–82. For the urban programme, which began in 1979, the additional figures sought are £83 million for 1979–80 and £112 milion for 1980–81 in cash terms. All the programmes listed in the earlier reply have now been combined within the single regeneration budget from 1 April 1994.

  While not included in the earlier reply, enterprise zones, also a targeted urban initiative were launched in 1981. They offer a range of incentives to industrial and commercial firms in designated areas. These have not involved any direct expenditure, but an estimated £1.7 billion has been forgone in rates and taxes.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cross-media Ownership
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many of his staff are assigned to the current review of cross-media ownership; and what is the cost to his departmental budget of the cross-media ownership review.

  Mr. Brooke
  Four staff are assigned full-time to the review, at a cost of £131,000. There is a budget of some £48,000 for the running costs of the review.

  Millennium Commission
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the estimated cost for 1994–95 of the Millennium Commission; and how much will be spent on(a) salaries and expenses of staff and commissioners, (b) publicity and (c) administration.

  Mr. Brooke
  The total estimated administration cost of the Millennium Commission for 1994–95 is £1,000,000, of which:

  (a) Salary and staff costs are expected to be £285,000; and

  (b) Publicity costs are expected to be £45,000.

  Television Crime Reconstructions
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further research his Department is planning into links between television programmes featuring crime reconstructions which are made purely for entertainment and women's fear of crime.

  Mr. Brooke
  I would look to the broadcasting regulatory bodies to commission any further research they considered necessary. The Broadcasting Standards Council, which is funded by my Department, has commissioned work in this area in the past.
  605
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to monitor television programmes featuring crime reconstructions which are not made in order to apprehend criminals and to discuss these programmes and their effect on women's fear of crime with television companies.

  Mr. Brooke
  Monitoring television programmes is the responsibility of the broadcasting regulatory authorities. I am meeting the chairmen of those bodies shortly to discuss concern about the portrayal of violence on television.

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what targets he has set for the executive agencies in his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  The following targets have been set for 1994–95:

  For the Historic Royal Palaces Agency:

  Financial Targets:

  Commercial surplus

  £6 million

  Call on the taxpayer

  £8.9 million

  Efficiency Target:

  Savings on running costs

  2 per cent.

  Conservation Target:
  To complete the fire prevention works planned for 1994–95 and the programme of works identified by the building condition surveys as being a priority for 1994–95; to undertake further detailed inspections of the specific areas identified by the surveys as being a priority for 1995–96.

  Visitor Satisfaction Measures1:

  Value for money

  0.7 to 1.0

  Enjoyment

  above 1.35

  Helpful and friendly staff

  above 1.35

  2 Visitor ratings are assessed from market research interviews with 900 visitors, undertaken by independent consultants each summer. 2.0 is Extremely Good; 1.5 is Very Good; 1.0 is Quite Good; 0 is OK; -1.0 is Quite Poor; -2.0 is Very Poor.

  For the Royal Parks Agency:

  Fabric:

  (i) Prepare contract documents for the four grounds maintenance contracts which expire in March 1995, incorporating lessons from existing contracts. Let new contracts or extend existing ones.

  (ii) Draw up and commence priority programme of works required to remove the six listed structures which are on the 'at risk' register.

  (iii) Prepare detailed proposals for and consult all relevant parties about the pedestrianisation of the end of the Mall, with a view to commencing the project (if approved) in 1994–95.

  (iv) Complete phase II of the Speakers Corner/Marble Arch competition (ie develop detailed designs from the six prize-winning sketch designs from phase I).

  Financial:

  (i) Increase income from £1.3 million to £1.8 million from sales, permits, fees, rents, licences, concessions and car-parking.

  (ii) Achieve 1.5 per cent. improvement in running costs efficiency.

  Park Users:

  (i) Assess initial visitor survey results and achieve an overall quality rating of six marks out of 10 in response to the survey question "Overall, how would you rate the quality of this park?"

EDUCATION

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils in primary schools, though not in designated nursery classes in January 1993, were born between 1 September 1986 and 31 August 1987, in each local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of pupils aged five at the beginning of the school year 1992–93 being taught in infant classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England is shown in the table.

  Pupils aged 5 at 31 August 1992 in infant classes in maintained primary schools in each Local Education Authority in England. Position as at January 1993

  LEA

  Pupils

  Corporation of London

  26

  Camden

  1,465

  Greenwich

  2,924

  Hackney

  2,419

  Hammersmith

  1,292

  Islington

  2,106

  Kensington and Chelsea

  927

  Lambeth

  2,707

  Lewisham

  2,926

  Southwark

  3,086

  Tower Hamlets

  2,917

  Wandsworth

  2,329

  Westminster

  1,271

  Barking

  2,108

  Barnet

  3,312

  Bexley

  2,779

  Brent

  2,978

  Bromley

  3,247

  Croydon

  3,872

  Ealing

  3,543

  Enfield

  3,296

  Haringey

  2,512

  Harrow

  2,354

  Havering

  2,804

  Hillingdon

  2,792

  Hounslow

  2,595

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,416

  Merton

  1,927

  Newham

  3,610

  Redbridge

  2,788

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,561

  Sutton

  1,926

  Waltham Forest

  2,767

  Birmingham

  14,720

  Coventry

  4,213

  Dudley

  3,921

  Sandwell

  4,102

  Solihull

  2,611

  Walsall

  3,680

  Wolverhampton

  3,335

  Knowsley

  2,435

  Liverpool

  6,754

  St. Helens

  2,329

  Sefton

  3,606

  Wirral

  4,350

  Bolton

  3,550

  Bury

  2,335

  Manchester

  6,166

  Oldham

  3,252

  Rochdale

  2,985

  Salford

  3,028

  Stockport

  3,496

  Tameside

  3,105

  Trafford

  2,631

  Wigan

  4,091

  Barnsley

  2,887

  Doncaster

  4,180

  Rotherham

  3,418

  Sheffield

  6,112

  607

  LEA

  Pupils

  Bradford

  7,022

  Calderdale

  2,654

  Kirklees

  5,098

  Leeds

  8,982

  Wakefield

  4,227

  Gateshead

  2,365

  Nwewcastle upon Tyne

  3,363

  North Tyneside

  2,521

  South Tyneside

  2,138

  Sunderland

  4,049

  Isles of Scilly

  16

  Avon

  11,407

  Bedfordshire

  7,450

  Berkshire

  9,355

  Buckinghamshire

  8,142

  Cambridgeshire

  8,475

  Cheshire

  12,123

  Cleveland

  8,224

  Cornwall

  5,612

  Cumbria

  5,788

  Derbyshire

  11,500

  Devon

  11,775

  Dorset

  6,952

  Durham

  7,471

  East Sussex

  7,483

  Essex

  18,641

  Gloucestershire

  6,390

  Hampshire

  19,396

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,935

  Hertfordshire

  12,039

  Humberside

  11,701

  Isle of Wight

  1,433

  Kent

  18,938

  Lancashire

  18,356

  Leicestershire

  11,663

  Lincolnshire

  6,881

  Norfolk

  8,592

  North Yorkshire

  8,386

  Northamptonshire

  7,807

  Northumberland

  3,742

  Nottinghamshire

  12,766

  Oxfordshire

  6,585

  Shropshire

  5,135

  Somerset

  5,432

  Staffordshire

  13,394

  Suffolk

  7,636

  Surrey

  10,394

  Warwickshire

  6,006

  West Sussex

  7,657

  Wiltshire

  7,395

  ENGLAND

  596,366

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time equivalent pupils in non-designated nursery classes at the latest available date were born between(a) 1 September 1987 and 31 December 1987, (b) 1 January 1988 and 31 March 1988 and (c) 1 April 1988 and 31 August 1988.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of full-time equivalent pupils aged four at the beginning of the school year 1992–93 being taught in infant classes in maintained primary schools in England in January 1993 is shown in the table.

  Pupils aged 4 on 31 August 1992 in infant classes in maintained primary schools in England January 1993

  Date of Birth

  FTE Pupils1

  1 September 1987–31 December 1987

  200,782

  1 January 1988–31 March 1988

  146,100

  1 April 1988–31 August 1988

  155,592

  608
  1 Part-time pupils count as 0.5.

  School Governors
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information is available to his Department regarding the numbers of men and women governors of grant-maintained schools, by type of school and by category of governor; and how such information is collected.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has no information on the numbers of men and women governors of grant-maintained schools.

  Early Retirement
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the information he has available on expenditure in each local education authority on early retirement compensation in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on expenditure by each local education authority on early retirement compensation for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, is given in the following table.

  Expenditure on Crombie and teacher premature retirement compensation payments

  1990–91 £000

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  *23

  Hackney

  0

  0

  *21

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  *15

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  101

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  *20

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  *21

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  Barking

  605

  290

  751

  Barnet

  1,344

  1,425

  1,475

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  Bromley

  981

  586

  551

  Croydon

  248

  630

  474

  Ealing

  861

  479

  636

  Enfield

  0

  0

  705

  Haringey

  474

  541

  *339

  Harrow

  353

  534

  *313

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  1

  0

  Hounslow

  11

  208

  *430

  Kingston upon Thames

  304

  358

  *231

  Merton

  0

  0

  *244

  Newham

  769

  269

  *425

  Redbridge

  288

  387

  405

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  324

  5

  13

  Birmingham

  3,422

  3,947

  5,443

  Coventry

  12

  2,982

  *981

  Dudley

  884

  851

  791

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  553

  Walsall

  0

  643

  1,567

  Wolverhampton

  94

  195

  326

  Knowsley

  0

  957

  945

  Liverpool

  2,727

  3,780

  3,058

  St. Helens

  953

  1,126

  *581

  609

  1990–91 £000

  1991–92 £000

  1992–93 £000

  Sefton

  1,496

  1,536

  0

  Wirral

  231

  182

  97

  Bolton

  898

  1,022

  *687

  Bury

  848

  1,031

  *503

  Manchester

  2,144

  2,815

  4,400

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  469

  493

  806

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  512

  447

  547

  Tameside

  0

  0

  933

  Trafford

  0

  0

  *533

  Wigan

  1,377

  1,681

  1,999

  Barnsley

  200

  532

  35

  Doncaster

  0

  379

  0

  Rotherham

  203

  271

  0

  Sheffield

  40

  0

  0

  Bradford

  1,354

  1,153

  2,860

  Calderdale

  453

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  275

  1,465

  838

  Leeds

  0

  0

  3

  Wakefield

  1,228

  1,389

  *840

  Gateshead

  0

  44

  73

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  305

  1,261

  *1,608

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  508

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  364

  470

  397

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  0

  0

  747

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  704

  812

  779

  Buckinghamshire

  249

  265

  1,105

  Cambridgeshire

  899

  1,447

  1,705

  Cheshire

  191

  124

  1,874

  Cleveland

  1,328

  1,720

  *696

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  1,320

  1,556

  696

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  Dorset

  782

  1,183

  1,443

  Durham

  -14

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  547

  877

  1,039

  Essex

  1,915

  1,945

  2,066

  Gloucestershire

  1,567

  2,150

  0

  Hampshire

  1,862

  2,215

  2,750

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  264

  0

  Hertfordshire

  453

  1,734

  1,769

  Humberside

  726

  759

  854

  Isle of Wight

  94

  108

  124

  Kent

  314

  151

  223

  Lancashire

  4,374

  4,804

  *1,654

  Leicestershire

  1,267

  2,075

  2,275

  Lincolnshire

  968

  148

  126

  Norfolk

  1,200

  196

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  111

  128

  494

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,066

  2,295

  0

  Oxfordshire

  1,389

  1,585

  1,586

  Shropshire

  16

  19

  18

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  2,715

  3,214

  3,987

  Suffolk

  14

  156

  0

  Surrey

  0

  0

  2,791

  Warwickshire

  922

  1,269

  1,428

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  872

  Note:

  1. Figures are derived from local education authorities' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment.

  2. The figures for 1992–93 include estimates of expenditure for LEAs marked "*". The 1992–93 figures are subject to final checking by the Department of Environment and the Department for Education.

  3. The quality of information recorded on returns from LEAs is partly dependant on the accounting practices adopted. These can differ considerably.

  English Language Courses
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many complaints he has received in the last 12 months about unfair competition between private and state-funded colleges that both teach English language courses to overseas students, but where the latter are in receipt of subsidies provided by the Further Education Funding Council in order to do so; and what information he has with regard to consequential job losses in the private sector resulting from this practice.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has received six letters in the last 12 months on concerns about the sources of funding for English as a foreign language—EFL—courses in private and state-funded colleges. The Department holds no information on the number of staff employed in the delivery of EFL in the private sector.

PRIME MINISTER

  Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mobile Telephones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) portable telephones, (b) pagers and electronic bleepers and (c) car telephones are currently used by his Department; what are the annual costs of operating this equipment; and to which personnel it is made available.

  The Prime Minister
  There are 14 portable telephones, 19 pagers and four car telephones currently in use in No. 10 Downing street. The annual cost of operating the equipment is approximately £12,800.

  The equipment is made available to those personnel who need to keep in contact with the office for purposes of official duty.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Turkey on the present United Nations-sponsored talks on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed the United Nations-sponsored package of confidence-building measures with Mrs. Ciller in the margins of the NATO summit on 10 January. I sent her a message on 6 April urging her to encourage Mr. Denktash to adopt a more constructive approach to the negotiations on the package. The United Nations Secretary-General will shortly submit a report on the talks to the United Nations Security Council.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 May.
  611
  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 the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Croft, Ref. 353 IJOH1002188491, of Stockton-on-Tees will be officially notified by the Child Support Agency that his initial assessment has been withdrawn.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Tim Devlin, dated 5 May 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the interim child maintenance assessment made in respect of Mr. Stephen Croft by the Child Support Agency.
  Mr. Croft was originally advised that an interim maintenance assessment would be made because insufficient information had been supplied to permit a full assessment. Following a telephone call to the Agency, a two week extension was agreed. Unfortunately at the expiry of the extension, the interim assessment was made despite the fact that the relevant information had been received in the meantime. When this error came to light, immediate action was taken to cancel the interim assessment, and Mr. Croft was notified of this on 29 April 1994.
  I hope you will convey to Mr. Croft my sincere apologies for any anxiety or distress which the actions of the Agency may have caused. I hope you will also accept my assurance that I shall be keeping a close watch on the developments in this case.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit savings the Child Support Agency achieved in 1993–94.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 3 May at columns 423–24.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the first year of operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  It is too early to make a full assessment of the first year of operation of the Child Support Agency. This will be done when the annual report is available later this year. Meanwhile I meet regularly with the Child Support Agency chief executive and look carefully at all the representations that have been made, and we keep the Child Support Agency under constant review.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of those people retiring in the last year for which figures are available had a total pension income amounting to(a) 100 per cent. or more, (b) between 90 per cent. and 99 per cent., (c) between 80 per cent. and 89 per cent., (d) between 70 per cent. and 79 per cent., (e) between 60 per cent. and 69 per cent., (f) between 50 per cent. and 59 per cent., (g) between 40 per cent. and 49 per cent., (h) between
  612
  30 per cent. and 39 per cent., (i) between 20 per cent. and 29 per cent. and (j) 10 per cent. or less, of (i) their final salary and (ii) average earnings.

  Mr. Hague
  Information on pension income as a proportion of final salary is not available. Information on pension income in relation to average earnings is not available in precisely the form requested. Estimates, which relate to female pensioners aged 60 to 64 and to male pensioners aged 65 to 69, are in the tables.

  Pension income of male pensioners aged 65 to 69 compared to average earnings

  Number (000's)

  Percentage of male pensioners 65 to 69

  0–10 per cent.

  1121

  10

  11–19 per cent.

  308

  25

  20–29 per cent.

  376

  30

  30–39 per cent.

  1140

  11

  40–59 per cent.

  1154

  12

  60 per cent. and over

  139

  11

  Pension income of female pensioners aged 60 to 64 compared to average earnings

  Number (000's)

  Percentage of female pensioners 60 to 64

  0–10 per cent.

  440

  231

  11–19 per cent.

  417

  29

  20–29 per cent.

  271

  19

  30–39 per cent.

  127

  9

  40 per cent. and over

  177

  12

  1 Denotes unreliably small sample size.

  2 This group includes married women whose husbands are aged less than 65 and who have no entitlement to a pension on their own National Insurance record.

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and should be treated as such.

  2. Figures are mean averages; they relate to individuals, not to pensioner units or households.

  3. Estimates derive from the Family Expenditure Survey for the combined years 1990–91 and the Government Actuary's Department's Survey of Occupational Pension 1991.

  4. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

  Operational Strategy
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on consultants for operational strategy in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost of consultancy services for the operational strategy over the five years ending 1992–93 was £191 million. Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. Individual years' figures are in the table.

  £ million

  1988–89

  40·6

  1989–90

  31·2

  1990–91

  49·6

  1991–92

  37·5

  1992–93

  32·1

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current estimated total cost of operational strategy to 1998, in real terms; by how much this figure exceeds the initial estimated cost; and what percentage of the estimated cost is the cost of outside consultants.
  613
  Mr. Scott
  The most recent—1993—estimated total cost in real terms of the operational strategy to 1998–99 is £2.6 billion, which includes an estimated £315 million—11.9 per cent.—for consultancy services.

  The total cost of the operational strategy was originally—1982—estimated at £713 million. The current estimated cost exceeds the initial estimate by £1.9 billion. The original specification did not embrace the substantial cost of subsequent changes in social security legislation, notably the 1988 social security reforms. Estimates of total savings over the period of the operational strategy have also been revised from an initial estimate of some £1.9 billion—1982—to £3.3 billion—1993.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  This Department and its executive agencies use private companies to carry out a range of activities. This is done as part of our continuing search for better value for money. The companies we use include a private firm to serve documents in connection with the collection of arrears of national insurance contributions and private security companies for the guarding of some of our sites countrywide.

  Personnel Costs
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of Information Technology Services Agency's total personnel costs for software development has been spent on outside consultants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Scott
  The costs for software development and continuing support for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are in the table. This work is done using a mixture of civil servants and external contractors some of whom are supplied by consultancy firms. The information for 1989–90 and 1990–91 is not readily available.

  £'000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total personnel costs for software development (millions)

  58·7

  73·1

  69·7

  Cost of consultants/contractors (millions)

  38·5

  45·5

  43·4

  Consultancy/contractors as a percentage of the total

  65·6

  62·2

  62·3

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to the Exchequer of allowing single parents on income support to retain(a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £15 of any maintenance payments.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to his Department in the form of reduced estimated savings of the introduction of a maintenance disregard of £15 for lone parents with care who are in receipt of income support.
  614
  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that the cost of £5, £10 and £15 child support maintenance disregards in income support would be approximately £145 million, £290 million and £435 million in the long run.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) of 26 April,Official Report, column 123, what is the scope of the safeguards to which he refers in regard to the disclosure of information by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The code of conduct on access to information sets out a number of grounds on which access to documents can be refused. Copies of the code were placed in the Library of the House on 14 January.

  Mr. Van den Broek
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 125, relating to Mr. Van den Broek, if he will give reasons for his answer.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North was neither practical nor necessary.

  Libya
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts his Department has with the Red Cross or the Red Crescent concerning the blockade on Libya and its effect on medical supplies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have had no contacts with the Red Cross or the Red Crescent concerning the blockade on Libya and its effect on medical supplies.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from UNICEF concerning the sanctions on Libya and their effect on children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received no representations from UNICEF concerning the sanctions on Libya and their effects on children.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the United Nations Security Council has received from(a) UNICEF and (b) UNESCO concerning the effects of the United Nations sanctions on Libya.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are aware of no representations which the Security Council has received from UNICEF or UNESCO concerning the effects of United Nations sanctions on Libya.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from UNESCO concerning the effect of sanctions on Libya; and if he will make a statement.
  615
  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received no representations from UNESCO concerning the effect of sanctions on Libya.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the withdrawal of United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda forces from Rwanda is planned to be a temporary measure; and if he will encourage the United Nations to draw up plans for a strengthened force and mandate to return at the earliest possible moment.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Security Council resolution 912 reduced the authorised size of UNAMIR, but stressed the Security Council's readiness to consider any recommendations which the Security General might make concerning the future force level and mandate of UNAMIR in light of developments.

  We support the United Nations' efforts to promote a ceasefire and to encourage the parties to resume the peace process.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the items on the agenda at the EU common foreign and security policy working group meeting on 7 April.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The subject of anti-personnel landmines was one of a number of subjects discussed at the working group meeting on 7 April. However, the agendas of the meetings of this group are not published.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of statements made by, or on behalf of, Her Majesty's Government at the EU common foreign and security policy working group meeting on 7 April.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Copies of all agreed European Union common foreign and security policy statements are placed in the Libraries of both Houses. No such statements issued from this meeting.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which state raised the subject of anti-personnel mines at the EU common foreign and security policy working group meeting on 7 April; what proposals were made; and what was the response of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The presidency is responsible for preparing the agenda of these meetings. However, the issue of landmines is currently of common interest to all European Union member states.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the next meeting of the EU common foreign and security policy working group is scheduled.

  Suicides in penal custody between January 1983 and December 1993

  Date

  Name

  Age

  Establishment

  Sentence or remand

  Determination

  1983

  16 January 1983

  John Leinsler Stewart

  34

  Peterhead

  6 years

  Overdose

  14 February 1983

  William McGlinchey

  20

  Longriggend

  Remand

  Cell fire, asphyxiation

  616
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The date has not yet been arranged.

  European Commission
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 125, on the powers of the European Commission, in what way he wishes the Commission to become more accountable.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Powers exist to hold the European Commission to account, notably under articles 140, 143, 144 and 158 of the treaty of Rome. It is right that the Commission should be fully accountable for its actions and these treaty provisions need to be rigorously applied.

SCOTLAND

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has made limited use of private detective agencies when attempting to locate individuals or companies who have defaulted on the terms and conditions of regional assistance grants. In addition, private sector companies are contracted to provide security guarding services for various Scottish Office buildings and properties.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the self-inflicted deaths that have occurred in Scottish prison establishments over the past 10 years, giving details of the name, age, status, offence and inquest verdict of each of the deceased and the names of the prisons in which the deaths occurred.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 May 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about self-inflicted deaths in Scottish penal establishments over the past 10 years, including details of the prisoners' name, age, status and offence and the outcome of the Fatal Accident Inquiry into each death.
  The information requested is provided, save for the details of the prisoners' offence (or alleged offence): this information is not meanwhile available and I shall write to you again as soon as our researches are complete.
  617

  Date

  Name

  Age

  Establishment

  Sentence or remand

  Determination

  15 April 1983

  Edward Witts Graham

  23

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  6 July 1983

  John Beagan

  51

  Edinburgh

  Life

  Hanging

  14 August 1983

  Robert King

  18

  Glenochil YOI

  3 years

  Hanging

  28 August 1983

  Thomas Mochar

  26

  Barlinnie

  20 months

  Hanging

  1984

  16 January 1984

  Hugh Morrow

  35

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  16 February 1984

  William McDonald

  16

  Glenochil DC

  Remand

  Hanging

  2 March 1984

  Thomas William Kerr

  39

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  27 September 1984

  Martyn Liston

  27

  Edinburgh

  Remand

  Hanging

  15 November 1984

  Arthur Padden

  48

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Inhalation of toxic fumes in cell fire

  1985

  26 January 1985

  Kenneth Peter Isherwood

  47

  Perth

  Remand

  Hanging

  18 February 1985

  Angus Stewart Boyd

  17

  Glenochil DC

  3 months

  Hanging

  24 February 1985

  Robert Kelly

  38

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  13 April 1985

  Derek John Richard Harris

  16

  Glenochil YOI

  3 months

  Hanging

  2 June 1985

  John Stanley Buchanan

  25

  Barlinnie

  6 years

  Hanging

  20 June 1985

  John Joseph Sinclair

  33

  Barlinnie

  5 years

  Hanging

  1986

  16 February 1986

  William Myles Moorehouse

  25

  Perth

  5 years

  Jumping

  24 March 1986

  Frank Lee

  18

  Edinburgh

  Remand

  Hanging

  22 April 1986

  Jack Blake

  55

  Barlinnie

  Life

  Jumping

  11 June 1986

  Jean Margaret McLean

  27

  Cornton Vale

  Remand

  Hanging

  16 June 1986

  Christopher Phillips

  27

  Barlinnie

  18 months

  Hanging

  6 July 1986

  John Hendry Swindle

  22

  Perth

  3 years

  Hanging

  21 August 1986

  Jarvis Torrance

  50

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  1987

  3 June 1987

  Peter Barnes

  26

  Edinburgh

  Remand

  Hanging

  1 August 1987

  Terence Bryce

  29

  Barlinnie

  6 months

  Hanging

  30 October 1987

  Gerald Stafford

  31

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  31 October 1987

  Thomas William Kerr

  17

  Dumfries

  Remand

  Hanging

  5 November 1987

  John William Dwyer

  34

  Glenochil

  Life

  Hanging

  28 December 1987

  Kenneth Alexander Heron

  21

  Glenochil

  4 years

  Inhalation of vomit, asphyxia and solvent abuse

  28 December 1987

  Anthony Boyle

  23

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  1988

  30 January 1988

  Hugh McGarvie

  26

  Barlinnie

  3 months + 3 months c/c

  Hanging

  3 March 1988

  Alexander Nicol

  29

  Barlinnie

  3 months

  Hanging

  27 March 1988

  George Smart

  49

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  5 June 1988

  Ian Barrie Connor

  25

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  14 June 1988

  Gordon McRae

  27

  Glenochil

  3 years

  Hanging

  1 July 1988

  Alan McGavin

  24

  Barlinnie

  Life

  Hanging

  13 August 1988

  John McLean

  30

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  1989

  7 February 1989

  George Ferguson

  39

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Self-inflicted wounds to left arm

  5 March 1989

  Martin McRae

  31

  Shotts

  Life

  Hanging

  4 June 1989

  James Welsh

  59

  Aberdeen

  Remand

  Hanging

  14 July 1989

  Derek Wood

  26

  Perth

  9 years

  Hanging

  26 July 1989

  Philip McVeigh

  22

  Shotts

  2 years

  Hanging

  3 December 1989

  William Diffin

  18

  Polmont

  3 months

  Hanging

  1990

  9 June 1990

  Edward Ronald

  30

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  31 July 1990

  Robert Wilson Campbell

  39

  Barlinnie

  Life

  Hanging

  26 September 1990

  Archibald McCallum

  25

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Self strangulation

  1991

  3 January 1991

  Raymond Langlands

  34

  Perth

  2 years

  Hanging

  25 January 1991

  Thomas McDougall

  27

  Greenock

  3 months

  Hanging

  28 July 1991

  Thomas Hutchison

  32

  Barlinnie

  60 days

  Hanging

  23 September 1991

  Ernest M. S. Craig

  19

  Longriggend

  Remand

  Hanging

  1992

  11 February 1992

  Steven Greig

  19

  Polmont

  Remand

  Hanging

  27 February 1992

  John Galbraith

  31

  Barlinnie

  30 days

  Hanging

  22 March 1992

  Peter Nichol Goldie

  19

  Polmont

  5 months, 4 months, 3 months c/c

  Hanging

  618 619

  Date

  Name

  Age

  Establishment

  Sentence or remand

  Determination

  15 June 1992

  Richard Simon Lowe

  26

  Edinburgh

  3 years

  Hanging

  9 July 1992

  Syrup Metha Ullah

  37

  Edinburgh

  5 years + 5 years c/c

  Hanging

  25 August 1992

  Philip Goulding

  31

  Dumfries

  Remand

  Hanging

  3 September 1992

  William McLeod

  28

  Edinburgh

  Remand

  Hanging

  18 October 1992

  Anthony Shivers

  25

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  2 November 1992

  John Sime

  45

  Edinburgh

  Remand

  Hanging

  1993

  13 January 1993

  Stewart Sawyers

  23

  Greenock

  Remand

  Hanging

  7 April 1993

  Robert Greer

  28

  Perth

  Life

  Hanging

  22 August 1993

  George Fleming

  45

  Edinburgh

  Remand

  Jumping

  20 September 1993

  Thomas Lafferty

  21

  Polmont

  5 years

  Hanging

  17 December 1993

  Gary McGonigle

  23

  Barlinnie

  Remand

  Hanging

  c/c = Concurrent sentence.

  Rent Registration Service
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases the rent review service was involved in the(a) private and (b) public sector as a result of an application for housing benefit in each of the last three years; and what are his comparable projections for the three years next.

  Mr. Lang
  The rent registration service makes determinations on rent levels at the request of local housing authorities, which have responsibility for administering the housing benefit scheme on behalf of the Department of Social Security. The number of such determinations, which relate to the private sector only, including housing associations, made for housing benefit purposes in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Number

  1991

  39,670

  1992

  45,690

  1993

  50,251

  Projections for future years are not available.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many staff are employed by the rent review service in Scotland;

  (2) what is the present cost of running the rent review service in Scotland in each of the last five years in constant terms;

  (3) how many qualified surveyors or staff with a comparable technical qualification were employed by the rent review service in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The rent registration service in Scotland currently employes 51 staff of whom 24 undertake rent officer duties and 27 are support staff. None are qualified surveyors or staff with a comparable technical qualification.

  The costs, including accommodation and other overheads, of running the service in each of the last five years at constant 1993–94 prices, are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  2·096

  1990–91

  1·946

  1991–92

  1·987

  620

  £ million

  1992–93

  1·695

  1993–941

  1·728

  1 Provisional outturn.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Talacre Beach, Clwyd
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to agree the draft byelaws relating to Talacre beach, Clwyd, forwarded by Delyn borough council.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Home Office officials wrote to the Council on 2 February commenting on the latest draft of the byelaws. We expect to give provisional approval to the byelaws once the few remaining issues have been resolved.

  Prison Staff Disputes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many working days have been lost to the prison service in each of the last five years because of strike action taken by prison officers.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 5 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about strike action taken by prison officers.
  No working days were lost as a result of strike action by prison officers during the last five years.
  Just before this period, there was a ten day strike by prison officers at Wandsworth from 29 January to 8 February 1989, over the introduction of new shift systems. The figure for working days lost cannot be identified but the majority of prison officers (from a total of over 300 at the establishment at the time) were involved. The prison was managed by governor grades from Wandsworth and other Prison Service establishments, other managers, police officers and prison officers who refused to take industrial action.
  The other serious dispute in recent years which resulted in strike action was at Holloway in July-September 1988, over

  621
  staffing levels. The dispute ran for six weeks and over 7,000 working days were lost. The prison was run by governor grades and other staff who refused to strike.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many formally registered disputes there were in each of the last five years between the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Department; and how many of those disputes were resolved without recourse by the trade union side to industrial action.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 5 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about formally registered disputes with the POA in each of the last five years, and how many were resolved without recourse to industrial action.
  The number of disputes or failures to agree declared under the Cubbon formula arrangements, the Disputes Procedure which replaced the formula in October 1989, and the Industrial Relations Procedural Agreement, which was introduced in July 1993, are as follows:
  In 1989/90, 61 disputes were declared at 46 establishments; 30 disputes were resolved in that year.
  In 1990/91, 119 disputes were declared at 77 establishments; 91 disputes were resolved in that year.
  In 1991/92, 130 disputes were declared at 61 establishments; 134 disputes were resolved in that year.
  In 1992/93, 38 disputes were declared at 34 establishments; 76 were resolved in that year.
  In 1993/94, 139 disputes (or failures to agree from 1 July 1993) were declared at 67 establishments; 88 disputes/failures to agree were resolved in that year.
  The vast majority of disputes were resolved without recourse to industrial action, the aim of the procedure being to provide a mechanism to resolve disagreements through discussion as quickly as possible at the lowest appropriate level. No strike action has been taken during the last five years (the last strikes by prison officers were at Holloway in 1988 and Wandsworth in early 1989). Where industrial action took place it varied in nature from, for example, a refusal to supply payphone cards to inmates, to action restricting prisoner intake and leading to locking out in police cells.
  In 1989/90 there were some episodes of less severe action, including at Canterbury, Lindholme and Wymott.
  In 1990–91 industrial action took place at 12 establishments arising from local disputes and in some cases this resulted in prisoners being accommodated in police cells. Industrial action also took place at ten establishments arising from the April 1990 prison disturbances, where POA branches would not accept prisoners from outside their catchment areas.
  In 1991/92 industrial action took place at 11 establishments in connection with the disputes. Action at Winchester carried over into the following year and ended in June 1992. There has been no subsequent industrial action associated with disputes or failures to agree at individual establishments. There was national action, amounting to a work to rule, from 5 November 1993, until the Home Secretary obtained an interlocutory injunction on 18 November, restraining the POA from pursuing further planned industrial action, namely 'locking out' prisoners.
  The threatened action would have put 1,700 prisoners in police cells in a matter of 72 hours. The disruption to the prison system, the police, the courts, prisoners, their families and legal advisers would have been very considerable, and would have filled up almost all the available police cell capacity in an unmanageably brief period. The cost to the taxpayer would have been nearly one million pounds over those three days.

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the prison disturbances which have taken place over the last 10 years to include(a) the nature of the damage, (b) the number of staff and prisoners injured and (c) the overall cost of the disturbance.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 5 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prison disturbances over the past ten years.
  Any action by two or more prisoners against the smooth running of a prison may be classed as a disturbance. Such disturbances may be either passive such as sitting down and refusing to leave the exercise yard, or active such as damaging the fabric of the prison and fighting staff.

  The table below shows the number of disturbances since 1984.

  Year

  Number

  11984–85

  38

  1985–86

  38

  1986–87

  45

  1987–88

  42

  1988–89

  67

  1989–90

  67

  1990–91

  105

  1992–93

  142

  1993–94

  147

  1 For this year only the figures are for a 15 month period.

  I will write to you again about the more serious disturbances once this information is available.

  Camp Hill
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much he intends to cut staffing levels at Camp hill; and for what reason.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 5 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about staffing levels at Camp Hill prison.
  There are no plans to reduce overall staffing levels at Camp Hill but the governor is considering replacing some prison officers posts with prison auxiliaries.

  Deportations (Private Security Firms)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce independent monitoring of complaints about private security firms used in deportations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to her earlier question on this subject on 9 February 1994 at column 264.

  Police Redundancy
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to require Metropolitan police officers with over 30 years' service, and who have previously refused to accept voluntary redundancy, to be made compulsorily redundant.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None at present.

  Campsfield House
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for Judge Stephen Tumim to inspect Campsfield house and to report to him.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be inviting Judge Tumim to inspect Campsfield house in due course as part of his future programme of inspections.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for how many regular publications he was responsible in 1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. David Davis
  During the financial year 1993–94 the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science and its executive agencies, together with the Central Office of Information and HMSO, produced 17 annual and 16 other regular publications.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with details of the titles and print-runs of each publication. None of these publications is available by subscription.

  Civil Service Year Book
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what procedures are followed for the authorisation of the front cover design of the "Civil Service Year Book".

  Mr. David Davis
  Since 1922 the front cover designs of the "Civil Service Year Book" have been approved within the Cabinet Office.

HEALTH

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors applied for general practitioner training courses in each of the last five years; and of she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women were seen at district health authority and trust family planning clinics in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The numbers of women seen in England were as follows:
  624

  Thousands

  1983

  1,448

  1984

  1,487

  1985

  1,454

  1986

  1,406

  1987–88

  1,319

  1988–89

  1,115

  11989–90

  1,116

  11990–91

  1,060

  1991–92

  1,046

  1992–93

  1,030

  1 Figures are estimates based on those districts providing data and relate to the number of first contacts.

  Women can choose the source of their family planning advice and treatment. Guidance from the Department stresses the need for the balance of clinic and general practitioner provision to match identified local need; 98 per cent. of GPs provide contraceptive services and more than two thirds of women seeking family planning advice now see their own or another GP.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change prescription charges exemption arrangements.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The existing exemption arrangements for retirement pensioners, which are the most generous in Europe, were challenged in the High Court on 26 April 1994. The court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice and we must await the conclusion of the judicial process. It remains the policy of this Government not to impose prescription charges on state pensioners.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the distribution of average gross weekly earnings per person for each of the national health service clinical nursing and midwifery grades, listing the percentage of each grade earning(a) under £140, (b) £150, (c) £160, (d) £170, (e) £180, (f) £190, (g) £200, (h) £210, (i) £220, (j) £230, (k) £240, (l) £250, (m) £275, (n) £300 and (o) those earning £300 and over in each year since 1989.

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the average gross weekly earnings and make-up of pay by type or allowance for each of the clincial grades for nursing and midwifery staff in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library. We have used full-time staff data.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions her Department has had with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry about research into new drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
  625
  Dr. Mawhinney
  As part of the day to day operations of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, manufacturers have kept officials in touch with progress on development and licensing of new drugs, including those for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

  Dentists, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in practice in South Yorkshire take(a) NHS patients and (b) private patients only, but took NHS patients until 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At September 1993 the number of dentists providing national health service general dental services in South Yorkshire, which includes the family health services authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield, was 481. The comparable number at 30 September 1990 was 444. Dentists are independent contractors who make their own decisions whether to accept patients under national health service arrangements.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by general practitioner fundholders on consultancies in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such information is not available.

  NHS, London
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquiries her Department has received about the NHS in London in each of the last 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is not possible to identify all inquiries about the national health service in London.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former Conservative Members and agents have been appointed as chairpersons or members of the boards of National Health Service trusts; and if she will name them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Those former Conservative Members currently serving on the boards of national health service trusts are listed:

  Chairmen

  Lord Hayhoe

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  Lord Jenkin of Roding

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Lee

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  Sir Timothy Raison

  Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. A. R. Favell

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  Non-executive directors

  Sir Robert McCrindle

  Havering Hospital NHS Trust

  Sir David Price

  Southampton University Hospital NHS Trust

  Mrs. M. Hicks

  South Warwickshire Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Information on people who may be political agents is not available centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 December,Official Report, columns 814–15, whether she has given permission to more units to apply for national health service trust status.
  626
  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has given permission for a further four applications for national health service trust status. This will bring the total number of directly managed units applying for NHS trust status in the fifth wave to 12. Two further applications for mergers of existing trusts will also be subject to public consultation. An amended list which updates information which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on 16 December 1993 at columns 814–15 has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual total cost of(a) remuneration and (b) expenses of members of the boards of NHS trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what powers an NHS trust may make a payment to the NHS Trusts Federation by way of affiliation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A national health service trust may subscribe to the NHS Trust Federation under the powers in paragraph 16 of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate her Department has made of the cost to NHS trusts of relaunching their corporate identities on becoming trusts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such estimate can be made from the information collected centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many first, second and third wave trusts failed to meet the targets of(a) earning a real return on capital of at least 6 per cent. and (b) remaining within external financial limits in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. The majority of trusts had technical issues which affected their ability to meet their financial duties. This does not imply any failure in financial control. In a number of cases, the difference between actual financial performance and statutory target is deemed to be immaterial.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  First wave trusts

  Failed to meet target of earning a real return on capital of at least 6 per cent.

  10

  24

  Failed to meet target of remaining within external financial limits

  8

  12

  Second wave trusts

  Failed to meet target of earning a real return on capital of at least 6 per cent.

  n/a

  27

  Failed to meet target of remaining written external financial limits

  n/a

  17

  Third wave trusts

  None operational in the years asked

  n/a

  n/a

  NHS Joint Ventures
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many joint ventures were entered into between the private sector and NHS bodies in each of the last five years;
  627
  what was the cost or income to the NHS from these ventures; and what measures are taken by her Department to monitor such ventures.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 14 April at column 293 and on 3 May at columns 456–58, and the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 2 November 1993 at columns 171–72 for the available information on private finance schemes.

  The Department does not monitor private schemes centrally. However, we conducted a special exercise earlier this year to assess the progress of the private finance initiative and it is our intention to repeat this at some future date.

  NHS Contracts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates her Department has made of the annual cost of negotiating and managing NHS contracts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of allowances for computer equipment for(a) non-fundholding general practitioners and (b) fundholding general practitioners for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The provisional total reimbursement to all general practitioners for computer equipment in 1992–93 and 1993–94 was £40.2 million and £36.5 million respectively. The apportionment of these costs between fundholders and other GPs is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current estimate of the additional audit cost incurred as a result of the introduction of general practitioner fundholding.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders fundholding accounts are independently audited each year by the Audit Commission. The total estimated costs in the 1993–94 audit year are about £1.3 million. This is under 0.1 per cent. of budgets set.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of management allowances made to general practitioner practices which became fundholders on 1 April.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Management allowances are reimbursements against expenditure. Therefore, information for the 1993–94 financial year will not be available until after the year end.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total of budget underspends retained by fundholders in each region and district in 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Audited underspends are held by family health services authorities on behalf of general practitioner fundholders for up to four years for reinvestment in patient care. Final audited figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are not yet available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 368, by what date he intends to place each market research report in the Library.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Market research on a number of Employment Department campaigns has been conducted. The results will be available later in May. I will send a copy to the hon. Member at that time.

  Health and Safety
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been brought by the Health and Safety Executive against(a) regions of the National Rivers Authority, (b) regional water companies, (c) regional electricity companies and (d) "next steps" agencies in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is as follows:

  (a) Regions of the National Rivers Authority (NRA).

  No informations were laid during the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93—provisional.

  (b) Regional Water Companies.

  One information was laid in England and Wales during the five years 1988–89 to 1992–93—provisional. The regional water councils control the industry in Scotland.

  (c) Regional Electricity Companies.

  The number of informations laid in England and Wales is set out in the following table:

  Year of hearing

  Information laid

  1988–89

  1

  1989–90

  2

  1990–91

  1

  1991–92

  —

  11992–93

  9

  1 Provisional.

  The information available for Scotland is as follows:

  Year of hearing

  Information laid

  1988–89

  —

  1989–90

  1

  1990–91

  —

  1991–92

  —

  11992–93

  —

  1 Provisional.

  The figures for England and Wales relate only to electricity distribution; the Scottish figures concern power generation as well.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been brought by the Health and Safety Executive against(a) county councils and (b) district councils in England in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available for local authorities in England is provided in the following table:
  629

  Year of hearing

  Informations laid

  1988–89

  22

  1989–90

  21

  1990–91

  32

  1991–92

  21

  11992–93

  47

  1 Provisional

  It would not be possible to identify figures separately for county and district councils except at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department has commissioned in the last two years on the relationship between working hours, rest breaks and accidents in the workplace.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No research on this specific topic has been commissioned by the Employment Department in the last two years.

  Professor J. M. Harrington of the University of Birmingham institute of occupational health was commissioned last year to identify and evaluate pertinent medical and scientific literature relating to the effect, if any, of hours of work on employees' health. The Health and Safety Executive has previously commissioned the study "Shiftwork, Health and Safety—an overview of the scientific literature 1978–1990", by Waterhouse, Folkard and Minors, 1992.

  Sunday Working
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding proposed changes in the ability of staff in(a) cinema retailing kiosks, bars or restaurants and (b) cinemas themselves, to work on Sunday.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Cinema Exhibitors Association has sought guidance as to whether the employment measures of schedule 4 to the Sunday Trading Bill will extend to employees in cinemas selling refreshments and souvenirs.

  Training Schemes
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all Government-operated employment and training schemes and the cost of each scheme each year since 1987; the number of providers on each scheme; how much grant each provider has received each year since 1987, in total and each year; the average payment to the providers for each person engaged on the schemes; the average payment to providers on North Norfolk Action and the cost of providers in total for each of the workstart schemes and per person who has found full-time employment on each workstart scheme.

  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 A. G. Johnson to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 5 May 1994:
  630
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Government operated employment and training schemes. I am replying in absence of the Chief Executive.
  The Government has operated a large number of employment and training schemes over the period covered by your question, and it has not been possible to assemble all the information required for the reply in the normal timescale. Mr. Fogden will write to you again shortly with all the details that are available, but our people have told me that some of the information that you require is not held centrally.
  I am sorry that we cannot reply to your question as speedily as usual.

  Pit Closures
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the funds allocated to TECs in 1993–94 specifically for areas affected by pit closures were spent; how much remained unspent; and if the remaining funds can be spent in 1994–95.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Funds allocated to training and enterprise councils in 1993–94 for areas affected by pit closure were spent on additional training and enterprise measures in line with TEC plans.

  The full amount allocated to TECs in 1993–94 for coal special measures was not spent because of the uncertainty surrounding pit closure dates. Unspent funds from 1993–94 have been re-allocated for TEC coal special measures in 1994–95. Planned expenditure on coal special measures in 1994–95 is around £40 million.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time workers there were in each year since data was collected; and if he will also show these data reworked on a basis of full-time equivalents.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on part-time workers has been collected since 1984 and is shown in the following table. The Department does not make estimates of full-time equivalents.

  Work Force in Employment: Great Britain Seasonally adjusted

  Part-time (thousands)

  1984

  5,282

  1985

  5,404

  1986

  5,566

  1987

  5,853

  1988

  6,047

  1989

  6,394

  1990

  6,642

  1991

  6,555

  1992

  6,599

  1993

  6,656

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the destination of those leaving the unemployment register, detailing specifically the numbers and proportions going into full-time work, part-time work, training, further education, on to another benefit or into inactivity, for as many years as the figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the destinations of those leaving the claimant count is not routinely available.
  631
  The Labour Force Survey in Spring 1993 showed that about two thirds of those who had left ILO unemployment in the previous 12 months had found employment during that period.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show for each year since 1979 the numbers coming on to and leaving the unemployment register.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the numbers of people joining and leaving the claimant unemployment count is available on a monthly basis from June 1983 onwards. Figures can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Schools (Injuries)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of serious injuries and fatalities by school in local education authority maintained schools in England and Wales investigated by the Health and Safety Executive in the last two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The information available is as follows:

  Year

  1Fatal

  2Major

  1991–92

  2

  81

  31992–93

  2

  71

  The names and locations of the schools where the fatalities occurred are listed in the table. Similar details for the investigated major injuries could be obtained and presented only at disproportionate cost.

  1991–92

  Ferryhill Comprehensive, Cambridgeshire

  Millford Special School, Plymouth

  1992–93

  Coleman Primary School, Leicester

  Brettenham Junior School, London

  Notes to table:
  1 Fatal and major injuries to employees, self-employed people also members of the public—chiefly pupils—injured as a result of someone else's work activity.
  2 As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.
  3 Provisional.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of serious injuries and fatalities in private or independent schools investigated by the Health and Safety Executive in the last two years; and if he will list the schools concerned.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 4 May 1994]: The information available is as follows:

  Year

  1Fatal

  2Major

  1991–92

  2

  17

  31992–93

  —

  14

  The names and locations of the schools where the fatalities occurred are given in the table. Similar details for the investigated major injuries could be obtained and presented only at disproportionate cost.
  Gresham's School, Holt, Norfolk
  Macintrye Independent School, Wingrove, Buckinghamshire

  Notes to table:
  632
  1 Fatal and major injuries to employees, self-employed people also members of the public—chiefly pupils—injured as a result of someone else's work activity.
  2 As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.
  3 Provisional.

  TUPE Regulations
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what are the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Schmidt case on Her Majesty's Government's implementation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the 1993 guidance on TUPE;

  (2) what are the implications of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the European Court of Justice's decision in the Schmidt case for Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the Rask case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  United Kingdom courts and tribunals will take account, in appropriate cases, of the judgment in the Schmidt case, case C-392/92, and the existing case law of the Court, including the Rask judgment, in determining whether there has been a transfer of an undertaking. The Government are considering the implications of the judgment in relation to the guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 11 March 1993, but the key requirement to look at each case on its own facts remains.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will present in tabular form the size of the working population for each of the last 30 years; and if he will divide this data into male and female workers and further subdivide the total as to whether these people work full or part-time.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Habitat Conservation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans she has to encourage the conservation of natural habitats.

  Mr. Jack
  We plan to increase the range of environmental schemes available to farmers and have also issued proposals to adjust ewe and beef premium payments to discourage overgrazing.

  Deregulation
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals for deregulation she intends to introduce.

  Mr. Soames
  We are finalising our review of regulations based on public consultations. Our proposals—involving firm plans for simplification and revocation of regulations—are being published as they emerge.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the future of milk quotas.
  633
  Mr. Jack
  The EC legislation provides for the milk quota system to continue until the year 2000. We will be pressing for the EU Council of Ministers to debate the future of milk quotas well in advance of that date. Our preference remains for artificial quota constraints to be replaced by a market-led system which would enable producers to plan their output according to the market and their business needs.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on progress towards deciding the location of the European plant breeder rights office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The United Kingdom has submitted a formal bid to locate the new office at Cambridge and we understand that six other member states have now submitted bids.

  A decision on the location of the office is expected to be taken at the June European Council.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she has taken to improve the marketing role of the Meat and Livestock Commission.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A review of the Meat and Livestock Commission was published on 1 March and included recommendations on the MLC's marketing work.

  I have asked for comments on the recommendations by 1 June.

  I will then consider what action to take.

  Sheep
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she is next due to attend the European Union Council of Ministers to discuss the future of the sheep sector.

  Mr. Jack
  The next meeting of the European Union Council of Agriculture Ministers is scheduled for 30 to 31 May. At that meeting my right hon. Friend expects to discuss the sheepmeat sector in the context of the debate on the Commission's proposals for prices and related measures in the 1994–95 marketing year.

  Speedwell
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice her Department offers farmers and growers on the eradication of Veronica species, commonly known as Speedwell; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This matter has been delegated to ADAS. I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 5 May 1994:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question concerning what advice the Department offers farmers and growers on the eradication of Veronica species, commonly known as Speedwell.
  The genus Veronica includes a number of species of wild plant, two of which are common weeds of agricultural land. These two are:
  634
  Veronica persica ……… Common Field Speedwell
  Veronica hederifolia ………… Ivy-leaved Speedwell
  Speedwell is not an injurious weed as defined by the Weed Act 1959 and hence the Department is under no statutory/legal obligations with regard to its control.
  ADAS, on behalf of MAFF implements a number of environmental schemes such as ESAs, and within the terms and conditions of the schemes provides husbandry advice to farmers. Such advice free at the point of delivery, i.e. to the farmer, may cover appropriate practical measures for the control of weed infestations.
  ADAS independently of MAFF does of course offer a whole range of chargeable consultancy services to farmers and growers, and advice on the control or eradication of weeds would be provided where appropriate. There are no particular technical problems related to the control of Speedwell by herbicides.

  Vessel Registrations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the effect of EEC fishing permits will be on foreign vessels registered under the British flag; and whether they will qualify as British or home country vessels.

  Mr. Jack
  A Commission proposal for a framework regulation on fishing permits is currently being considered by member states. For the purpose of EU fisheries legislation, vessels flying a member state's flag are treated as vessels of that nation.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by her Department.

  Mr. Jack
  No use is made of private detective agencies. Private firms are employed to provide security guarding, details of which were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 25 April 1994,Official Report, columns 72–73.

  Fishing Limitations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has made to the Fisheries Commissioner for a European days at sea limitation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  None.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates and at what ports the state veterinary service has undertaken blanket surveillance for 24 hour periods in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Blanket surveillance for 24-hour periods was introduced in May 1993 and undertaken by the SVS at the ports of Hull, Harwich, Dover, Southampton, Portsmouth, Poole and Plymouth on the following dates:

  1993

  May 25–26

  August 12–13

  November 10–11

  December 2–3

  1994

  January 4–5

  February 9–10

  February 21–22

  635

  March 18–19

  March 28–29

  April 12–13

  April 28–29

  On introduction of the single market from 1 January 1993 routine inspections at these ports were replaced by random surveillance which continues.

  Supermarkets (Pricing)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the pricing of agricultural goods by supermarkets.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Food retailing is a fiercely competitive business: this is helping to keep retail food prices down.

  Beekeepers
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to improve the training of British beekeepers.

  Mr. Jack
  On 10 March I announced new arrangements to help beekeepers maintain a healthy bee population in England.

  Food Safety Directorate
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning the work of the Food Safety Directorate; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We receive many representations about the work of the Food Safety Directorate.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current Government position with regard to BSE in the food chain.

  Mr. Soames
  Measures taken in the United Kingdom since BSE was identified protect public health irrespective of the progress of the epidemic, and have been endorsed by a wide range of independent experts in this country and international organisations. The chief medical officer has publicly stated that British beef can be safely eaten by everyone.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to make a decision on the proposals for the future marketing of milk by Milk Marque.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry).

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reforms of the CAP are being promoted by Her Majesty's Government; and what reduction in the cost of the CAP such reforms would bring about.
  636
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I will continue to press for the reform process begun in 1992 to be extended to the unreformed sectors such as sugar, wine, olive oil and fruit and vegetables.

  I will also press for further reductions in support prices to the benefit of both taxpayers and consumers.

  Fast Food
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the benefits the development of fast food can bring to the British horticultural industry.

  Mr. Jack
  My hon. Friend is assessing this and other aspects of the fast food market as part of his discussions with the catering industry aimed at improving opportunities for the sales of British produced raw materials, including horticultural products. I am undertaking a similar project on the horticultural industry.

  Sheep Disease
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what were the dates of entry to the United Kingdom and the route of each consignment of sheep where caseous lymphadenitis was present, the size of each consignment and the numbers of animals infected;

  (2) which consignments of sheep entering the United Kingdom from Poland and Spain since 1 January did not comply fully with the requirement to give 24 hours advance notice to the local animal health office; at what point the Ministry became aware of each consignment's arrival in the United Kingdom; and by whom and by what means this information was conveyed;

  (3) what assessment she has made of whether the procedures set out in directive 90/425/EEC, as amended by directive 92/60/EEC, were fully complied with in relation to each consignment of sheep imported from Poland and Spain subsequently found to be infected with caseous lymphadenitis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: Information on the dates of arrival, the country of origin and the routes taken by each consignment of sheep imported into the United Kingdom from Spain and Poland since 1 January 1994 is given in my reply of 13 April to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), Official Report, column 180. Information on the size of each consignment, the numbers of carcasses from each consignment condemned at meat inspection due to internal evidence of caseous lymphadenitis, and whether advance notice was received in respect of each consignment is given in the table.

  Directive 90/425/EEC requires, inter alia, that the veterinary authorities in each member state ensure that only those animals which satisfy the animal health and welfare requirements for intra-Community trade are permitted to be exported to other member states and that all consignments are accompanied by the appropriate health certification or other documentation laid down in EC rules. The directive also requires that member state veterinary authorities send each other messages, via the ANIMO computer system, when an official export health certificate has been issued, so as to provide advance notification to an importing member state that a consignment of live animals is on its way. Directive 90/425/EEC does not apply to imports from Poland.
  637
  As far as the recent imports of sheep from Spain are concerned, after the initial consignment, the Ministry's chief veterinary officer wrote to his opposite number in Spain about a number of deficiencies in the documentation. Subsequent consignments have been accompanied by

  Imports of sheep from Spain and Poland since 1 January 1994

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  (6)

  Carcases condemned due to internal evidence of caseous lymphadenitis:

  Date of arrival at slaughterhouse

  Country of origin

  Size of consignment

  (a) Full

  (b) Partial

  Details of notification received

  17 February 1994

  Poland

  289

  Nil

  Nil

  <24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  8 March 1994

  Poland

  291

  25

  Nil

  >24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  9 March 1994

  Poland (via Belgium)

  328

  12

  7

  >24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  17 March 1994

  Poland (via Belgium)

  350

  9

  7

  >24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  28 January 1994

  Spain

  243

  Nil

  Nil

  >24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  15 February 1994

  Spain

  188

  Nil

  Nil

  <24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  8 March 1994

  Spain

  290

  8

  19

  <24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  23 March 1994

  Spain

  268

  8

  Nil

  >24 hours advance notification from slaughterhouse

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with what other sheep, or areas frequented by other animals which are not capable of being disinfected after contact, sheep from consignments infected by caseous lymphadenitis came into contact.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]: All consignments of sheep imported from Poland and Spain since 1 January 1994 were imported for slaughter and did not come into contact with other sheep until their arrival at the slaughterhouse in Birmingham. All lairage facilities in Great Britain in which any of the consignments were held en route to the slaughterhouse were required to be cleansed and disinfected after departure of the imported sheep.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what commitment has been made by the EU Council to confirm the full integration, by 1 January 1996 at the latest, of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The Council adopted a declaration in the context of the Norwegian enlargement negotiations which provides for the full integration of the fisheries arrangements in the act of accession of Spain and Portugal into the general rules of the common fisheries policy. To that end, the Council is required to adopt regulations before 1 January 1995, which will enter into force by 1 January 1996 at the latest.

  As I reported in my reply of 13 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), Official Report, column 183–84, the Fisheries Council on 12 April adopted a regulation which provides further that no changes can be made to the current rules governing Spanish and Portuguese fishing until the replacement arrangements have been set out and agreed by the Council.
  638
  satisfactory health certification. In addition, the Spanish authorities have given us prior notification that consignments were being despatched, as required under the provisions of directive 90/425/EEC.

  Thames Cockle Fishery
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when there will be a public inquiry into the proposed regulating order for the Thames cockle fishery.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 1993, c. 1070]: Arrangements have now been made for a public inquiry to be held into the proposed regulating order for the Thames cockle fishery on 12 May 1994 at the civic centre, Southend on Sea.

WALES

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each district council and county council areas, and for Wales as a whole, the number of(a) full-time farmers, (b) part-time farmers, (c) full-time agricultural tenants and (d) part-time agricultural tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The annual June agricultural census collects information on the numbers of farmers who work on holdings, including any partners or directors associated with those holdings. Data are not collected specifically in terms of agricultural tenants although information is available for those farmers, partners and directors who work on holdings where all the land is being rented and this category is included in the following tables.

  The figures for Wales as a whole and for the counties, shown in table 1, are from the 1993 census. The 1993 figures for district council areas are not yet available, however the equivalent results from the 1992 census are given in table 2.
  639

  Table 1 Farmers working on holdings Wales and by county June 1993

  All holdings1 Farmers, partners and directors working:

  Rented holdings1 Farmers, partners and directors working:

  County

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  Clwyd

  3,028

  1,348

  440

  161

  Dyfed

  8,344

  3,755

  813

  286

  Gwent

  1,501

  938

  214

  75

  Gwynedd

  3,455

  1,714

  638

  245

  Mid Glamorgan

  649

  397

  85

  50

  Powys

  4,870

  1,888

  555

  212

  South Glamorgan

  393

  225

  105

  60

  West Glamorgan

  586

  388

  54

  26

  Wales

  22,826

  10,653

  2,904

  1,115

  Source: June agricultural and horticultural census, Welsh Office.

  1 Excluding minor holdings.

  Table 2: Farmers working on holdings, by district, June 1992

  All holdings1 Farmers, partners and directors working:

  Rented holdings1 Farmers, partners and directors working:

  District area

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Aberconwy

  439

  165

  109

  28

  Alyn and Deeside

  207

  108

  35

  15

  Arfon

  349

  266

  53

  32

  Blaenau Gwent

  65

  60

  9

  6

  Brecknock

  1,274

  477

  178

  51

  Cardiff

  67

  31

  19

  2—

  Carmarthen

  2,181

  939

  197

  57

  Ceredigion

  2,269

  1,043

  191

  72

  Colwyn

  660

  246

  100

  32

  Cynon Valley

  70

  57

  9

  8

  Delyn

  424

  228

  77

  25

  Dinefwr

  1,198

  513

  90

  29

  Dwyfor

  789

  352

  119

  56

  Glyndwr

  1,047

  432

  125

  50

  Islwyn

  79

  58

  10

  2—

  Llanelli

  297

  154

  38

  20

  Lliw Valley

  210

  145

  33

  9

  Meirionnydd

  842

  319

  116

  58

  Merthyr Tydfil

  51

  33

  9

  4

  Monmouth

  1,041

  579

  157

  52

  Montgomeryshire

  2,288

  872

  258

  121

  Neath

  86

  74

  5

  9

  Newport

  198

  99

  17

  4

  Ogwr

  217

  114

  36

  14

  Port Talbot

  44

  25

  2—

  2—

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,799

  684

  193

  61

  Radnorshire

  1,192

  416

  117

  42

  Rhondda

  14

  12

  3

  0

  Rhuddlan

  120

  55

  27

  9

  Rhymney Valley

  146

  81

  15

  8

  South Pembrokeshire

  547

  254

  116

  28

  Swansea

  229

  132

  21

  11

  Taff-Ely

  144

  79

  22

  10

  Torfaen

  97

  73

  23

  18

  Vale of Glamorgan

  305

  172

  61

  32

  Wrexham Maelor

  521

  262

  83

  39

  Ynys Mon

  950

  552

  235

  86

  Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural Census, Welsh Office.

  1 Excluding minor holdings.

  2 Data withheld to avoid disclosure of information relating to any particular land or business.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.
  640
  Mr. Redwood
  Private inquiry agents have been used by the Welsh Office from time to time in cases of damage to trunk road furniture; personal injuries and medical negligence claims. Private security guards are employed to protect the Department's main offices at Cathays Park, Cardiff at night and at weekends.

  Llandough NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what powers he has requested the Llandough national health service trust to bid to provide community health services for the Vale of Glamorgan; what other organisations have been asked to make bids for the same services; if he will publish the terms of reference to the invitation to reply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Section 5 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 contains the power to make, and by implication to amend, an order establishing an NHS trust. A range of non-statutory guidance has been issued on trust-related matters, including the procedures to be followed prior to the submission of a formal proposal for NHS trust status.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the letter inviting Llandough Hospital NHS trust to prepare formal proposals to extend its current range of patient care to include community and mental health services for the Vale of Glamorgan. As can be seen, I have not given my final consent to the bid so far. No other health body in South Glamorgan has been asked to prepare such proposals for this area, though all expressions of interest have been taken into account.

  Employment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met the Wales TUC to discuss employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since taking office, I have had two meetings with the Wales TUC, when we discussed a range of economic issues.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what objections he has received to the revised scheme of re-organisation in milk marketing that will delay the vesting day; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I will consider all representations made to us during consultation on the Milk Marketing Board's scheme of re-organisation. We will make our decision on whether or not to approve the scheme as quickly as our responsibilities under the Agriculture Act 1993 allow. I am not aware of any reason why vesting should be delayed beyond 1 November 1994.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord St. Helens Lord St. Helens —Took the Oath.

Fair Trading Act: Media Ownership
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to amend Sections 57 to 62 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 so as to take account of technical and technological developments in forms of communication since 1973, and in particular to give the Monopolies and Mergers Commission powers to recommend divestment in appropriate cases.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we are considering the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act in the context of the cross-media ownership review. The consent of the President of the Board of Trade must be obtained before a newspaper merger can take place and a transaction without consent is void. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has powers to recommend that a newspaper merger should be prohibited.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that, in the 20 years since the Act was passed, there has been an enormous explosion in the dissemination of news and political views through television, independent radio and also the increasing use of computers? Is it appreciated that Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who controls five national newspapers with a combined circulation of 10¾ million and a readership of 26 million, also controls, through satellite and cable television, one of the main channels of news into Britain?.
While that foreign gentleman cannot personally hope to emulate Signor Berlusconi, does not the Italian experience suggest that the controls on newspaper ownership should be extended to international multi-media publishers?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am of course aware that there has been a tremendous change in the whole media industry since the Fair Trading Act was passed. That is exactly one of the reasons that we are conducting the review: to examine exactly what changes might take place. Any acquisition of a UK newspaper by Mr. Rupert Murdoch or News International would require the prior consent of the President of the Board of Trade.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it that we are discussing the media in their broad form. I hope that the Minister agrees that all manner of questions are involved here. For example, if Arsenal's great triumph had been on Sky yesterday, many millions of people
1210
would not have had the chance to see it. I hope that noble Lords will join me in noting that only one club this year has won anything internationally.
On the point of the question, I heard the Minister use the word "review", which always worries me these days. Are we likely to see the review within our lifetime? I take it that at least the review body has been told its terms of reference. When will we hear about the review and will noble Lords have a chance to debate the central issue at some time within the foreseeable future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House will be pleased to know that I shall not follow the noble Lord down the road of his sporting analogies. However, I can confirm that the review is ongoing; the review body will report to Ministers later this summer and naturally any views that noble Lords have on the important issue will be taken into account. If they made their views known to the Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage, I am sure that he would be grateful. No doubt later on there will be ample opportunity for the House to debate any conclusions.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sky has the only impartial news programme? Probably he does. not have Sky, but it has the only impartial news column in the country, on the air or on television. However, I do not make exactly the same claim for the column I write every week in the News of the World.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are blind to the issues of impartiality. We are looking for anti-competitive behaviour, and at this stage we have no evidence of it.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to remind the House that, if noble Lords have an interest to declare, they should declare it?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, as the noble Lord invited your Lordships to make submissions to the committee, can he tell us who is the chairman of the review body so that we know to whom we send our opinions or comments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is an internal, departmental government review. If the noble Lord makes his comments known to the Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage, he will take them into account.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is only reasonable to say that Mr. Murdoch runs excellent newspapers. I have no interest whatever to declare. Is it not worth noting that he had to change his citizenship so that he could own both television services and newspapers in the United States? Should not the Common Market or, as some prefer to call it, the European Union, take that attitude as a starting point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the European Commission has a role where mergers and takeovers are substantial in number. It takes a view and national views are taken into account at that stage. The nationality of proprietors is basically irrelevant.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little more informative about the nature of the review? My noble friend Lord Shepherd said that he would like to make representations, as might others of us. Apparently the Secretary of State will take them into account. That seems to be rather unsatisfactory. Will there be no more public knowledge of what is going on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not understand the point the noble Lord is trying to make. The review concerns the provisions governing newspaper mergers and the Fair Trading Act, and the provisions on cross-media ownership in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The noble Lord may have his own review and, if he wants, he can let the Secretary of State know his views. It is not a public consultation, but obviously it is wide-ranging and we wish to have as many views as possible.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the real problem is the concentration of power in the hands of one man or one group? Whether or not the Sky news programmes are impartial is irrelevant, they could become partial overnight if the whim of the owner set them in that direction. The concerns of the House surely are the international implications of it all. Are the Government bearing that in mind in their review?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, it is one of the subjects at which the review body will look closely. We believe that at the moment there is a plurality and variety of opinion within the media in this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the course of his reply the noble Lord indicated that this matter was one in which the European Commission had a role to play. He said that the Government's own views would be taken into account by the European Commission. Is the noble Lord aware that that is "bulling"? Will the Minister, at the same time as he conveys the views of Her Majesty's Government for the kind consideration of the Commission, take this House into his confidence and let us know what the Government's view is?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are not consulting with the European Commission on aspects of our review. The point that I was making is that mergers involving companies that are over a certain size in terms of turnover fall for investigation by the European Commission under the EC merger regulation. However, there is a provision to allow member states to apply their rules on media plurality in parallel.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not a thing called the Independent Broadcasting Authority; and does it not have something to do with some of the anxieties that are being expressed in various parts of this House?
Lord Strathclyde: Indeed, my Lords, in the Broadcasting Act 1990 there was specific provision in relation to cross-ownership of terrestrial channels; but that did not include, for some very good reason, satellite channels. The review is now looking at the relationship
1212
between television companies, radio stations and newspapers, and possibly other media, to see whether any changes should take place in the law.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister then clarify what I understood his Answer to be? Surely the problem raised by the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that there is no control internally on the satellite channels. The point at issue, and the point, I take it, that this review body is looking at is precisely whether anything can be done about that. Can the Minister at least tell us whether that is what the review body is looking at—we hope with a view that we might like to talk about it at some time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is one of the aspects at which the review body is looking. But the approach is much more broadly based; it is to determine how best to regulate ownership of all media within the United Kingdom.

Asthma in Children
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to recent reports linking asthma in children with air pollution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we do accept that some children (and adults) who are already asthmatic may be affected by high levels of certain air pollutants. The suggestion that the rise in the number of children becoming asthmatic is linked to air pollution is not proven. There are other causes which should not be overlooked.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But with respect, I feel that it is a little complacent. The number of children being admitted to hospital over the past 10 years with acute asthma has doubled. At the same time, the emissions of nitrogen dioxide in our cities have increased by 70 per cent. There is a great deal of European evidence to suggest that there is a causal connection. Would it not at least be important for the Government to place asthma in the Health of the Nation policy, so that other government departments such as environment and transport could be consulted about what now costs the NHS over £400 million a year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are not complacent. They have set up the advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes to consider the need for specific advice to individuals during air pollution episodes. That group has already reported three times. A further report is to be published early in 1995 on all air pollutants. That report will be published.
The Government have also set up a committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, which has a much broader remit. That committee has set up two sub-groups which will report at the end of 1994. One

1213
report will be on asthma and air pollution; the other will be on fine particles. The Medical Research Council has 14 projects under way. There is also the Department of Health's own research programme and, those of expert committees.
Whether this should be a subject for Health of the Nation has been discussed at length. However, at this time we do not know enough about this particular disease, which affects both adults and children. Once research is complete we will consider whether it is appropriate to include this as part of Health of the Nation strategy.
Lord Rea: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness that more research is required, does she realise that there is now widespread professional agreement that traffic fumes are responsible for the exacerbation —not necessarily the cause, but for the exacerbation —of asthma? Does she not think that that is enough to justify more strenuous efforts to cut down on motor vehicle exhaust fumes, particularly in cities, and that efforts should be made to reduce the amount of traffic in towns by road pricing and other methods?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, although I appreciate that a medical consensus is now beginning to form, we still do not have enough information to be absolutely certain about the causes of asthma, or indeed whether the higher incidence of those who have asthma is aggravated by the environment. Increasingly we are seeing this condition increase all over the world, in rural areas as well as in urban situations, and in countries where there are very low levels of pollution. There does need to be further research.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that tobacco smoke can induce asthmatic attacks in asthmatic people? Does she therefore further agree that those who continue to smoke in the presence of those who have asthma behave in a selfish and irresponsible fashion?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, cigarette smoke can induce asthma attacks. There are also other causes, such as cold air, exercise, emotion and even domestic house dust mites. I am quite an expert in house dust mites. Alas, I believe that they are eating my wallpaper at home.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while, of course, more research is needed, this is a situation in which some real action is needed? Will she recognise that there is a crisis in regard to asthma? With 3 million cases at present, and with the rising rather than falling levels of nitrogen dioxide emissions, is this not a time to tighten up on the level of emissions rather than simply doing no more than continuing with research?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not think that the number of asthma sufferers is 3 million. My information indicates that there are 2 million asthma sufferers in the UK. That includes 700,000 children and adolescents. On the substantive part of the noble Lord's question, I believe that it would be very wrong for the Government to pursue a policy until they had firm evidence that that was the right way to go. The research
1214
will come through towards the end of the year. Clearly we shall want to consider those results and then decide what best should be done.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether any epidemiological studies are being commissioned by her department to pinpoint the differences in the incidence of asthma in children between rural and urban areas respectively? Will she place in the Library of the House a list of all the studies she has mentioned today that are in the course of being completed?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly do that—not only the ones that were mentioned, but a more comprehensive list of all the research that is being done. The Department of Health commissioned research includes that at King's College, London, which is a randomised control trial in general practice; St. Bartholomew's Hospital medical school, which is an evaluation of medical guidelines for asthma management; the Social Medicine and Health Service's comprehensive research at St. Thomas's Hospital, where several studies are going on; research at St. George's medical school; at University College, London, medical school; at the University of Teesside; and various other programmes. So a lot is being done at present.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that as the incidence of tobacco smoking has reduced, the incidence of asthma has increased? Will she therefore agree that there must be some other cause and that the Government and their research establishments should be searching for that cause? Will she further agree that in relation to traffic pollution —air pollution—there is also another great danger; namely, from particulates from diesel vehicle emissions? Will her department also pay a lot of attention to that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, all those areas are being looked at. We work very closely with the Department of the Environment, which is also commissioning some research. With regard to smoking, we understand that asthma is a very complex condition. We believe that there are many things in the atmosphere that trigger it off and perhaps even cause it. At this moment we cannot say that it is a single pollutant such as cigarette smoke. The condition is very complex and there are a number of other factors to be considered.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, from a scientific point of view, what she said is very encouraging and very good indeed? She mentioned three hospitals which are working on this problem. Is she aware that it is somewhat distressing to contemplate that all those hospitals might be shut down by the Government? Is not that a. terrible kind of policy? In addition to scientific information, will the department consider obtaining evidence from not only the British Medical Association but also the Health Visitors' Association which takes note of these matters,

1215
particularly when some aspect of asthma arises in a certain geographical area? Does she agree that such evidence could be well worth examining?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very confident that the research that is being undertaken will continue. After all, those hospitals will be in existence for some time yet. If any of those hospitals finally close, some of that work will be transferred to other medical schools. There is no suggestion at all that the medical schools at St. George's or King's College, London, should close. It is scaremongering to suggest that all those hospitals will close.
With regard to the health visitors working in the field, much of the research being done includes general practice and therefore includes other members of the primary health care team.

EC Spending: Management
3.22 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take in the Budget Council to eliminate from the European Communities preliminary draft budget for 1995 the "excess spending and waste" referred to by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs quoted by the Daily Express which appeared on 2nd April 1994.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government attach the highest priority to improving financial management in the Community and oppose excess spending and waste. The Government will continue to press for the Council to make full use of its powers under the treaty to ensure that all bids for expenditure are examined with due regard to the cost effectiveness of that spending.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my reason for examining the answers that have emanated from his department is that apparently the Government have no control whatever over the expenditure of the European Parliament? I observe that he has not in any way disputed the excellent feature in the Daily Express of 2nd April, in which it was stated:
"Euro Minister David Heathcoat-Amory said the time had come to take the knife to the Parliament's running costs".
Is he aware that under the inter-institutional agreement agreed by the Council of Ministers, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government and the European Parliament, the European Parliament can determine its own budget without any intervention or complaint except a bleat from Her Majesty's Government? Can we see a little more guts on the part of the Government at Council level to tackle expenditure which has cost the United Kingdom taxpayer some £177 million over the past three years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question refers to all European Communities expenditure. That is why I answered in the way I did. In his interview with the Daily Express, my honourable friend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory was referring purely to European parliamentary expenditure, as the noble Lord quite rightly said. My honourable friend made it quite clear that it was a matter of concern. It is clear that Conservative MEPs will argue for budgetary discipline in the parliament's spending to cut excess and waste. The European Parliament's budget is subject to exactly the same constraints as those which apply to Community spending in general. It is true that it decides how best to meet the responsibilities placed upon it and it determines its own budget. But it must ensure that its expenditure is consistent with the treaty and with Community legislation, including the requirement for sound financial management.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that much of the expenditure now being incurred by the European Parliament is due to the decision taken at the Edinburgh Summit that the. parliament should continue to sit at Strasbourg? That was contrary to the views of the vast majority of the members of that parliament. Will he confirm that the situation arose entirely as a result of giving in to French pressure so far as the parliamentarians were concerned?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says. I accept also that the current arrangements —namely, meeting in three separate places—are unsatisfactory. But there is no prospect in the foreseeable future of securing agreement by all member states, and we would need agreement by all member states, to move to a single seat.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, did my noble friend see in the press recently an article explaining that the parliament and the bureaucracy were operating in the same environment of socialist job protection as prevailed in this country pre-1979?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not seen the article referred to by my noble friend. I am sure that he is correct. As he and no doubt the party opposite are well aware, we have seen major and dramatic changes since 1979.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is sometimes rather difficult to acquire an accurate assessment of the relative scale of Community waste? For example, how do problems of waste in the Community compare with the extensive waste identified by the Public Accounts Committee of another place? Having examined the behaviour of the British Government, it reported in January:
"In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years".
Will he accept that it is clear that the major sources of excess spending and waste of British taxpayers' money are the activities of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to table a Question about the report of the Public Accounts Committee, I should be more than delighted to respond to it. As he knows, the Government have responded in great detail to the Public Accounts Committee's report. I should be pleased to send a copy of that response to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness said, does the Minister agree that it is still a fact that the European Parliament costs four times as much as the other place and 21 times as much as this House to run? Will he accept that that is excessive expenditure? Does he further agree that we should get much better value for money if we repealed the European direct elections Act and nominated members to the European Parliament? They would be elected representatives —not members of quangos—as they used to be. Perhaps it has been forgotten that we used to elect people to the European Assembly. Does the Minister agree that it would be much better if we did the same again?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in the past we accepted that the European Parliament was more expensive than our own national Parliament. In response to my noble friend Lady Elles I said that it was not helpful or satisfactory that it meets in three separate places but I did not foresee agreement being likely in the foreseeable future. Comparisons between this Parliament and the European Parliament are not very helpful. The European Parliament is a very different institution. It operates in some nine different languages and has representatives from 12 member states. There are a number of other factors which obviously lead to increased costs: translation and interpretation into all the Community languages, the requirement to rent buildings in three different places, and the higher travel costs.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the proportion of the cost of the other place in relation to a population of 55 million is rather more than the cost of the European Parliament in relation to 340 million people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not be drawn into the argument between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The European Parliament is obviously more expensive than our own but comparisons between the two are not necessarily helpful in view of the factors I mentioned.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government should be under no misapprehension as to the attitude of individual members of the European Parliament or their parties, with the exception of Mr. Cassidy on the Conservative side and Mr. Tomlinson on the Labour side? Over the past 10 years no party, neither the Socialists nor the Conservatives and their allies, has ever complained about the Parliament's budget being too high. In short, the whole attitude of the European Parliament in general and of its political groups is that the expenditure of the parliament should be further increased to take account of its new responsibilities.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that Conservative MEPs, as I said earlier, will be arguing for budgetary discipline in the Parliament's own spending, designed to cut excess and waste. I invite the noble Lord to consider voting for a Conservative MEP in the forthcoming European elections.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Land Drainage Act 1991 in relation to the functions of internal drainage boards and local authorities. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sunday Trading Bill
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Restrictions on Sunday opening of large shops ]:
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert:

(" "stand", in relation to an exhibition, means any platform, structure, space or other area provided for exhibition purposes.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, it may be convenient for me to speak also to Amendment No. 12. I raised the question of exhibitions at Second Reading. Unfortunately I was unable to be present at Committee stage, hence my moving these amendments today. The amendments make what is essentially a technical change to the Bill. They provide an exemption for exhibition stands which occupy a floor area of more than 280 square metres and which might otherwise be classified as "large shops" for the purposes of the Bill.
Exhibitions can hardly be equated with supermarkets and I suggest that they are without the scope of the Bill. The amendments are intended to prevent some individual stands falling within the terms of the Bill because any stand so affected would be subject to different operating hours from the rest of the exhibition were it to take place on a Sunday. I do not need to remind your Lordships that many exhibitions open on a Sunday. That would present not only great difficulties for the organisers, but also would be confusing for the visitors—a number of whom come from overseas, especially in the case of the Boat Show, for example. The amendments are based on existing exemptions from the Shops Act 1950 provided by local legislation in the case of certain exhibition centres such as Birmingham.
As I said at the outset, the amendments are slightly technical in nature. They lack the emotive content of some of the other matters under discussion. I hope that they find favour with the House. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord., Lord Greenway, proposes an exemption for any stand used at an exhibition from the

1219
six-hour restriction which the Bill places on trading by large shops. Your Lordships may find it helpful for me to remind the House of the way in which exhibitions are treated under present legislation.
Your Lordships will remember that few transactions are permitted on a Sunday under the terms of Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950—certainly the schedule does not provide for the wide range of items which are commonly on sale at major exhibition centres. Stands at exhibitions which are held at major exhibition centres are nonetheless able to sell legally items which are not included in Schedule 5 by virtue of provisions in various local Acts. For instance, the West Midlands County Council Act 1980 disapplies the closing and Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 to any shop or stand which is open during the course of an exhibition at the National Exhibition Centre. The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981 disapplies those provisions in the 1950 Act to exhibitions at, among other places, Alexandra Palace, the Barbican Centre, Earls Court and Olympia.
In all cases the exemptions provided by those local Acts apply to the site and not to any named exhibitions. It therefore makes no difference whether the exhibition at Olympia is concerned with cars, cats or computers; they are all equally exempt. Your Lordships heard that an exemption for all stands at exhibitions is needed to ensure that they can continue to trade freely on Sundays in future. I have considerable sympathy with that view, but your Lordships may wish to consider whether the amendments are necessary.
Under present legislation, specific exhibition sites had to be made exempt in order for them to open at all on a Sunday because Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act allows such a limited range of transactions. The model for partial deregulation in the Bill is a totally different kettle of fish. Under the Bill all large shops are permitted to sell anything for six hours on a Sunday, provided that they notify the local authority of their intention to do so. There is not even a question mark over whether or not exhibition centres themselves would be restricted to six hours' trading; exhibition centres are not shops. The restrictions could apply only, if they apply at all, to the stands of individual exhibitors within an exhibition. To be caught they would have to meet a number of different criteria. First, they would have to be engaged wholly or mainly in the sale of goods. Secondly, the stand would have to be in a building. It is doubtful, for instance, whether any stand within a marquee could be so described. Thirdly, the stand would be larger than 280 square metres.
I have no doubt that there may be some exhibitors who would be caught by the six-hour restriction; but I suspect that they would be few. The restrictions cannot be described as onerous. If a stand were in fact caught, it would simply mean that it would be restricted to six hours' trading on a Sunday in the same way as any other large shop. Your Lordships may feel that there is no reason that a large stand measuring over 280 square metres at an exhibition and selling, say, furniture,
1220
should be more favourably treated than a large shop in the high street. On the other hand, your Lordships may feel that there is a difference.
We have heard that exhibitions attract international visitors and that they bring revenue to the country. That may weigh with your Lordships. As I said, whether or not your Lordships consider the amendment to be necessary is entirely a matter for your Lordships. I have simply tried to put the drawbacks and perceived advantages in the best way I can.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, having heard my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the Front Bench, I sincerely hope that the House will back Amendment No. 1 to the hilt. The idea that it is all right to have exhibitions in Birmingham or London but not in Cornwall or Suffolk shows the ridiculousness of more of these forms of restriction. I therefore sincerely hope that your Lordships will back my noble friend Lord Greenway to the hilt.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend the Minister indicated that there was some uncertainty in the law at present as to whether, as was possible, some of these exhibitions might fall within the prohibitions of the Bill. On the other hand, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, seems to clear up the matter definitely and does away with any possibility of misunderstanding or unnecessary restriction. Would not my noble friend therefore consider it sensible to accept the amendment?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, those who have always considered that the best way to solve the problems in the Bill is by total deregulation will naturally support every amendment of this kind which is tabled on the Marshalled List. This is the first such amendment. We have amendments about farm shops, book shops, amusement centres, holiday parks and pet shops. Two amendments succeeded last time and now we have six more. Those who are in favour of complete deregulation will get up each time and say that it ought to be allowed. However, those of us who believe that this is a compromise Bill and that it is based upon the six hours opening option are afraid that if all those amendments are conceded, or if many of them are conceded, we shall be doing precisely what those who advocate deregulation want. We shall be making the present compromise unstable and we shall be told in a year or so that the only way to reconcile the thing and to make it logical is to move into a deregulation option.
This case is one of the weakest. It is very difficult to imagine, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, a stand larger than a tennis court selling only what seeks to be covered by the Bill, and it is very difficult to believe that any stand which was as large as that would not be covered by the existing legislation anyway.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister says that there are areas of the country served in this respect by various local Acts, and, by definition, as my noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out, there are other areas of the country which are not served by such local Acts. Irrespective of the arguments on the Bill it

1221
seems to me that this would be a good moment to sweep all these matters into one and do away with the necessity for having local Acts in this respect.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said about whether we are moving away from a compromise Bill, which is what we received from another place. The compromise was extremely hard to stitch together. The argument went on, not for years, but for generations. We have arrived at it. And since we have arrived at it, your Lordships have begun to pick away at it piece by piece, taking the scales off the fish. A fish without scales will not swim, and I think we are in danger of sinking the Bill.
As regards exhibitions, an exhibition with a stand of the size which I take it the amendment refers to—roughly the size of this Chamber—is either selling combine harvesters, which will not be sold over the counter, or it is behaving like a department store, with which it should not be in competition. I hope therefore that your Lordships will not listen to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who seeks to rationalise further an unrationalisable situation, but will try to salvage the compromise, which has been gained with such difficulty over so many years, and resist the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble fiend sits down, will he face up to this problem? What is not being menaced is a compromise; what is being menaced is leaving things in a state of uncertainty. Surely he does not favour that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as we are not in Committee, I shall not seek to answer that.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may seek some guidance. It seems to me that the House is getting a little out of order in having a full-scale debate on an amendment at Report stage. The Companion to the Standing Orders (Procedure 1st. Rpt. 87–88) clearly states on page 110:
"Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister".
I have always understood that after the Minister has spoken that is the finish, unless someone interrupts him before he sits down. There is not a general debate afterwards. Am I right? Is not the House getting a little out of order on this issue?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I may help. I think the noble Lord is quite correct. The Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down; except that, where the Minister wishes to speak early, this does not prevent subsequent debate".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend did speak.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter says I did speak earlier. I waited and I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham say, "Come on", as if there was a great pause and I was delaying the proceedings; so I got up to speak. I did not wish to truncate my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has already spoken twice, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has a point. So far as I can guide the
1222
House, I think that on this occasion we had better finish the debate as best we can, provided no one else speaks twice.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I had no idea that my small amendment would generate so much interest. The point that has been missed by all noble Lords who have spoken—and I am grateful for their interventions—is that exhibitions, by nature, are transitory things. They do not open every day of the week and on Sunday, like so many shops. For that reason I think it is right to exempt exhibition stands and at the same time, by reason of my amendments, make it clear that it applies to all exhibition stands that might be larger than the technical size as well as those which are already covered or will be covered by existing local legislation. I commend the amendment to the House.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 62.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hanworth, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harlech, L.

Alport, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Haskel, L.

Astor, V.

Hayter, L.

Attlee, E.

Hemphill, L.

Avebury, L.

Hives, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hooson, L.

Blyth, L.

Howe, E.

Borthwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ilchester, E.

Brain, L.

Ingrow, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ironside, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jeger, B.

Burnham, L.

Kennet, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Cadman, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Caithness, E.

Kintore, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kitchener, E.

Carnock, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Chesham, L.

Long, V.

Chorley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lyell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Manchester, D.

Courtown, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mersey, V.

Cranworth, L.

Milne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Molloy, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dormer, L.

Morris, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Ennals, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Flather, B.

Moyne, L.

Foley, L.

Munster, E.

Gainford, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Newall, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Goschen, V.

Onslow, E.

Greenway, L. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gridley, L.

Peel, E.

Hacking, L.

Pender, L.

Halsbury, E.

Perth, E.

1223

Peston, L.

Strafford, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Reay, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Romney, E.

Suffield, L.

Sandys, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Seccombe, B.

Swansea, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Waverley, V.

St. Helens, L.

Westbury, L.

Stedman, B.

Wharton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Longford, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lucas, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brentford, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brookes, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milverton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Colnbrook, L.

Northbourne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Cathain, B.

David, B.

Orkney, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elles, B.

Rochester, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Scanlon, L.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharples, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stallard, L.

Harrowby, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jacques, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Wynford, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Young, B.

Knollys, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 2 I should inform your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("below,") to end of line 42 and insert ("a large shop may open on Sunday for the serving of retail customers only between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm.
(2) Where the Sunday is Easter Day or Christmas Day a large shop shall not be open for the serving of retail customers at any time.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above do not apply in relation to—

(a) any of the shops mentioned in paragraph 3 (1) below, or

(b) any shop in respect of which a notice under paragraph 9 (1) of Schedule 2 to this Act (shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish Sabbath) has effect.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this amendment is technically inaccurate. To save the time of the House I shall not move Amendment No. 2 but will
1224
wait until Amendment No. 4 is reached, which is grouped with Amendment No. 2. Then I shall speak to that particular group.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert:

("( ) any person, partnership or company owning a large shop and intending for religious or other reasons to close regularly on Saturdays or other weekdays subject to having lodged with the local authority a notice to that effect in the form of a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 19 go together. They follow the difficulties to which I drew attention at Second Reading. I voiced the anxiety that we needed to recapture something of the simplicity of the famous Trumpington Bill of 1982. My argument then was that whereas the noble Baroness's Bill for repeal was a two-clause Bill we now have 20 pages of tortured English which I characterised as rigmarole, gobbledegook and mumbo jumbo. I regretted that in place of deregulation we are back at the game of re-regulation and drawing lines between what is permitted and what is forbidden. I suggested that we were sowing seeds for future trouble.
A well disposed solicitor yesterday presented me with four lines of doggerel, not quite worthy of A.P. Herbert. It reads:
"I'm the Parliamentary draftsman
I compose the country's laws
And of half the litigation
I'm undoubtedly the cause".
In Committee I proposed an amendment to shorten and simplify Part III of Schedule 2, which perpetuates a form of religious test to identify what it calls,
"a person of the Jewish religion",
who could be listed for public inspection at the town hall as entitled to open without restriction on Sunday on condition that he closes on Saturday. My well-intentioned but ill-starred amendment on that occasion deleted the larger part of what I regarded as the invidious discrimination of Part III, by permitting a Jewish trader to make a simple statutory declaration under the procedures and penalties in the 1835 Act. The ever-vigilant noble Lord, Lord Elton, was quick to point out that the wholesale deletion of Part III would remove paragraph 10 which extended exemption to,
"members of any religious body regularly observing the Jewish Sabbath".
Since that was not my intention I have had to have second thoughts.
In replying to my proposal my former noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was put up by the Government to resist these advances. She dutifully expressed vicarious surprise that I had dared to display such a reforming zeal without consulting the Board of Deputies of British Jews. She did even better: she effected to be shocked that unauthorised Jews might take advantage of liberalisation "for narrow commercial advantage". The idea of it! How shocking ! How absolutely appalling that businessmen should be serving customers at a time which suited both parties!
But in the cause of conciliation I have now informally consulted my Jewish friends and the Board

1225
of Deputies. I do not wish to name names since I discovered that there is a certain reluctance to air these delicate matters in public. But from a most impressive lawyer associated with the board's parliamentary committee I learned that I am certainly not alone in finding severe objection to the present method of establishing whether a non-practising Jew, in the formal words quoted to me, "has a conscientious objection to trading on a Sunday That presents many difficulties and has been the cause of much grief and trouble in the past.
I have to go beyond the question that has troubled the Board of Deputies and ask, "What about a non-Jewish trader or company with shops in an area where most of the customers are Jewish? Why should not they be free to close on a Saturday and to open on a Sunday? What about members of other religions?" The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to that point. I am told that in parts of Israel, Moslem shops close on a Friday, Jewish shops close on a Saturday and Christian shops close on a Sunday. That is a not of choice which allows conscience to be served at the same time as the customers.
I strongly commend the two amendments on three grounds: they greatly simplify a needlessly complex Bill; they expunge an obnoxious religious test; and they permit any person, partnership or company to choose to close regularly on a Saturday or another weekday whether for private, religious or other reasons, and to open without restrictions on a Sunday. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although it is by no means the most important part of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross has done us a service in bringing to our attention this rather absurd part of the schedule, which runs to 86 lines if I have counted correctly, which is ridiculously bureaucratic and impinges upon the freedom of the individual. If an individual is prepared to swear on oath that he or she is a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, Zoroastrian or whatever, that should be the end of the matter. It is positively insulting to tell people that their beliefs have to be verified by some sort of scrutiny committee. It is rather as if a patient going in to hospital for a long stay and asking at the outset to be put on a vegetarian diet was told that that could not be provided until the patient had submitted a certificate from the national association of vegetarians—or some such other hypothetical body—testifying that the patient was indeed a bona fide vegetarian.
The other problem with the present wording is that all major religions have their fundamentalist branches or wings which tend to maintain that those in the mainstream are too liberal, too ecumenical, too free-thinking or too lax in their observance and that, although they are members of the same nominal faith, they cannot be classified as true believers. The fact that that has not been a problem to date does not mean that it might not be a problem in the future. If people have certain religious convictions and are prepared to testify on oath to them, third parties should not have the right to challenge the soundness of their beliefs like some medieval inquisitor. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has, I must admit, come back to us with a version of his earlier amendment which takes care of some of the misgivings 'which I expressed to your Lordships when we debated this matter in Committee.
In Committee, I expressed surprise that the noble Lord had not consulted the Board of Deputies of British Jews about his proposals, as he said. The existing provisions in the Bill which his amendment seeks to replace had been drawn up in association with the board and had its support. As your Lordships can see, the noble Lord's current amendment makes no mention of any particular faith and so I can see the force of the argument that the provisions need no approval other than that which your Lordships could provide.
In Committee I pointed out that the noble Lord's amendment failed to take account of partnerships or companies—and that has now been rectified. But. the amendment still does not provide any transitional arrangements for those shops currently enjoying an exemption from the rigours of the 1950 Shops Act on Sunday trading through being occupied by members of the Jewish faith. As the Bill stands; such shops would automatically be deemed to be exempt from the six-hour restriction on trading by large shops. Under the noble Lord's proposals, occupiers of such shops would have to give a new notice to the local authority. But your Lordships may not consider that to be a serious inconvenience to those shops which would be affected.
I must admit that I still have some misgivings about the noble Lord's amendments, though I am alive to the attraction of deleting nearly two pages from the Bill. The amendments provide that anybody could seek an exemption from the six-hour restriction which the Bill places on large shops, provided that they make a statutory declaration to close regularly on a Saturday or on another weekday for religious or other reasons. Now, "regular" can mean different things to different people. It could mean every Saturday, or Wednesday or whatever. But it could be interpreted as meaning the first Saturday in the month, or every other Saturday; provided that the closing followed a predictable pattern.
I also suspect that we are for the most part agreed, whichever option was our first choice, that Sunday is special and should be regarded as such. The amendment would mean that the Bill would no longer recognise the special character of Sunday. It would be open to any large shop to open all day on Sunday, provided that it closed on any other day of the week. The amendment does not require there to be a religious reason; "other reasons" are equally valid. Those "other reasons" might be commercial reasons. There might be many shops which find that their mid-week trade is slacker than their Sunday trade might be. Such shops could use the amendment quite legitimately to opt for Wednesday closing and full Sunday opening.
The noble Lord urges that his amendments would have the advantage over the provisions in the Bill of treating everybody in the same way whatever their religion. Certainly, the amendment would bring the advantage that the provision would not appear to discriminate in favour of any single religion—and, no one could argue with that. Indeed, by removing

1227
references to the Sabbath, it actually removes some of the advantages Jewish shops would enjoy under the provisions of the Bill as it stands. However, I am not convinced that there is a problem in practice with the provisions as they are drafted which the amendment needs to address. As your Lordships will be aware, the 1950 Shops Act made special provision for those of the Jewish faith because they are required not to work on the Sabbath—not Saturday, the Sabbath. The Government have not received any representations from members of any other minority faiths seeking comparable provisions. Indeed, I am advised that Islam, for instance, does not require its adherents to close their shops on their Holy Day which is a Friday.
So I do not consider that there is a practical need to widen the provision to cover other religious groups. But, of course, it is for your Lordships to decide whether the entirely theoretical advantage which the amendment offers would be outweighed by the many disadvantages which I have already outlined; namely, that the amendment would allow shops to obtain exemption for Sunday opening if they shut on another day of the week —even if the reason for doing so was purely commercial. I personally do not feel that that would be proper. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, referred to "mumbo jumbo". I fear that on this occasion, the noble Lord trumpets without Trumpington.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, on the whole, I thought that a more promising reply from the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may quickly pick up just one of her catalogue of objections, among which she recited some of the attractions of the amendment. If I had thought of it, perhaps I could have picked out more. Apparently, the word "regularly", which I ventured to include in the amendment, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. I was on my best behaviour on that occasion. I have salvaged only one word from Part III which I have obliterated. On page 9 line 45 it talks of,
"persons who are members of any religious body regularly observing the Jewish Sabbath".
If "regularly" is acceptable in the part of the Bill that I have obliterated, may I please have it reinstated in my modest amendment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the most important point that I wanted to make was that the effect of the amendment would be merely to require large shops to close on one day of the week of their choice in order to open all day on a Sunday. I have made my case. It is over to your Lordships.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I was wondering whether others who put their names to the amendment would be permitted—
Baroness Trumpington: Too late.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am a little worried because of the observation that came from the
1228
Labour Benches that to some degree we are in contempt of, at any rate the spirit if not the letter of, Standing Orders by the ministerial impatience to reply—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Harris of High Cross: —to the amendments, which I am sure is not intended to foreclose the discussion. I am prepared to test this matter, if I have a Teller.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Joseph, L.

Addington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milne, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monson, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Nelson, B.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dormer, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Finsberg, L.

Peston, L.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strafford, E.

Harris of High Cross, L. [Teller]

Strathcarron, L.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Falkland, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ferrers, E.

Annaly, L.

Foley, L.

Attlee, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Gainford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Geddes, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Brain, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brentford, V.

Grantchester, L.

Brookes, L.

Gridley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Burnham, L.

Hemphill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hives, L.

Cadman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Caldecote, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carter, L.

Hooson, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Howe, E.

Chesham, L.

Hylton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ilchester, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ingrow, L.

Cockfield, L.

Ironside, L.

Courtown, E.

Jacques, L.

Cranborne, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cross, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

David, B.

Judd, L.

De Freyne, L.

Kimball, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kintore, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Knollys, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Downshire, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Eatwell, L.

Long, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Longford, E.

1229

Lucas, L.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Seear, B.

Mailalieu, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Manchester, D.

Serota, B.

Mayhew, L.

Sharpies, B.

McCarthy, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

St. Davids, V.

Milverton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Morris of Castle Morris. L.

Sudeley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Suffield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Munster, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Teviot, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Ullswater, V.

Northbourne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Pender, L.

Vivian, L.

Perth, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Westbury, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wharton, B.

Reay, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Richard, L.

Wise, L.

Rochester, L.

Wynford, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Young, B.

Romney, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 39 and insert:
("Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to a large shop on a Sunday between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 to 18, which are consequential upon it. Amendment No. 4 will remove the provision in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2, which refers to the right of large shops to open for six hours once notice has taken effect. It will replace that provision with an exemption permitting all large shops to open at any time between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. The amendment does not state that large shops must open between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., nor that they must open for the full six hours between those times. Rather, the shop has the freedom, if it chooses, to open at any time between those hours. If a shop opens before 10 a.m. or after 4 p.m. the occupier will have violated the general prohibition laid down in paragraph in 2(1) and will be subject to prosecution by the local authority.
Amendment No. 14 has the effect of removing paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which becomes unnecessary. As the hours are fixed between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. it will not be necessary for the shops to inform the local authority which of the six hours they are opening between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Amendment No. 16 will also become unnecessary' because the local authority will not need to keep a register. Therefore, if we pass these amendments we shall be doing away with a great deal of bureaucracy.
One of the principal reasons given by the SHRC for the introduction of a flexible opening system for large shops was to accommodate the trading patterns of, in
1230
particular, garden centres and also perhaps DIY stores. Garden centres, when originally limited to six hours trading on Sundays, may have wished to have the option of varying their opening times according to the seasons of the year. For instance, during the summer months they may choose to open later in order to benefit from the lighter summer evenings. The special concerns of DIY stores and garden centres, however, have been dealt with in amendments passed in Committee. While I and other noble Lords might disagree with those particular exemptions, they strengthen the arguments in favour of fixing hours for the remainder of large shops.
The problems of not having fixed hours are of enforcement. Indeed, the strongest argument for fixing the hours of Sunday trading is that without a fixed period of trading the provisions of Schedule 1 are unlikely to be observed or enforced. The same confusion and law breaking which now prevails, and which Parliament is seeking to eliminate, will be perpetuated. The fears that an unfixed period of Sunday trading will be difficult to enforce are shared by representative bodies of the local authorities whose duty it will be to implement the new laws. We shall not do, that—it will be the local authorities. The Association of District Councils has stated that if asked it would prefer to enforce a fixed as opposed to a flexible opening hours system. Parliament is placing the duty of enforcement on local authorities and therefore Parliament ought to listen to their anxieties and advice in regard to enforcement. We must also remember that other employees, including local authority employees, will become involved in Sunday working as a result of the Bill. I have already mentioned that point and I shall not labour it.
At present, stores larger than 3,000 square feet can open for any six hours that 'they chose between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. It is likely that there will be many different opening and closing times throughout any given local authority area. In my view, 'that will present a logistical nightmare to any enforcing local authority. It is not hard to imagine local authorities not having the money and the manpower to police the different opening and closing times of each large store in their areas and consequently giving up on the task of enforcement. That would, in effect, allow all stores to open all day on Sundays.
The fixing of the hours of Sunday trading is both entirely reasonably and absolutely necessary if the will of Parliament is to be upheld. Both Houses of Parliament have voted for large stores to be able to trade for six hours on Sundays, but for a maximum of six hours. If that six-hour principle is to be translated into effective practice the six-hour period ought to be fixed and not floating. This amendment will satisfy the point made in Committee that 40 per cent. of all Sunday shopping is done before 2 o'clock and that a large part is done between 10 a.m. and midday.
In Committee we were impressed in particular by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. She is not now in her place and I hope that she will not mind me quoting from her speech. She stated:

1231
"If shops are not allowed to open until midday, families who would prefer to do their shopping in the morning, in order to cater for a large social gathering in the afternoon, would be constrained from doing so until 12 noon".
That was the argument against fixed times between 12 noon and 6 o'clock. She continued:
"That would affect the Sunday lunch. Frankly, I do not much care for that, but much was made of the point when the options were being considered.
Secondly, the amendment contains a direct threat to the normal pattern of Sunday shopping which has evolved over the past few years. Some 40 per cent. of all shopping is done before 2 o'clock—between 10 and 2".
In col. 1631, that was later corrected to 10 to 12 noon. The noble Baroness confirmed that 40 per cent. of all shopping is done between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 noon.
The noble Baroness made another interesting point, which was in relation to staff. She stated:
"The staff employed in the large shops do not want the provision contained in Amendment No. 4. If they are working on a Sunday, for which they are paid premium wages, they have opted to work between 10 and 4. That means that their Sunday is not completely curtailed and they have—some might say—the best of both worlds".—[Official Report, 14/4/94; col. 1630.]
Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who is something of an expert on this matter, supports—or I hope that she will support—my amendment.
It is impossible to argue that deregulating shopping hours allows all people to have what they want. That is not possible. The opening of large stores and the associated deliveries will cause noise and disturbance whether or not the people living nearby want to use the shops themselves. By restricting the opening hours of large shops, those who want peace and quiet will at least be able to enjoy a lie-in and a slower start to the day.
In relation to consumer information, any fixed hour period is preferable for enforcement, as we have seen. But it is also preferable for consumers because anywhere in the country it will be known that the large shops are open between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. I submit to your Lordships that that is of great benefit to consumers.
We must consider employees too. The amendment would allow shop workers and others drawn into Sunday working to have a quieter end to the day since the day would end at four o'clock. That would still allow time to be spent with families and others who do not have to work on a Sunday. It limits the number of employees having to work a full day on Sundays.
KSS has consistently argued that the only way to ensure protection for employees is to limit the number of shops opening on Sundays and to reduce the pressure of work. The weakness of the Bill in protecting shopworkers is obvious. It is estimated conservatively that a six-hour trading period will mean at least a seven-hour working day on Sundays for Britain's 2.2 million shop workers. And as I mentioned, other workers will be involved. There will be six hours of actual trading and at least half an hour at each end of that period for stacking shelves, clearing up and so on.
There is a great risk that the inconvenience and loss of free time incurred by shopworkers will be greatly increased unless the six-hour period is fixed. If the period is not fixed and is thereby extended to seven, eight or even more hours in many cases, it will be the
1232
shopworkers—and I believe that we all care about the shopworkers—who will bear the brunt of the failure to enforce the law.
Finally, I should like to mention small shops. The small shops sector is in favour of the amendment, which affords valuable protection of their market share and is crucial to their survival. I believe that we all wish to see the survival of small shops. They are expected to continue to disappear at the rate of 1,700 a year up to 1996, according to Verdict Research. All independent surveys, including the Problems in Rural Areas report and the London Economics Survey, confirm that competition from large shops on Sunday will have a detrimental effect on the small shop sector and will accelerate its decline.
The Retail Intelligence Report for 1993 stated that,
"for major multiples, business that was formerly going to neighbourhood stores is being picked up as additional business".
I reiterate that I feel sure that all your Lordships will wish to see the retention of small stores, particularly in rural areas. Since small shops service a wide range of consumers, their survival should be of concern to us all. As I said, they are particularly relevant to rural areas and also to disadvantaged people; for example, to disabled people who have no transport and who wish to shop in their own areas. For all those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will support the amendment. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the debate on the Bill has been and still is largely about the balance between rights and responsibilities: the rights of employers and employees; the balance of convenience between those who want to shop on Sundays and those who want to have one day in the week which is different from the other six days; and the balance of convenience between the rights of shop owners on the one hand and local residents on the other. This amendment is still concerned with that same balance in relation to the issue of fairness.
Most people have purported to agree that a limit should be established. It has been said that six hours is a fair amount of time to allow large shops to open on a Sunday. Very largely, that is common ground. But the big shop owners apparently still want to have their cake and eat it or, more accurately, have their cake and eat the cake of the small shopkeepers as well, gobbling up the small shopkeepers. The argument has moved on from the point where we thought that there had been a compromise to the point where efforts are still being made to destabilise the whole Bill.
It is clearly both sensible and necessary to fix firmly a six-hour period. It will be helpful for shoppers to know when shops are open. The superstore near where I live takes great pains and no doubt spends a lot of money constructing large notices to explain exactly when the shop will be open on each day of the week. Surely the same should apply to Sundays. We do not want a situation where shoppers turn up and find that the shop is shut whereas on the previous Sunday it was open.
The fixed six-hour period will be helpful for employees who wish to make arrangements for their free time. They will know in advance what hours they

1233
will be expected to work. It will be helpful too for local people to know at what time the worst of the activity of the day will be over and they can reasonably expect to be able to sit in their back gardens without juggernauts rushing up and down the streets.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, a fixed period will be helpful to local authorities having to spend a great of ratepayers' money on monitoring the activity. The extra money will be multiplied manifold if it is uncertain for how long shops will be open or at what time they will close.
The amendment has the great benefit of removing temptation from large shop owners. I exempt the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, from any likelihood of succumbing to temptation. The fact is, however, that this legislation is the result of law breaking. What assurance can there possibly be of no further nibbling away at the law or further attempts to evade the law? Therefore, let us put the matter beyond the bounds of temptation and be very clear about the limits so that shop owners are not tempted to go down the same road again.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that there is something to be said for reducing the eight-hour period within which large shops can open on a Sunday. But this amendment goes too far and is not the right way to go about it.
The period of 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. would suit supermarkets very well indeed; and as we know, supermarkets constitute a very powerful lobby. It would also suit those people who want to shop only in supermarkets on a Sunday. However, it certainly will not suit the public at large for whom, after all, the Bill was designed. Moreover, it will certainly not suit the great mass of small shopkeepers—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will be interested to hear this —such as the corner grocer, the sub-postmaster, and others. Indeed, they will be most distressed if the amendment is carried.
I have received letters and telephone calls from organisations representing tens of thousands of small shopkeepers and their employees who beg me to try to urge your Lordships to set a starting time for large stores later than 10 a.m. —preferably at 10.30 a.m. or, better still, at 11 a.m. I shall quote from such letters when we come to deal with Amendment No. 15, which is designed to address that problem.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would help small shops selling luxury or semi-luxury items; for example, Samuels, Ratners and other jewellers, Penhaligons, Crabtree & Evelyn, the Body Shop, all gift shops and antique shops. They would all benefit from frustrated shoppers being ejected from large stores at 4 p.m. on a Sunday with purses and wallets still full. Nevertheless, I have to say that it is a little odd to see members of the Labour Party proposing a move that benefits the luxury small shops at the expense of the small corner shops which serve the less well-off people in the country.
Let us consider what the public at large really want. The public, in general, want to get their essential
1234
shopping over with in the morning and do their more relaxed shopping, their fun shopping—if you can call it that—in the afternoon, probably after a good lunch at home, in a restaurant or in a pub. Of course, we have the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, partly to thank for the fact that pubs are open until 3 p.m. on a Sunday. We are all grateful to him. After washing up following Sunday lunch at home or wandering out of a pub at 3 p.m., people will be extremely annoyed to find that they have only one hour in which to try on dresses, look through a range of carpets, browse in a bookshop or through a selection of records and tapes or wander through Harrods or toy shops during the weeks immediately preceding Christmas. That is why I say that a six-hour period of 11 to 5 is just about acceptable but not 10 to 4. I cannot possibly support the noble Lord in that respect.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, both noble Lords opposite who spoke in support of the amendment have quite a reasonable case—one must concede—from the point of view of the ease of enforcement of such restrictions. Obviously, if it is always the same hours, from the local authority's point of view enforcement will be easier than as proposed in the Bill. But the price of that ease for local authorities is to increase the restrictive effect of the Bill: it is to deprive the Bill of the small amount of flexibility that it has
I believe that I have made it plain during earlier stages of the Bill that I regard the legislation as highly restrictive and, in many ways, very harmful to enterprise. The present proposal makes it even more restrictive. Many big stores want to open in accordance with the demand of the public. They want to meet that demand. Such public demand varies a good deal with the time of year. In summer, afternoon shopping is attractive to a great many people who will have a leisurely morning and then go out and do their shopping in the afternoon while others, depending on the geographical location of the shop and the area it serves, will find it easier the other way round.
One would have thought that, so far, in this unhappy Bill, the slight bit of flexibility which exists at present —by saying that the six hours may be fitted in at any time between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.—is an advantage. I believe that it would be a great pity to take that away and for your Lordships' House to insist on even more severe restriction of shopping than was insisted upon by the other place. Therefore, for that reason, I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support the amendment for three reasons. I have, as always, listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. He is an avowed total deregulator. His speech was entirely consistent with that view. But if there was one option for which your Lordships and another place did not vote, it was for total deregulation.
Your Lordships' House voted for the six-hour option. Although it was not one that I supported, I accept the decision of the House as a compromise. What we are seeing today is an endless whittling away of that

1235
compromise. It is most disturbing to me that, in such a short space of time, we should see this happening on such a large scale. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter says that this is what consumers want. But there has never been any actual evidence to show that that is the case.
However, leaving that argument to one side, the real importance of the amendment is that it proposes something which would act to help small shops. There has been a very strong feeling from all parts of the House that they need to be protected. The number of small shops has declined from something like 145,000 in 1950 to 35,000 today. Indeed, they are declining at quite a rapid rate.
If the present option was introduced, it would help small shops because within the eight hours allowed big shops would be open—that is, one or other of them—in a particular place for eight hours of the day and not six. That is much more damaging to the small shop. I believe that the amendment makes that clear.
I was rather surprised to hear that there could be any disagreement about enforcement. I entirely accept that the Shops Act 1950 fell into disrepute and was unenforceable. One point upon which I believe everyone is agreed is that, whatever comes out of the debate, we should have something simpler and easier to enforce. The noble Lord's amendment would help that particular cause. If the House really wants to stand by the six-hour option, it should support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made it abundantly clear that the two principal arguments used against the proposal in Committee that shops should open for a fixed six hours from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. have been demolished. Briefly, it was argued that most shopping is done before noon, and that 6 p.m. would be too late for people to get conveniently and safely home.
Another very strong argument in favour of the amendment is that it will be simpler to operate. One of the great points about the Bill is that it should be simple to operate and very easy to enforce. To have a fixed six hours is surely very much in tune with those two objectives. The amendment also has the advantage that it makes less demand on services —transport, cleaning, and so on—and that it maintains the six-hour principle which has been agreed both in this House and in another place. I strongly support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me quite extraordinary that we as Members of Parliament can actually make it a criminal offence and fine someone up to £50,000 for opening a shop at five minutes to 10 but make it legal for him to open at five minutes past 10. We genuinely risk dragging ourselves into making a mockery of legislation.
I make no bones about being a free trader. I do not believe in bossing people about and I believe even less in being bossed about myself. I do not want either of those things to happen. Yet the more we restrict, the more we allow such bossiness. That is a bad thing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that it is for the
1236
protection of the workers that they should not work more than seven hours. It seems that it is all right to protect them in big shops but not all right to protect them in small shops. Where is the logic in that? We have accepted—those of us who are liberalists or Scots, call it whichever you like—the six-hour compromise. But do not whittle that down again, please! It is too silly to make it a criminal offence to open at five minutes to 10 but to be at liberty to open at five minutes past 10. There is no logic in that at all.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend's speech was a speech against the principle of the Bill as it stands entirely, and not against the provisions that we are now addressing. The Bill will already make it an offence to open at five minutes to 10 and it will already be legal to open at 10 o'clock, so I am afraid my noble friend has missed his target. The real issue we still seem to be debating is whether or not there should be regulation. I implore your Lordships to get away from this debate, as I implored your Lordships two amendments back. A compromise has been struck. It is that there should be regulation, not that it should be limited. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter must resign himself to that if the Bill is to go on the statute book. The question now is whether it should be easily enforceable and offer a reasonable degree of protection to some of our fellow citizens who are small shopkeepers and a larger number of our fellow citizens who wish to shop at small shops. That is not a question of keeping Sunday special; it is a question of fair trading and the sort of society we want to live in.
If there is a mobile patch of six hours as at present proposed in the Bill, the inspector will not be able, simply by seeing if the shop is open, to know whether or not the law is being broken. There will be an elaborate bureaucratic machinery of enforcement or there will be no enforcement at all. Most of your Lordships are against bureaucracy and a good number of your Lordships are against the idea of not enforcing the laws passed by Parliament and the Crown in consort. I therefore ask your Lordships to pay close attention to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and to my noble friend Lady Young who have adduced three principal reasons; first, this measure makes the provision simple to enforce; secondly, it protects a sector of commerce which, if it is lost, will impoverish many of us; and, thirdly, it reduces the length of the Bill, not to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, attempted in a less well-guided amendment, but at least to the extent of one page in the statute book. I ask your Lordships to support this amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, one cannot get away from the history of this matter. I approach it certainly from the viewpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I have always been in favour of complete deregulation and I found it entirely convincing when, at an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that if we stopped short of that we should be certain to get into trouble. I did not expect so much trouble before we

1237
passed this measure from your Lordships' House but we are now, as we were in Committee, well in the middle of a great deal of trouble.
In a previous Bill your Lordships' House was in favour of complete deregulation. But the other place would not have it, the Bill was lost and we were relegated to the quite insupportable 1950 Act, which is agreed to be unmanageable and impossible as a social measure. The Home Office then tried to reconcile all the different conflicting views—mainly between the deregulators and the Keep Sunday Special group. It failed in spite of every effort. Then, at last, the contending parties came together on a compromise, and it is that compromise which is in this Bill. It was accepted by the other place and it was accepted on Second Reading by your Lordships.
I share the apprehension that was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we are acting wrongly if we try to whittle away, whether from one side or the other, that hard-bought compromise. If a compromise is reached it should be observed on both sides. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, that there was no principle in the compromise. He observed a principle on the part of the deregulators; he observed a principle on the part of the Keep Sunday Special group, but no principle for the compromise. But the compromise is itself a principle. If people agree to sacrifice something on each side in order to preserve something on their side, that is a bargain that should be kept.
I personally found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, most cogent, principally on the greater ease of enforcement and the obviating of a great deal of bureaucracy, but also in his plea for small shops. But then your Lordships found equally cogent the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, so far as cycle and motor shops are concerned, and the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Norrie, about do-it-yourself shops and garden centres. But in each case, on both sides, we are whittling away the compromise and in doing so we run a very severe risk of losing altogether that hard-won compromise. Two-thirds of a loaf is, after all, better than no bread at all. Therefore, for all the force and cogency with which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, put forward his argument, I for one shall vote against the amendment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I feel there is a danger of rehearsing the argument between the Keep Sunday Special and the deregulation concepts. The compromise to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred, was indeed that the supermarkets would be open for the six hours. That, I suggest, does not prohibit us from attaching to that certain limitations which were well and clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when he argued for the certainty that results from having clear hours, not only for those who have to enforce the regulations but particularly for those who use the stores to enable them to know that the stores can be open between certain hours and will not be open at other hours. That is, I believe, a great advantage. I do not consider that it is in any way unreasonable, having
1238
agreed in earlier debates here and in another place that supermarkets should be open for six hours, to lay down quite clearly the hours when they are free to be open. I believe it is right and proper and helpful so to do. I hope, therefore, that the House will join me in supporting the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I simply say that I very much agree with the arguments that were put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I should like indeed to support the views of my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest in saying that there is a genuine threat to the stabilisation of this Bill. Speakers all round the House have spoken to that point, whether or not they have ultimately argued that they agreed with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I will oppose: this amendment for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, gave as regards the principle of the Bill being destabilised.
I wish to respond also to a couple of points which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said were cogently put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in support of the amendment because I believe there is disagreement about even those cogently argued facts as regards the small shops and the ease of enforcement. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon sees the position, those areas would he improved under the terms of his amendments.
The question of small shops was also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We had an exchange of views on that subject during the Committee stage. I believe that the noble Baroness agreed with me at Committee stage that the majority of shopping in small shops on Sundays is done before 10 o'clock. To use that rather hackneyed example, it is done by those who wish to pop out for a newspaper or bottle of milk early in the morning. Therefore, the present arrangement which allows large shops to open at 10 o'clock does not threaten the major proportion of shopping done in small shops. So the argument that they are somehow advantaged by the amendment does not stand up. Under the Bill as it stands, small shops are given the opportunity to open for 24 hours on a Sunday if they wish on Sunday/Monday or Saturday/Sunday, however one wishes to draw it up. That argument is not appropriate.
On the broader question of the impact of Sunday trading on small shops, of course we all agree and have spoken at earlier stages of the Bill about the sad fact that there is a decline in the number of small shops, whether village shops or the small corner grocers in large towns. However, the interesting and paradoxical fact is that the decline in small shops has decelerated rather than accelerated since Sunday trading has been more commonplace in big shops in cities. Why that should be so is of interest to sociologists and social economists. It is nonetheless a fact that there has been a decline in the rate of closure of small shops.
In relation to ease of enforcement, it is true that, if there is no regulation to be enforced, that provides total ease for the local authorities. However, we should not exaggerate the burden that the regulation as it stands in

1239
the Bill will place on local authorities. After all, in most local authority boundaries we are talking about only a handful of supermarkets which will be of a size to be included in the regulations requiring them to register with the local authority. Therefore we should not exaggerate the regulatory burden that is being placed on the local authorities by the present Bill.
My overall concern in relation to the amendment is precisely the one so eloquently expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We are threatening to destabilise the Bill by nibbling away at it by means of the various amendments to be debated later this afternoon, which would extend the exemptions, and also by undermining the basic compromise which—as has been said repeatedly in your Lordships' House—was achieved with great difficulty. It is a compromise which has been accepted by those who represent the consumers, by those who represent large numbers of shopworkers and by those who employ them. We threaten it at the Bill's peril.
5 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is quite unacceptable that the same noble Lords who have been beavering away destabilising the consensus by getting all sorts of amendments passed at Committee stage to allow do-it-yourself shops, motor garages and all sorts of other peculiar operations to escape the clutches of the compromise should now, because the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, moves a minor amendment designed simply to make enforcement more possible, come along and denounce the unfortunate amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on the grounds that it is destabilising. Having listened to the arguments against the amendment, I shall certainly support it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I merely want to say one word to those who are not deregulators and who do not believe that we cannot change the Bill in any way, and those who agree in principle with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said but do not like his timing—and I am thinking in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and others. Here is an opportunity to embody in the Bill a sensible principle that can be enforced. Do not throw it out simply because you would prefer the time to be 10.30 rather than 10 o'clock or 9.30 rather than 10 o'clock. Vote for it all the same.
Earl Peel: My Lords, it seems to me that the amendment has nothing to do with the compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that he was looking for greater convenience for the consumers. But who is best able to judge that—central government or the local authority? I should have thought that the noble Lord opposite would have chosen the local authority. That is what his party does in most cases.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said. I believe that the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, are applicable to those who are trying to introduce additional categories of shops which may open longer than the compromise permits. The amendment we are
1240
considering now does not do that. It merely tightens up the situation in the way that my noble friends Lord Elton and Lady Young indicated so eloquently. I believe that we should support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have listened with fascination as the guns on both sides of the argument have loosed off. I have watched the shells whizz by, and I have no intention of getting tangled up with them.
The situation is that shops of over 280 square metres can choose any six hours between 10 o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening in which to open. They have to give notice to the local authority of the hours which they have chosen, and they have to display notices showing the chosen hours. The local authority has to keep a register of the shops giving notice. That is the position as it is in the Bill.
The arguments seem to me to be fairly simple. On the one hand, in favour of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved—it now seems rather a long while ago—is the fact that everyone would be absolutely certain where they stood. Large shops would be open, if they were open at all, from 10 o'clock in the morning until four o'clock in the afternoon every Sunday in the year except Easter Sunday and Christmas Day when Christmas Day falls on a Sunday. There would be no need for retailers to give notice and there would be no need to display signs showing the times when the shops would be open. Local authorities would not need to keep registers of lists of shops and their trading hours. In a nutshell, there would be less bureaucracy and the law might be more easily enforced.
On the other hand, there would undoubtedly be less flexibility. As a result, some shoppers would undoubtedly be inconvenienced and retailers would undoubtedly not be able to shift opening times in accordance with what their customers might want or in accordance with what they themselves might want.
In either case shops would still be open for six hours.
The nub of the issue is this. How important is the flexibility which is afforded by the formula which says that a shop can open for any consecutive six-hour period out of eight hours? How important is that for retailers and shoppers? If your Lordships feel that flexibility is important, then I fancy that your Lordships will decide to leave the Bill unamended. But if your Lordships were to consider that more rigidity and less bureaucracy was more important, then I have no doubt that your Lordships will be tempted to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and, as they say, "fix the six". The decision is entirely a matter for your Lordships.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should very much like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate. I believe that I have achieved something which should be chalked up. I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. That is something that I shall remember and cherish for a very long time. I thank him for it.
My noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest made the point that money is at stake here and that the

1241
ratepayers will have to pay additional amounts if more enforcement is required. That is a point that we should take into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that the amendment would not suit small shopkeepers. However, I have received—and I expect he also has received—a letter from OPEN (Outlets Providing For Everyday Needs), the local shops' campaign for staying open, early until late, every day, in relation to Sunday trading. OPEN supports my amendment. The organisation states:
'This amendment should be supported for three reasons. First, it would limit the damage that the Bill will do to the small local shop sector … Secondly, the amendment would ensure that the much-vaunted six hour option in the Bill really is a six hour option … Thirdly, the amendment would make the Bill less bureau cratic"—
the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, should note that—
"for local authorities to enforce".
Thus, the small shopkeepers recommend support for my amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was answered ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. He is a complete deregulator and I never expected his support, although I thought perhaps I and others might be able to convince him to throw a vote our way on this occasion. I still hope that he will do so and I shall not offend him in case he says: "Well, on second thoughts I should support it".
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that he was against bossiness. So am I; I reckon that I am against bossiness the most in the House and I am surprised that he thinks that the amendment is about bossiness. It is against bossiness. It will give less opportunity for local authorities to boss people about because they will not have to keep a register. They will not have to keep firms on their books. Again, perhaps the noble Earl will consider supporting my amendment.
I now come to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He is always persuasive, you have to watch him. The House takes great note of what he says, and rightly so. He played on the compromise that was reached in the House of Commons and he is right, a compromise was reached. As I see it, that compromise was that there should be six hours' shopping on Sunday. That was the real compromise which was agreed by both Houses. So there is no argument about the six hours' shopping. But this House must surely have the right to suggest some amendments within that compromise. That is what my amendment does. It accepts the six-hour shopping, but states that the House of Lords must have the right to suggest an amendment within the compromise. That is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lady Jay are probably wrong. I hope that they will reconsider their decision to vote against my amendment.
The point was also made that there has been a slow-down in the decline of small shops. One would expect there to be a slow-down because, if there had not been one, within a short time there would be no small shops. The decline has been from 145,000 shops in 1950 to a mere 35,000 at present. So one would expect that as the small shops sector moves almost towards obliteration, there would be a slow-down.
1242
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put the position succinctly. I could not quite accept that he wound up for me, but he almost did so. As always with the Bill, he brilliantly maintained his and the Government's, neutrality. I thank him for his intervention and helpfulness, and I hope that in return for those kind words of praise he will vote for my amendment, as will all other Members of your Lordships' House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

McCarthy, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Boardman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Newall, L.

Brentford, V.

Newcastle, Bp.

Broadbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Brookes, L.

Orkney, E.

Burnham, L.

Perth, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Caldecote, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Rochester, L.

Cockfield, L.

Romney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Seccombe, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Selkirk, E.

Dormer, L.

Serota, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Elton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gallacher, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.[Teller]

Hanworth, V.

Strafford, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strange, B.

Harrowby, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hastings, L.

Tenby,

Hooson, L.

Teviot, L.

Hylton, L.

Vivian, L.

Ironside, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wise, L.

Longford, E.

Wynford, L.

Lucas, L.

Young, B.[Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnock, L.

Acton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Addison, V.

Chesham, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Blackstone, B.

Colwyn, L.

Blyth, L.

Courtown, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cranborne, V.

Buckinghamshire, E.

David, B.

Butterworth, L.

Denham, L.

Cadman, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Caithness, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Downshire, M.

1243

Eden of Winton, L.

Mersey, V.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Milverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Finsberg, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Foley, L.

Morris, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mulley, L.

Geddes, L.

Munster, E.

Gisborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Goschen, V.

Norrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Onslow, E.

Greenway, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hacking, L.

Peel, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pender, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Peston, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Renwick, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Richard, L.

Ingrow, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kimball, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kintore, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Knollys, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Leigh, L.

Suffield, L.

Long, V.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Trumpington, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert:

("( )any shop at a farm which is open wholly or mainly for the sale of produce from that farm,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Committee, but it has been amended to take into account some of the criticisms of the wording that were made by noble Lords. Before discussing the detail, perhaps I may remind the House that since 1950 all farm shops have traded on Sundays without any restrictions. However, as the Bill stands at the moment, farm shops of up to 280 square metres will continue to trade freely on Sundays, but farm shops that are above 280 square metres will be restricted by the six-hour rule. I do not believe that that can be right.
The number does not make a great deal of difference. It is the principle that matters. But for those noble Lords who like statistics the number is round about 100. I therefore ask noble Lords to consider the position of those shops when, up until now, they have traded freely and have invested accordingly. In some cases we are talking about 40 years or more. Furthermore, they have employees whose jobs are based on the longer hours. As the Bill stands at the moment, they now suddenly find themselves restricted to the six hours. It could prove most expensive for them. Not to give them what they
1244
have had before would be tantamount to a retrospective move. I am sure that that is not what noble Lords intended.
The original amendment that was moved in Committee included in addition to,
"any shop at a farm",
smallholdings and allotments. Some noble Lords found that unacceptable. In particular, my noble friend the Minister suggested that I must have come across some funny allotments in my life if they had on them shops of 280 square metres or more. I have to say that he bowled me middle stump on that occasion, because I could not think of any at all. But in order to compromise in respect of that comment we have taken out allotments. What I can say is that the words which incorporated smallholdings and allotments were simply part of the 1950 Act under which those people had traded since that time. I believe that noble Lords will agree that we have a much tighter agreement now, and one which I hope is more acceptable.
Noble Lords will appreciate that we are talking here about a retail trade which involves predominantly fresh commodities —commodities which are grown on the farm and which are highly perishable. They rely on being bought at the peak weekend period when so many people go into the countryside. I ask noble Lords to consider that point. It is a most important consideration in the trading activities of those farms. Those perishable goods will go off if they are not bought and utilised.
Briefly, I have used in this amendment the words "wholly or mainly". I appreciate that those two words have involved a degree of criticism, but I have used them largely because they remain consistent with the parliamentary draftsman's wording, as seen in other examples.
The most important point that I wish to make so far as this amendment is concerned is that it is not my intention at all to disturb the principle underlying the option of reform that was chosen by your Lordships. I do not undermine the compromise that was referred to on so many occasions this afternoon. I am simply attempting to prevent retrospective legislation from occurring when I am certain that it was never your Lordships' intention for that to happen. Perhaps I may remind the House that at Committee stage noble Lords accepted without a on a very similar amendment on motor supplies which was moved by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. Exactly the same principle applied then as applies to this amendment.
It would be quite unjust to penalise the 100 or so operators who have benefited from unrestricted Sunday trading since 1950. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a simple question. He says that he uses the words "wholly or mainly" because that phrase occurs elsewhere in the Bill. But of course also in the Bill are the words,
"for the sale of any goods other than",
which occur in Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which I should like to move subsequently. I therefore want to ask the noble Earl: is he committed to the words "wholly or mainly"? Is there any reason that the noble Earl's amendment should not have read, and might

1245
indeed read as a result of a subsequent amendment at Third Reading, "any shop at a farm which is not open for the sale of any goods other than the produce of that farm"? How does the noble Earl react to those words?
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the answer is, as I said, that I took that decision because the phrase had been used in other parts of the Bill. At the end of the day it will be for the courts to decide whether or not a farm shop of the type I have described is contravening the law. They have operated since 1950, wholly or partly as I described, and it is a matter for the courts. I am simply trying to ensure that they are allowed to continue as they did before this Bill came before this House.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. These larger farm shops, which we are told are estimated to be in the order of 100, are an unforeseen casualty of the Bill. It is perhaps an unfortunate irony that legislation, which was plainly intended by the other place essentially to relax the law on Sunday trading, in their case should have had precisely the opposite effect. As the noble Earl said, since the 1950 Act, those shops, regardless of their size, have been trading on Sundays with no restriction whatever on their opening hours.
The system has worked well for in the region of 44 years. Farm shops of all sizes provide an important service. They provide it, first, to the rural community where not only are there fewer retail outlets but where such village shops as remain tend to be open for fewer hours than their counterpart cornershops in urban and suburban areas. They also provide an important service to visitors to the countryside at the peak time when those visitors are likely to be there and especially on Sundays. They provide all their customers with access to fresh produce—often highly perishable produce, as the noble Earl said—at the very point of production. That surely gives the consumer greater choice and is therefore to be encouraged. The growth in the numbers of such shops, particularly in recent years, is perhaps in part a response to the need on the part of farmers both to diversify and to maximise farm incomes, and in part an indication of the approval of the consumer public.
The unfortunate effect of this legislation is to toughen the law and restrict further the opening of those larger shops which hitherto have been free to open as they chose. The definition of a "large shop" contained in the Bill is:
"a shop which has a relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres".
It is a particularly inappropriate and arbitrary distinction to draw in relation to farm shops, which, more often than not, make use of existing, redundant farm buildings rather than purpose-built premises. The intention of Parliament being clearly to widen the law on opening and not to narrow it., this amendment seems to me to be not a measure which destabilises the agreement but one which simply maintains the status quo in an area where it is wholly highly desirable to do so.
Lord Monson: My Lords, farm shops are even quieter, are even less likely to disturb nearby
1246
householders and generate even less traffic than garden centres. Your Lordships have already agreed to exempt garden centres. However, the main reason for agreeing to the amendment, as the noble Earl argued so cogently, is to avoid retrospection. Those shops have been trading quite legally for 44 years. It would be quite wrong to stop them trading or restrict their opening; hours for no good reason. Therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am sure that the amendment will not be opposed by all those who ate out of sympathy with the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Nor will many members of that campaign themselves oppose it. However, there is still some considerable concern with regard to the wording of the amendment.
My noble friend referred to his concern about the use of the words "mainly for the sale of produce". I draw your Lordships' attention to the use of the words, "from that farm". There are three allied categories of farm which may find themselves with problems as a result of those words. First, there are those where there is a single farm shop whose produce is sold as a result of a co-operative of a number of farms. The second category is very similar, where goods from a farm may be brought in and sold by the farm shop. An example would be the sale of eggs from some chicken farm which are brought into a dairy farm which has a farm shop. However, the third and probably the larger problem arises from shops such as rare breed farms, where a number of goods are on sale which., with respect to my noble friend, are not fresh dairy produce. They may be models of Gloucester Old Spot piggie-wiggies or other animals or items which the rare breeds farm is demonstrating.
Therefore I feel that, although the amendment is wholly desirable, possibly the wording even now needs to be looked at again.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved so excellently by my noble friend. Noble Lords might remind themselves again of the purpose of the entire Bill. To be fair, it is to give the consumer the right to choose what he should or should not do, even on Sundays. Some concern has been expressed by many people, including the Keep Sunday Special Campaign, with which personally agree, who do not want to disturb the traditional English Sunday.
The fact that I am in principle opposed to shops opening on Sunday does not mean that I have not accepted entirely what your Lordships have already agreed to. Moreover, I have always been in favour of leaving small practices, small shops and small private enterprises untouched and encouraged. These days, farm shops are an integral part of Sunday and an integral part of the countryside. There are a great number of people who like to take to the dales, for example, where my noble friend lives, and dally a while among the little villages. They see a small farm shop and may want to buy a pot of local honey or whatever. Such items are not sold for any substantial pecuniary interest. The local people spend time, voluntarily in most cases, running those shops. To deny them the opportunity to do so would be counter-productive.

1247
My noble friend Lord Burnham was concerned about the wording of the amendment. He was anxious about the words "mainly … produce from that farm". I am not in the least concerned about those words. I think that they are entirely and absolutely correct. You start with a chink and if you open the door a little further, then produce from other farms will come to the one small shop and you can bet your bottom dollar that that facility will be abused. Therefore I personally consider the local farm shop as appertaining to the area related to a particular farm. That is how it ought to be. I hope that my noble friend will allow this amendment to go forward.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I might address the two points that have just been raised. I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that the farm shop will not be restricted unless it is larger than the size of this Chamber. Therefore, the small, sweet little rural farm shop of which he spoke is not the subject of this amendment. The subject of the amendment is a much larger enterprise.
I also have reservations about the amendment, which my noble friend Lord Peel may be able to resolve for me, if he can resolve it in the sense asked for by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. At the moment he says that we must rely on the courts to see whether or not those of us who believe that "wholly or mainly" means at least 51 per cent. are right, because 49 per cent. of the Floor of this Chamber is sufficient room to sell a very large amount of various commodities other than farm produce.
I do not resist the idea that farm shops which have been open since 1945—if there were a great many in those days, it would surprise me—should continue to do so. I do not believe that that will change the essential character of Sunday. I am trying to see fair play and protect those who are restricted by this compromise from others who now seek to be released from the compromise by amendments dotted around on the Marshalled List.
In considering the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, perhaps my noble friend would consider also the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. His time between now and the next stage would then be extremely well spent. I, for one, would not resist an amendment phrased in the way in which my noble friend Lord Peel wants it phrased if that were amended in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy; that is, to "any shop at a farm which is not open otherwise than for the sale of produce". He can argue with our mutual noble friend whether the produce should be from that farm or from other farms.
I hope my noble friend will consider the matter between now and the next stage rather than putting me in the position of having to resist him on something which I would not otherwise resist.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I wish to add my strong support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel. He is absolutely correct. However, for the convenience of your Lordships perhaps I can make five short points. Your Lordships may wonder why
1248
Amendment No. 13, dealing with pets, is allied to farm shops. I do not mean that pets will be sold for consumption by humans or others at farm shops! I am delighted to see my noble friend on the Front Bench taking up that point.
The emporia that I have in mind are larger than the limit mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton, but they are pet shops. We already find what I call pet sections in large garden centres, which have been dealt with at length at previous stages of the Bill. Those pet sections deal with every kind of pet, from reptiles to small mammals—mice, gerbils and so forth—together with feed fish, whether as feed for other pets or in their own right, and supplies. They already have freedom under the Bill.
Secondly, many of the major pet stores dealing exclusively —not "wholly or mainly"—in pets and pet supplies are adjacent to the pet sections of those large garden centres. Thirdly, the specialist pet centres in Amendment No. 13 conduct between 25 and 30 per cent. of their business on Sundays. One chain received 50,000 visitors on a Sunday. I make one footnote to that: I suggest that the trade might be seasonal and therefore the six-hour limit—moved so movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—might not be appropriate to emporia dealing exclusively in pets. In winter the pets may wish to rest in the darkness; but in summer they will be alive and bright and people will want to see them. If the shop is restricted to six-hour trading, there may be difficulties in that regard.
Fourthly, there should be no confusion over pets or pet supplies. Lastly, under the Shops Act 1950 fodder or supplies for horses and ponies may be sold throughout the 24 hours on Sundays. It is for that reason that I would not wish to discriminate against other quadrupeds, be they donkeys, mules or anything else, in the pet stores. But if it is already legitimate and seen as being reasonable that supplies and fodder for horses and ponies should be available on Sundays, I see no reason why they should not also be available for other pets —reptiles and every kind of furry creature that is familiar to and much loved by your Lordships. I add my strong support to the amendment tabled by my noble friend.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say how many pet shops are larger than this Chamber?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, there are quite a few. But the number of pet emporia that I had in mind was between 15 and 20. I do not know whether they are larger than this Chamber. I see my former tutor in university days extending his arms; I do not know whether he is referring to reptiles or not. The area would be over 200 square metres and there are between 15 and 20.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I can speak on one point in regard to the size of pet shops. In our garden centre we sublet an area to a pet emporium. The actual amount of covered area given over to tarantulas, chameleons, white rabbits, pink rabbits and rabbits with floppy ears, is quite small. But the open area, where

1249
there are fish, parakeets and marmosets, is much larger. It is therefore quite difficult to take account of the size of a pet shop because so much of it is in the open air.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I wonder whether farm shops were taken into account when a compromise was being negotiated. If they were not, it seems to me that we can accept the amendment without breaching the compromise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel for, among other things, the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Amendment No. 5 is similar to the one passed at Committee stage and which I moved in regard to cycle accessory shops in that it is an activity that has been allowed to continue in the law since at least 1950. I would therefore regard it as not being part of the compromise to which everybody referred this afternoon. An exception can therefore be made in this case as well.
I also urge my noble friend to preserve the words "wholly or mainly" in the amendment. I shall have more to say on that when we come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I can give one example of a farm shop which I visit quite frequently where I live on the Isle of Wight. It happens to be one of England's largest growers of garlic. That may be thought strange but it has been extremely successful, so much so that it exports garlic to the French during the season.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their support. Naturally one therefore visits the shop to buy, among other things, garlic. However, garlic is not in season all the year round. The shop naturally wishes to sell garlic even when it is out of season and therefore it sells imported garlic. It would be ridiculous if it were not allowed to sell garlic out of season and the words "wholly or mainly" would allow it to continue to do so.
Perhaps my noble friend can confirm when he replies that Sunday is one of the busiest days for farm shops. For that reason we would all wish to encourage them and I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I add only a few words in support of the amendment. I hope that your Lordships listened to the wise words of my noble friend when he raised the question of whether this matter had been discussed at the time of the compromise. If noble Lords come to the conclusion that it was not then discussed and that that is an additional reason for supporting the amendment, I hope that they will not conclude that there was a compromise which we are in some way breaching. That has been a constant theme in our discussions today, as it was in Committee.
I still remain far from persuaded that there was a compromise and least of all can I understand a compromise which is expected to bind those who do not support it or who did not vote at all on 29th March. If one were to draw a parallel, it would be the vote on Second Reading in another place. It is possible to vote on Second Reading in another place in favour of the
1250
principle of a Bill, yet not be committed in any way to not speaking to amend it in order to improve it during its progress through the House. That is a sound principle and that is what we were doing on 29th March. Therefore, though my noble friend's words should be listened to, in that listening we should not accept the idea that we are bound to a compromise and that any argument against any amendment should be based upon a breach of that compromise. Any amendment in this House at any time should be discussed and should be decided on its merits. There is no other rational way in which to reach decisions.
On the amendment itself, I would say only this. I have no interest in a farm shop and I very rarely use one of any size. However, the very powerful argument was one of two words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, when she said that farm shops had been an "unforeseen casualty" of the Bill as drawn. They were an unforeseen casualty and I cannot believe that it would be the intention of your Lordships' House to penalise those who over a period of time —we do not know how many there may have been 44 years ago: probably very few—have both invested large sums of money in these shops and found it possible to use them. It is common sense to pass this amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister replies, I regret very much that these two subjects—pet shops and farm shops—have been grouped. As I see it, the arguments for supporting them, or indeed rejecting them, are totally different. I go along with my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in seeing that it was an unfortunate accident that farm shops have been left out of the Bill heretofore. On the other hand, it would be totally illogical of me to vote against the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lyell on pet shops knowing full well that some garden centres will allocate up to 5,000 square feet to the sale of pets and pet-related products such as feed, litter and what-have-you. I accept that not all noble Lords will agree with me in my support of either of the amendments, but I think it would be unfortunate if the voting was grouped in the way that the amendments were grouped on the Marshalled List.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have only a brief point to make on this amendment which I very much support in spirit. The wording "wholly or mainly" suggests that in the future, if the amendment were passed in this form, there would be a tremendous run on farm shops and alternative planning applications would be made for their development. Does "wholly or mainly" refer to volume or to value? One can make a marvellous case for shops already in existence. However, the development of these shops in the future is what the House should bear in mind. Therefore, although I very much support the spirit of the amendment, its wording needs to be carefully considered.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has made an extremely important point. There has been a lot of confusion on this matter. It is another example of whittling away at the compromise that has

1251
been made, and this is the biggest example we have had. After all, we are talking about enormous farm shops, larger than 280 square metres. Everyone else can open. We are talking about very large shops. Under the amendment 49 per cent. of them could be selling something else, or would be selling something else quite soon. I would feel much more comfortable about it if the wording were changed to the wording in Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
I do not think it should be confused in any way with the amendment tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Brabazon on motor accessories. On that occasion there was a road safety argument which has nothing to do with farm shops. That was what swayed your Lordships. As for the pet shops, this is a classic example of something else turning up which puts a great hole through the whole principle of the compromise. Your Lordships' House would make itself a laughing stock if it proceeded to make so many of these amendments.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us how big this Chamber actually is?
Baroness Trumpington: Funnily enough, my Lords, from my days when I was a secretary here, the only thing I can tell my noble friend is that, if one put the flag from the top of the Victoria Tower on the floor of this Chamber, it would cover it.
My noble friend Lord Peel has argued very persuasively in favour of allowing large farm shops to be exempt and so able to open for more than six hours on a Sunday. He has put most eloquently the point that the Shops Act 1950 permits the sale of home grown produce at farm shops. And he asks therefore the House to accept that, by allowing large farm shops to be exempt from the six-hour restriction the Bill places on trading by large shops on a Sunday, your Lordships should be doing no more than retaining an existing exemption.
It might be helpful in this context to examine just what the 1950 Act does allow. With your Lordships' permission, I shall read out the relevant part of Section 58:
"as if there were included in the Fifth Schedule to this Act"—
that is the list of transactions that are allowed on a Sunday—
"the sale by fishermen of freshly caught fish (including shell fish) and the sale at a farm, smallholding, allotment or similar place, of produce produced thereon".
The provision was clearly not intended to exempt from the restrictions on Sunday trading any large shops selling everything from biscuits to bananas which happened to be situated on a farm. Rather it was intended to provide sensibly that, where a farmer sold a customer some of his own produce, he would not be in breach of the Sunday trading provisions. I believe the provision was intended to cover small-scale trading only.
I accept that times have changed and some of the farm shops now in operation are larger than 280 square metres. But I suspect that these shops will have been trading in breach of the 1950 Act provisions by selling far more than the home produce of the farm on which
1252
they are situated or of farms near them. And I would suggest to your Lordships that any farm shop which sells entirely home-produced foods will most likely be smaller than 280 square metres. Your Lordships may feel that there is no justification in an exemption which will, in effect, enable large food shops on farms which are in competition with other large food shops to open beyond the six permitted hours.
Your Lordships will have noted that the amendment uses the "wholly or mainly" test. Many of your Lordships have already expressed concern that this term could allow the sale of a great many items other than the particular specialist trade of the shop in question. I do not doubt that my noble friend had in mind when applying this test that farm shops should be able to sell pineapples and kumquats even though those do not grow on the farm. If an exemption were to be given to large farm shops, I agree that it would be impracticable to restrict them only to the sale of goods which were strictly grown on the 'farm. But your Lordships should bear in mind that the exemption proposed by my noble friend could allow large quantities of all manner of goods to be sold at farm shops other than home grown produce; and these items would not necessarily have to be food items.
I am advised that there are shops on farms which sell, for instance, toys, antiques and pine furniture. Provided that the farm shop sells mainly home produce, it could also sell these other things beyond the permitted six-hour period. Your Lordships may say "so be it"—and this must be entirely for your Lordships to decide —but I am simply pointing out the possible effects of my noble friend's amendment, which is to provide the potential for shops on farms to have an unfair advantage over their competitors in towns and villages. Despite my noble friend's cogent arguments, I cannot agree that his amendment would improve the Bill.
Amendment No. 13, grouped with Amendment No. 5, is tabled by that well-known animal lover, my noble friend Lord Lyell. It would provide an exemption for shops where the trade or business consists of the sale of pets and pet supplies. The Shops Act 1950 did not allow the sale of pets and pet supplies on Sunday, although it did allow the sale of fodder for horses, mules, ponies and donkeys at any farm, stables, hotel or inn. My noble friend has argued that as some garden centres also sell pets and pet supplies and as garden centres are now exempt in the Bill from the six-hour restriction placed on large shops, unless pet shops are also to be exempt from the six-hour rule they will be placed at a disadvantage.
Perhaps I may paraphrase the remarks of my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when they spoke to Amendment No. 4. My noble friend Lady Young repeated her arguments as regards this amendment. It is precisely the argument that persuaded many of your Lordships that the Bill should not be amended to include exemptions for more and more shops. Each type of shop added to the list has its competitors who will be disadvantaged and who will want an exemption too. Once your Lordships start down that path, where is the line sensibly to be drawn?.

1253
The more types of shops we allow to crowd into paragraph 3, for whatever reason, the more the Bill edges towards total deregulation. Neither your Lordships nor another place were attracted to that option. It is a matter entirely for your Lordships whether the unfair competition pet shops may face from garden centres justifies, through the amendment, this further step towards total deregulation. I must remind your Lordships that the Bill as drafted already allows all small pet shops to open freely on Sunday and all large pet shops to open for a period of six hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. provided that they have notified the local authority of their intention to do so. If the pets are out of doors they have nothing to fear anyway except perhaps from their future owners. We must resist these likeable but bad amendments.
6 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I suppose I can say that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for having summed up in such an impartial way. However, before I make a few remarks concerning my amendment, perhaps I may also say that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for—how shall I put it?—not allowing his pet amendment to foul up mine. It is separate and I hope that noble Lords are aware of that.
My noble friend Lady Trumpington mentioned the 1950 Act and read verbatim from it. We go back to it again. These large farm shops, regardless of the words in the legislation, have been trading since 1950 and have invested accordingly. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, made. That is what we have to focus on. I understand that there is anxiety among certain noble Lords about the words "wholly or mainly". I can assure noble Lords that I have looked into the matter. I believe that they are the most prudent and appropriate words to use.
There is another very good reason why I use them. In a planning context, "wholly or mainly" has been interpreted as being up to 90 per cent. on certain occasions. Research has been done. The words have not been loosely plucked up; they are carefully chosen. I believe that through the controls of the court any anxieties which noble Lords may have will be satisfied.
Perhaps I may make one final point. There has been no antagonism shown towards large farm shops. They have been allowed to continue in the way I have described. In contrast there are certain trading operations to which your Lordships clearly object. This is one factor which has not been looked at. I seek simply to allow these shops to continue operating in the way they have done.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl says that he has been advised that "wholly or mainly" represents 90 per cent. Can he quote the authority for that? We shall be most interested to hear it.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I cannot quote the authority, but I can assure the noble Lord that, certainly, on one, if not two, occasions, 90 per cent. has been taken by the
1254
authority as being the limit up to which the shop can produce its own produce and sell it, leaving very small leeway as far as other retail items are concerned.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Earl has given way. When he quotes something and says that there is authoritative backing for it, I hope that he will agree that it is due to the House that we should have that authority. Was the authority a court, or a planning authority? What was it?
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am not prepared to repeat what I said. I used those words on the best advice available to me. I have explained my reasons to your Lordships. I believe that the time has come for the House to decide whether to accept the proposed words or not.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 54.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harrowby, E.

Addington, L.

Hastings, L.

Addison, V.

Hemphill, L.

Ailesbury, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Airedale, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Attlee, E.

Jeger, B.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birkett, L.

Kimball, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Blyth, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boardman, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Leigh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Liverpool, E.

Burnham, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Lucas, L.

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mallalieu, B. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Marsh, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chesham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Monson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Courtown, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mulley, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Newall, L.

Dormer, L.

Nicol, B.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Onslow, E.

Finsberg, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Geddes, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Peston, L.

Greenway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hacking, L.

prior, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Hardinge, V.

Reay, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rees, L.

1255

Renwick, L.

Suffield, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Seccombe, B.

Swinfen, L.

Selborne, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Sharples, B.

Teynham, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Torrington, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Vivian, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wise, L.

St. Helens, L.

Wynford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Aldenham, L.

Kintore, E.

Annaly, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blackstone, B.

Brookes, L.

Mayhew, L.

Caldecote, V.

McCarthy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elton, L.[Teller.]

Newcastle, Bp.

Ferrers, E.

Northbourne, L.

Gallacher, L.[Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Perth, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jacques, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("shop") to ("either") in line 2 and insert ("which is not open for the sale of any goods other than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will not regard this amendment as seeking to set aside his own amendment, but rather as providing a little bit of fine tuning. The House will remember that in Committee the noble Lord successfully moved an amendment and spoke (col. 1649 of Hansard, 14th April) in support of allowing motor and cycle supply shops to be exempted from any restrictions on opening hours so that they would be on the list of exempted types of shops. The noble Lord gave four reasons for that: that since 1936 such shops have been lawfully allowed to open on Sundays and that it would be potentially dangerous to deny the opening of such shops at all hours that they might possibly be required especially for, as the noble Lord said, the 10 million motorists who are not members of the AA or RAC. His other reasons were that the Keep Sunday Special Campaign allowed this position in its option and wanted it to be legalised; and that 25 per cent. of the business of such shops was carried out during the period for which the present option would close them. Those four reasons seemed to be persuasive. I think that that
1256
was the feeling in the Committee generally. In fact, they were so persuasive that, as I remember, the Committee did not find it necessary to divide on the amendment.
Nevertheless, despite that widespread support for the idea on the grounds of safety and the essential nature of what those shops traditionally provide, there was widespread concern mainly because the noble Lord used the phrase "wholly or mainly". Therefore, I asked the noble Lord whether he would accept a change in his wording to that in my amendment, so that instead of the provision being "wholly or mainly", the shops would be allowed unrestricted Sunday opening if they were not open for the sale of any goods other than the specified motor and cycle supplies. That is what I am asking the House to accept today.
We know—we have had this debate throughout the day—that very many noble Lords, not only on this side of the House but in all parties, are very concerned about the phrase "wholly or mainly". We know that we could get different answers by asking different lawyers. It is perfectly true that some of the lawyers from Keep Sunday Special say that, in effect, just a few qualifying goods are required as the principal goods to provide the principal purpose for keeping the shop open. They say that the provisions, would allow virtually any subsidiary goods, which need not be connected to the primary goods, to be sold up to a limit of 49 per cent. They say that there need not be a direct sales test. It would not depend on how many such goods were sold or even on how many such goods were in the shop. It would be a question of presentation. If one displayed the qualifying goods and kept back the subsidiary goods, one could be said to be perfectly well covered by the phrase "wholly or mainly". They say that the criminal law means that any ambiguity would be interpreted in favour of the defendant. I am not saying that that is the situation. Other lawyers will no doubt say other things.
One noble Lord has told us today that a planning authority —I cannot quite see why a planning authority should have to interpret the phrase—would interpret it as meaning 90 per cent. of the shop's goods. One certainly cannot use the 1950 Act. We have been told again and again that the phrase comes from the 1950 Act. It does; it comes from Schedule 5 to the 1950 Act. It is dealing there with workers, not with shops or types of goods. That legislation is still in force. It provides that workers who work on Sunday ought to have a day off in lieu, except, of course, if they are wholly or mainly selling alcoholic drinks or wholly or mainly peddling milk. That is what the Act says, so we cannot get it from the Act. We have no idea how that would be interpreted in practice, or what would happen if the contestants who disputed the matter went to law and asked the law to decide. Of course the law would decide, but we do not know what it would say.
I suggest in the amendment that it is reasonable to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to accept a more limited definition. He has written to me, and I dare say that he has written to us all, to try to persuade me that my amendment makes the matter more difficult. He says, first, that the words "wholly or mainly" are used for intoxicating liquor. That is true. They are in the Bill. I do not see why the fact that it is there for intoxicating

1257
liquor makes it inappropriate to deal with motor and cycle spares. The question is that here are two phrases: the phrase that I am suggesting which is used for intoxicating liquor and which is precise, and the phrase used in his version of the amendment which I say is imprecise and doubtful.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that so far the traders whom he is defending, representing and advancing, have not exploited their legal privileges to go beyond, as he says, "their chosen product range". To that I say, "Yes, that may well be true". That goes to show that the trade in motor and cycle spares is their core business. That is what they want to trade in. That is where they make their money. There would not be a disastrous business consequence if in future they had to stick to their core business.
Thirdly, the noble Lord says—to some extent I think that he is contradicting himself or perhaps he is only guarding his flank—that they must retain total freedom to go beyond the present range,
"to facilitate a future response to transport developments".
That is a way of putting it so that if, in future, it became advantageous for them to go beyond their chosen product range, of course they could do so. That is what we are worried about if we put the words "wholly or mainly" into the Bill.
The fourth point that the noble Lord makes, which I take to be the point of substance—if it is true, and I cannot admit it—is that my amendment would have the effect of limiting what the traders could sell on week days so that, for example, they may now sell dungarees, maps and so on, but they could not do that if the amendment were agreed to. He says he reaches that conclusion by looking at Schedule 1 paragraph 3 (2) which provides:
"In determining whether a shop falls within sub-paragraph (1) (a) 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".
The obvious intention of that sentence is to prevent the introduction of a totally new product on a Sunday; to ensure that people do not open their shops on Sundays and sell things that they do not sell on weekdays. The Sunday opener must show that he sells those things all week long. On the face of the Bill it does not say that he shall limit what he sells on Monday to Saturday to what he is now allowed to sell on Sunday. Of course it does not.
On my reading of the Bill, within the six hours the trader can sell what he likes. We are talking about people being free to sell beyond the six-hour limit. As I read the Bill, I do not see that its goes backwards and says that because one is free on Sunday one is limited during the week. If that were the case, and if the noble Lord is worried about that and that is the only reason he cannot support the amendment, then we could deal with that on Third Reading. We could have another amendment to say that regard had to be paid to whether the goods permitted to be sold on Sunday were sold also on weekdays. We could find a form of words. If the noble Lord wants to have the amendment that he has had passed transferred safely to the other place so that it does not appear in any way to upset the controversial compromise that worries people, it would be much safer
1258
and much more straightforward and would be in the real interests of those whom the noble Lord is trying to protect, if he were to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has spoken finely to his amendment which he describes as merely a bit of "fine tuning", but I shall attempt to persuade your Lordships that it would render ineffective the amendment that was agreed to, without on, in Committee, and is now part of the Bill.
Perhaps I may demonstrate that the analysis put forward by the noble Lord is flawed and fallacious by reminding your Lordships of the arguments debated so fully in Committee on 14th April. Shops which sell motor supplies and accessories are unique in that they have been able to trade lawfully for 44 years without controversy. The exemption was agreed in Committee to retain the status quo, and the principle behind that technical amendment was not in question.
I turn to the words "wholly or mainly". Those words were chosen deliberately, following the context of the Bill. First, they provide a degree of flexibility, the lack of which in the Shops Act 1950, more than anything else, has led to the trouble into which that Act fell and why we are here this evening.
Secondly, if the wording had stated merely "motor and cycle supply and accessory shops" criticism would undoubtedly have been invited on the basis that the words were too imprecise. Thirdly, and most importantly—although the noble Lord brushes this off —the words "wholly or mainly" are used elsewhere in Schedule 1. The definition of a "shop" (page four, line 26) states:
"any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods".
It appears again (page four, line 45) in relation to the exemption for shops selling intoxicating liquor.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, why he does not seek to remove the words "wholly or mainly" from that definition. He wants to remove it from my amendment, and he wants to remove it in the next amendment, but he does not seem to mind it being where it is already in the Bill. The phrase is central to the Bill which regulates shops. It provides a cross-reference should the law be asked to qualify it.
In summary, the use of the words "wholly or mainly" is consistent. Your Lordships will recall that in Committee helpful interventions on that point of law and of the validity of the wording were made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Hacking. Incidentally, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has reminded us, the words "wholly or mainly" were included in the KSSC/RSAR proposals which contain an almost identical exemption for motor and cycle supply and accessory shops.
As I have said previously, I believe that your Lordships fully support the reasons for continuing that exemption. The only question we are seeking to address today is whether my wording would be exploited by retailers and bring into disrepute what I hope will be new law.

1259
The wording is contemporary and over time it will enable the industry to respond to changes in transport developments. Cars do not break down to order. Only last Bank Holiday weekend, 50,000 call-outs were recorded by the motoring organisations, the AA and the RAC. Many of those were in towns outside the prescribed six-hour limit for large shops on a Sunday. We should not forget the 10 million-odd motorists who are not covered by the motoring organisations and who need to carry out their own repairs and maintenance.
My wording allows, for example, for the sale of a spark plug, which, we can all agree, is a motor supply, and also the spanner to remove it. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, gives rise to the question of whether the spanner will be allowed. Is it a supply or an accessory? I could give many other examples; for instance, a child's cycle safety helmet, a child's car seat and even a jack. Would they be allowed if the noble Lord's amendment were agreed? It would be a matter for the lawyers in each and every case.
I remind your Lordships that the Bill allows all shops under 280 square metres to open for unrestricted trading. As has been said on many occasions, that represents no fewer than 90 per cent. of all retail premises, comprising practically every independently-owned small shop. Large shops are restricted to six hours. The confusion, anomalies and abuses of the Shops Act 1950 will be swept away by the Bill. Wilful abuse will no longer be a temptation and will effectively be discouraged by the £50,000 fine.
I also remind your Lordships that since 1950 motor and cycle supply shops have lawfully developed their specialist business. Despite the enforced closure of other retail shops and sectors, they did not exploit their trading privilege. It would be a nonsense to suggest that the specialisation offered by retailers and expected by customers would suddenly change. That is the commercial reality of the world out there. If they had wanted to break the law, surely they would have done it now while they had the advantage of other shops not being allowed to open and not in the future when the advantage will largely, if not wholly, be taken away.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, quoted at length from the letter I wrote to many of your Lordships. However, I believe that he has misunderstood the intentions of sub-paragraph (2) on page 5. I understand that it is the Government's intention to qualify my exemption in the Bill by the extension of Schedule 1, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (2), which states:
"In determining whether a shop falls within sub-paragraph (1) (a) 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".
If that paragraph is extended to cover my paragraph in the Bill I hope that it will be of help to the noble Lord. It will prevent any strategic shift in product lines between weekdays and Sundays. I shall support the amendment if it is moved at the next stage. I hope that it will provide some reassurance to noble Lords who, for some reason, are worried that shops may suddenly decide to start selling different items on Sunday. I do not believe that there is any chance that that will happen.
1260
Finally, I repeat that the principle of the exemption agreed by your Lordships without on is not in question. The present wording is contemporary. It will stand the test of time and will maintain the status quo. In contrast, the noble Lord's amendment will bring back doubt and uncertainty; the very qualities that we have sought to avoid and have avoided. I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded by my arguments to withdraw his amendment. If not, I hope that your Lordships will vote against it.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, my noble friend is mistaken in thinking that the trouble with the 1950 Act was that it lacked flexibility. The trouble was that it lacked precision. This amendment has the great advantage of simplifying the Bill and making it easier to enforce. What is meant by "wholly" in the Bill as drafted? If 51 per cent. of a shop's sales are motor accessories, is that all right? Can it sell any of the items which comprise the other 49 per cent.? The provision is difficult to enforce and difficult to understand. I wholly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have listened to several discussions on the words "wholly or mainly", which is an important issue. I find it difficult to go along with the absolute, which we find in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. On the other hand, I find it difficult to accept that the words "wholly or mainly" mean 90 per cent., as mentioned in all good faith by the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
Will the Government look at the words "wholly or mainly" with the idea of helping the House on Third Reading to know exactly what it wants? It is not a question of principle; it is one of not too great an amount of liquor, motor materials, garden and farm produce being sold. However, we do not know how to provide for that. I hope that special thought can be given to the words, which are not totally satisfactory.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord opposite who says that the amendment will make the Bill clearer and easier to enforce. The great merit of the exceptions as they appear in the schedule is that they are exceptions for a shop of a particular kind which carries on a particular business through the week and the weekend. By way of occasional inspection, it will be easy to see the principal business of such a shop.
The amendment switches to the particular goods being sold on Sunday. I suggest that it returns to the demerits of the 1950 Act under which some goods were not able to be sold while others were. Particular counters were covered up and so forth. If the amendment is passed, inspectors will have to visit the shops every Sunday to see whether a particular pencil or whatever is being sold and the Act thereby infringed.
I urge your Lordships not to switch from the test relating to the types of shops that can open on Sundays, which is now in the Bill, to the old and bad test that some particular types of goods can be sold and others cannot.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have attached my name to the amendment and I support it. It gives a much clearer definition. Those of us who are not lawyers find it difficult to interpret the meaning of "wholly or mainly". It was said at an earlier stage that it was 90 per cent. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Peel said that that was the case in relation to farm shops. I am told that it applies to revenue matters, but I shall not press the argument because I am not a lawyer.
As regards farm shops, motor accessories, DIY stores and garden centres, all of which are involved, I am anxious about the fact that having decided on the six-hour limit the House has decided that it will be six hours within eight hours. However, the inclusion of the words "wholly or mainly" will affect a number of stores which currently sell more widely. DIY stores, for example, are well known for selling a large number of items which are not strictly do-it-yourself. Garden centres sell many articles which are not plants; we have heard today about the garden centre which sells pets and, no doubt, other items too. Of course, at present motor accessory shops do not sell other items but there would be nothing to prevent them from doing so in the future.
The House must determine whether or not it thinks that by restricting some shops—and we are only talking here about the large shops—to the six-hour trading period they are put at a disadvantage as against those shops which are to be, almost, let off and able to indulge in unfair competition. It does not apply to the small shops at all.
I believe that we should have this rather tighter definition. We are not going against what was decided at an earlier stage of the Bill; we are merely providing a tighter definition. It will mean that shops will sell only what people imagine that they should sell rather than many other additional items. I am sure that your Lordships will be aware that, for example, DIY shops now frequently sell furniture, kitchens, lighting, small electrical items, blinds, carpets and so on. That is very different from the items that one imagines to be for sale in a DIY shop. One thinks of a garden centre as selling plants but they sell many other items. A motor accessory shop could sell many additional items if it so wished. Therefore, that is driving a coach and horses through the compromise which was reached. For that reason, I hope that the House will not agree to a further whittling down of the compromise which has been reached.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I hope that the House will not agree to any further whittling down of the safeguards. We must remind ourselves that we are talking here about very large motor accessory shops which are larger than this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, told us that this afternoon and it is worth repeating because that is quite a large area. Most motor accessory shops are either as big as that, or you could fit several of them into this Chamber. Most motor accessory shops are under 3,000 square feet and are therefore outside any control within this Bill. We should
1262
keep that in mind. We are talking about large stores like Halfords although I believe that many Halfords stores are content to open for the six hour period.
The argument used in Committee was that those shops should be open in case of breakdowns; that the motoring organisations would need a source of spare parts from motor accessory stores. In fact, KSS asked the RAC for its views and I believe that they are worth repeating. The RAC said that it has an 85 per cent. success rate in getting cars to go again by the roadside rather than having to resort to towing. That means that vehicles can be repaired by using spares from the kits carried by the patrolmen. Therefore, in those cases, motor accessory stores are not used on a Sunday. It says that spare parts may be required for the small minority. of cases in which it is not possible to repair the cars by the roadside and the vehicle has to be towed. However, the RAC says that it does not use shops like Halfords, which carry both car spares and a range of non-motor products, as a source for spare parts on Sundays. Rather, the RAC uses motor supply shops which sell only vehicle spares. Usually, those shops are likely to be less than 3,000 square feet.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that as I said in Committee, I am a member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC. I assure the noble Lord that I have been in communication constantly with the committee about this matter and it is very keen that those large shops should be allowed to open, as they are at present. I am sad to say that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is not here, but I think he would say exactly the same for the AA.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, of course the RAC is saying that it is not necessary for its purposes for those shops to be open because cars can either be repaired by the roadside or, if spares have to be obtained, they are bought from specialist shops which are likely to be small shops. That in no way detracts from what I said about the problem of roadside breakdowns.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before l address the central problem of the amendment— namely, the words "wholly or mainly"—perhaps I may once again mention the historical background to this issue.
This Chamber showed itself to be a deregulatory Chamber and I was wholly with your Lordships about that. But the other place would not have it, with the result that we were once again relegated to the ignominy of the 1950 Act and its absurdities and its calculated appeal to law breaking.
We should not have had this Bill at all if there had not been a compromise. In an earlier debate it was suggested, faintly perhaps, that there was no such thing as a compromise. But we should not have had this Bill unless the contenders on either side had been prepared to give up something to the other. If your Lordships had had any doubt about that it should have been assuaged

1263
by the notable contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Therefore, that is where we start; that there was a compromise.
It was suggested also that because we were not, individually, parties to the compromise, therefore we were quite free to disregard it; to add as we liked here, and to take away as we liked there. But the crucial matter is that we have taken advantage of that compromise. I ventured to remind your Lordships in Committee that a similar situation arose on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, on which there were very wide and strongly-held differences of opinion. However, the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, came together to work out a compromise. Thereafter, they stoutly stood by that compromise and all concerned regarded themselves, in conscience, bound by it. So it is here.
That being so, I very much deprecated the amendment which was strongly and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in Committee. But that was the first of a series of amendments and it cannot really be regarded in isolation. We then proceeded with a series of amendments dealing with garden centres and DIY shops. Evidently your Lordships are motorists whose cars are liable to break down. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, had a ready audience. I hope that noble Lords are also gardeners, and I fear that they may also be perpetrators of DIY operations. At any rate, your Lordships were very glad to assent to those additions. Today, we have added farm shops to the list.
Such matters must all be regarded together. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, they amount to a substantial derogation from what was agreed on the basis of the Vote in the other place and, indeed, in this House on Second Reading. That being so, I have persistently either spoken against or voted against any derogation from that compromise from whichever side it came. That is where I stand today.
I turn now to the question of the words "wholly or mainly". It is partly a question of law and partly a question of fact. It is a question of law because almost always the meaning of a word in a statute is a matter of law for the construction of the court. The first step in ascertaining what the word "mainly" means is a very easy one. It obviously presupposes that other things can be sold. The next step is much more difficult. The words occur frequently in other statutes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, reminded us, they also appear in the statute now before us. Moreover, similar words such as "substantially" also occur in other statutes and amount to much the same thing.
The courts have generally approached the problem in two ways. Obviously, they might say, "It must be at least 51 per cent". But, then, 51 per cent. of what? That point was raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Some times in certain circumstances the court has said, "Well, the context suggests 75 per cent., or 80 per cent". I was a little surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggest 90 per cent. However, more often —and, indeed, more appropriately here—the court will say, "Mainly is an ordinary English word which you, Members of the Jury, are perfectly capable of
1264
understanding and applying. But, in doing so, you should take account of a number of circumstances, such as the size of the respective stocks, their value, the profitability, and so on". There are many other factors to be taken into account. It would then be a matter for the jury to decide.
In view of the latter, what are we to do with the noble Lord's amendment? Undoubtedly, it cuts down very severely on the scope of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, carried in Committee. In doing so, it approaches the compromise more closely. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is fully entitled to say, "I am doing no more than maintaining the existing law", although there was not then the distinction between large and small stores. He is also entitled to say, "Your Lordships accepted my amendment in its amplitude in Committee without a Division".
That being so, it seems to me that the best course is for your Lordships to negative the amendment and let the other place decide whether it wants to accept the amendment, in its present context, with the other amendments dealing with DIY shops, garden centres and farm shops—and we have still to deal with books. It seems that the balance of advantage in this difficult situation is to reject the amendment and throw the issue at large to the other place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I accept the noble and learned Lord's premises, but I do not accept his conclusion because I do not think it follows. The noble and learned Lord said, first, that the meaning of the word is uncertain but justiciable. That is what everyone has said who supported them and what everyone recognises who does not support them. He also said that the amendment carried in Committee takes us away from the compromise which was entered into not only by Members in the other place but also by Members of this House who took part in the Second Reading debate. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord advised your Lordships to cast aside the remedy to that weakening of the Bill offered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Despite the great respect that I have for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I hope that your Lordships will not accept his conclusion.
On the issue of size, questions have been asked about the origin of the comparative. I obtained from the Parliamentary Works Directorate the dimensions of this Chamber. I regret that I did not keep the details. In fact, if one goes from the Throne to the Brass Gates, that area is bigger than one of the shops. But, if one cuts it off at the Bar, one is just about there. However, between now and Third Reading I shall obtain the correct figures for your Lordships.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I accept the conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, though I do not agree with all his arguments. However, I believe that his arguments, and those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, earlier, show that this is a wrecking amendment. That is the simple truth of the matter. The purpose of the amendment is to negative the decision made by the House after very careful

1265
consideration on 14th April. That being so, all noble Lords who were able to support the amendment, now have no reason whatever in the context of the further amendment to change their minds. For that reason, I hope that the amendment is rejected.
The nub of the matter is the conclusion drawn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We have had an extensive discussion on the matter and we shall no doubt pursue further the question of whether or not there was a compromise. On this occasion, I forbear to make the point that those who were not, in the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, "contenders on either side", must surely be free to exercise their vote and express their views quite freely without any commitment to that compromise.
The House has discussed the matter very fully but is very divided. Having supported the amendment on 14th April, the right course must surely be to reject the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and leave it to another place to make the final decision.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I believe that one or two extra points should be made. I am not sure whether noble Lords know, but sometimes you can buy a mascot which you hang in the back of your car and, when you put your foot on the brakes, its eyes light up. You can also buy dacron leopard-skin car seats. Do such items count as car accessories? Indeed, what is a motoring accessory? Is it merely confined to a cylinder-head gasket, a water pump or a coil spring?
I move on now to DIY shops. What goods can be sold? For example, can a piece of wood that repairs a seat, the seat itself, or the sandpaper which goes on the electric tool be sold? Where can you describe in detail exactly what type of goods should be sold? As your Lordships know, I have a garden centre. I understand that it is just under the 280 square-metre limit, or 809 square cubic measurement. I do not believe that I am arguing from my own specific point of view. But what is something which is solely applicable to a garden centre? Is a cachepot, into which one puts a houseplant, or is it confined only, to hoes and spades, or seeds or fertiliser? Is it something with which one applies the fertiliser? We are going to get ourselves into even greater muddles if we take out "wholly or mainly". It seems to me that the provision that was accepted in Committee made this matter much easier to understand. A jury can take a global picture of what a shop is rather than arguing whether a teddy bear which lights up when one puts one's foot on the brake is a motor accessory or not. I hope that your Lordships will reject the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Onslow with his fertile imagination has taken us into the realms of garden centres and cachepots, whereas the amendment refers to motor supply shops. Perhaps we could contain ourselves mostly to that. In Committee the Chamber decided to amend the Bill so that large motor shops should be allowed to trade at any hour on a Sunday. Some of your Lordships were concerned about the amendment and particularly about the
1266
looseness of the "wholly or mainly" test which the amendment applied and which in turn has provoked this amendment, and which in turn has provoked a number of your Lordships to be concerned about it. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and my noble friend Lady Young were concerned about it. But I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that this is a matter of law. There are precedents for the use of the words "wholly or mainly" in tax and planning legislation. For instance the Broadcasting Act 1990 states that one commercial radio station has to be devoted wholly or mainly to speech. These are not new words; there is a precedent for them. Ultimately it has to be a matter for the courts to determine as a matter of fact. The courts may take into account turnover where there is an established trading pattern and they may therefore conclude that a particular proportion—certainly more than 50 per cent—would satisfy the test. But in the case of a new shop, or where there is no established trading pattern, the court may want to take account of the space which is devoted to stock, for instance, or stock records, or any other evidence which it considered to be pertinent.
"Mainly" in this context takes its natural meaning; in other words, more than half—the majority.. Whether that is turnover or sales or stock, or space which is devoted to goods will depend upon the particular circumstances of the shop and is a matter rightly left to the courts to determine in the individual circumstances of the case. However, if one tries to define "wholly or mainly", there will always be something sticking out. If one uses turnover to define it, what about the new shops, or what about seasonal variations in sales? If one uses stock, one presupposes that stock necessarily is closely related to sales, yet it may not be. If one uses space which is devoted to items, what about the problem that some items are of extreme value but others are of smaller value? If one takes an absurd example, what happens if a shop were to sell a Rolls-Royce and at the same time sells 30,000 cans of baked beans? It would have to be a matter for the courts to determine whether "wholly or mainly" applied to the Rolls-Royce or to the cans of beans.
I shall return to the amendment itself. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said that this was a wrecking amendment. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has said, it would hardly redound to the credit of your Lordships' House if we were to accept without demur an amendment in Committee—in this case to exempt motor supply shops from the six-hour restriction—only to add conditions at Report stage which then proceed to limit the amendment and make it less workable. That is the main question which your Lordships ought to consider. Does this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, argues, merely close a loophole, or does it, as my noble friend Lord; Brabazon of Tara and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, argue, make the original amendment worthless? That is a matter for your Lordships to consider. But it is a fact that the amendment, if accepted, would cause difficulties. My noble friend Lord Onslow produced a variety of examples. I would add to that by asking: is a manual on how to repair a certain make of car a motor

1267
supply or accessory, or is it not? The amendment would oblige, in due course, local authorities and the courts to consider and to determine that sort of question. I would ask your Lordships to consider this simple point: does this amendment make the Bill fairer, or does it merely render it less workable? That is a matter for your Lordships to consider.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, because, as other speakers continued to debate, those who agreed with him more or less—it seemed to me—repeated what he had said. There are one or two other points, but for the most part he has said everything which has been said against this amendment. Therefore I shall try for a few moments to concentrate on what he said. First, he asked about alcoholic drinks and asked why I had not tabled an amendment on alcoholic drinks. I might well be tempted by alcoholic drinks. I am tempted to say that if I won on this matter I would table an amendment on alcoholic drinks. But I would not, because I am trying to honour the controversial compromise. I am trying to take words from the Bill. I am trying to honour the spirit, as I see it, of his amendment because although his amendment tried to do something which should be done—it may be that it was left out of the minds of those who framed the Bill—it went too far and could not be justified. It immediately brought about—as we have seen—a whole series of further amendments which, if they were all passed, would destroy the compromise. Therefore even if I won this amendment, I would not do anything about alcoholic drinks because that is on the face of the Bill.
Secondly, the noble Lord referred to "wholly or mainly". He said we must accept that phrase because it is in the Bill, but so is my phrase, "goods other than". That has been included in relation to pharmacy. That is where I got the phrase from. That is what I said to the noble Lord in Committee. I told him to look at the Bill. I asked, "Why do we not have the phrase that is used in connection with pharmacy"? Is that not a more suitable phrase and a better phrase than "wholly or mainly" to put into the Bill?.
Thirdly, the noble Lord said—or perhaps I should say he did not say—or rather, he did not repeat to me what he wrote in his letter about not being able to do something on Saturday if we do it on Sunday. I understood the noble Lord to say that any difficulties there might be with that part of the Bill would be dealt with by the Government. Therefore it seems to me that that particular argument that the noble Lord referred to in his letter no longer applies.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to doubt and uncertainty. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, also talked about doubt and uncertainty and said that my phrase produces doubt and uncertainty as regards whether certain things would be allowed. Of course all phrases will produce doubt and uncertainty. Uncertainty is worse than doubt because if one has doubt one can go to law and perhaps one will obtain a bit of certainty. What I do not understand is how one adds to certainty by having
1268
double doubt. It is just not true that one can on the face of the Bill avoid the goods test. One does not avoid the goods test by the phrase "wholly or mainly" because one needs it to decide the principal category of goods —for example, cycle and motor repairs—and the court has to decide what that means. If that has to be decided on the strength of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, one would have to add to the uncertainty of my amendment, the uncertainty of the meaning of "wholly or mainly". Therefore one would have double jeopardy, double uncertainty and double doubt. My amendment would get rid of at least one of the doubts, but of course we will never get rid of them all.
The only other point which was raised was mentioned by several noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised it first. He was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and cross-examined and disagreed with by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. The House will not be surprised to know that I understood and agreed with the line of argument of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It seems to me to make sense because we are trying to amend the Bill within the spirit of the compromise. That is what I am trying to do. Those of us who support the earlier amendment say that the House was not wrong to pass the amendment but that it went too far and moved outside the compromise. That might lead to a series of other amendments which it would be difficult to resist. Therefore, it would be sensible to fine tune the provision. That is what the amendment tries to do, and I commend it to your Lordships.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Boardman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elton, L. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.[Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hylton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Young, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Byron, L.

Annaly, L.

Cadman, L.

Attlee, E.

Caithness, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Blyth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L. [Teller.]

Colwyn, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Courtown, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Burnham, L.

Cranborne, V.

1269

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Milverton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Morris, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Munster, E.

Falkland, V.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Geddes, L.

Onslow, E.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Peel, E.

Goschen, V.

Peston, L.

Greenway, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hacking, L.[Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hastings, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hemphill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howe, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Jeffreys, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kimball, L.

St. Helens, L.

Kintore, E.

Stewartby, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tordoff, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lucas, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mack ay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage be resumed not earlier than 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
I am particularly pleased to be able to bring this Bill before your Lordships, for two reasons. First, it gives effect to two reports of the Law Commission, which I know will be very welcome to many noble Lords who have spoken in support of the work of the commission and more widespread implementation of its recommendations.
Secondly, the Bill has a value and importance beyond the implementation of the two Law Commission reports, valuable and important though that is. It also carries with it the prospect of easier implementation of many more such reports and other measures of law reform. I have for some time been concerned about the difficulty of accommodating law reform in the usual legislative process, and welcomed the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House, chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that
1270
use should be made of special Standing Committee procedure for such Bills a; are on the technical side and devoid of party political controversy. Committees off the Floor of the House will be able to take a limited amount of evidence on a Bill from interested parties over a specified period before considering it clause by clause.
Taking such committees off the Floor will reduce the amount of time required in the House and enable often complex matters to be considered with the benefit of evidence. Thereafter, assuming that a consensus has been established, the remaining stages might be taken quite speedily. This will facilitate the inclusion in the legislative programme of measures such as Law Commission Bills which might otherwise not find a place.
If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, I shall move that it be committed to such a special Standing Committee. It is a useful, largely technical and uncontentious measure which is eminently suitable for consideration by such a committee, and I hope sincerely that it will blaze a trail for many others to follow.
In view of the technical nature of the Bill, I intend, with your Lordships' leave, to explain its provisions in fairly broad terms to avoid the House becoming bogged down in the kind of minutiae which a special Standing Committee is so well equipped to consider. Full Notes on Clauses are at present available in the Printed Paper Office for any noble Lords who may wish to examine the Bill in closer detail.
Fuller explanation of the current law and the proposed changes is contained in the two Law Commission reports from which the Bill derives, on: Transfer of Land: Implied Covenants for Title (Law Commission Report No. 199), and Property Law: Title on Death (Law Commission Report No. 184). Both reports were preceded by full consultation based on a working paper, and they epitomise the thorough and careful work which one has come to expect of the. Law Commission.
The Bill comprises 24 clauses, divided into three parts. Part I implements the recommendations in the report on Implied Covenants for Title and derives from the draft Bill appended to that report; Part II similarly implements the recommendations in the report on Title on Death and derives from the commission's draft Bill; and Part III sets out general and ancillary provisions covering the whole Bill.
Part I effects changes in relation to certain obligations, known as covenants for title, which arise when the owner of land or other property disposes of it. In this situation the bargain commonly includes the owner giving undertakings that the title which he is vesting in the other party is as he represented it to be, and offering assistance if further proof is needed in the future. These covenants were originally drafted anew for every disposition; they eventually became standardised, but were still laboriously set out in full on the face of the disposition documents. They do not now normally so appear, and have not done so for a long time, but are instead implied into the documents by statute when certain "key words" appear on the face of the documents.

1271
Clauses 1 to 5 define the nature and effect of statutory covenants for title and when they will be implied. Clause 1 sets out basic concepts and definitions, and Clauses 2 to 5 set out the covenants themselves and specify the circumstances in which each will be implied. All the covenants have been redrafted to put the guarantees in terms of what the grantee might reasonably be entitled to expect, rather than in terms of other persons' acts or omissions as at present. They also offer an absolute guarantee, given by and enforceable against the person disposing of the property, rather than the present qualified guarantees. While these changes of themselves greatly reduce the length and complexity of the covenants, they have also been redrafted in a simpler and clearer form, with obsolete and unnecessary wording removed. The "key words" by means of which the covenants are implied are also changed, so that there are only two simple sets of key words, namely, "with full guarantee", and "with limited guarantee", replacing the present wide range of key words which depend on the grantor's capacity.
Where a disposition is made "with full guarantee", the covenants in Clauses 2 and 3(1) will in all cases be implied: these replace and improve upon the covenants which are at present implied when a person makes a disposition "as beneficial owner". In all dispositions made "with limited guarantee", the covenants in Clause 2 and the limited covenant in Clause 3(2) will be implied. This provides significantly better protection than the covenants currently implied when property is conveyed in any limited or fiduciary capacity; for example "as trustee".
The additional covenants in Clauses 4 and 5 are implied whether the guarantee is full or limited. They provide additional protection in cases where the grantee's position is inherently more insecure. The covenant in Clause 4 is implied where the property being disposed of is leasehold land, and is to the effect that the lease is still subsisting and that it is not liable to forfeiture. The covenants in Clause 5 are implied on a mortgage of leasehold land or of property subject to a rentcharge, and are in each case to the effect that the mortgagor will perform certain obligations imposed by the instrument creating the lease or the rentcharge.
Clauses 6 to 9 set out supplementary provisions covering such matters as the passing of the benefit of the covenants and the availability of Welsh language alternatives to the new key words. I hope that this is an aspect of the Bill which at least some noble Lords may wish particularly to welcome.
Clauses 10 to 13 set out the transitional provisions. The effect of the actual agreement between the parties is generally preserved. Thus, the existing statutory provisions will apply to dispositions completed before commencement of Part I, and in nearly all cases where the disposition takes place after commencement but in pursuance of a contract entered into before commencement. In certain exceptional circumstances where there has been an intervening disposition of the property with full guarantee, the new provisions will apply.
Part II of the Bill implements the Law Commission's recommendations concerning some of the technical
1272
legal problems of dealing with land following the death of the owner, which cover four separate areas. The first area concerns the vesting of intestate estates prior to a grant of representation. Such estates at present vest in the president of the Family on, which presents the potential for problems with succession between holders of the office, since the president is not a corporation sole. Clause 14 provides for such estates to vest instead in the Public Trustee, who is a corporation sole.
The second area concerns land charges, which must presently be registered in the name of the estate owner at the time of registration, causing problems where the estate owner dies between creation and registration of the charge. Clause 15 deals with the difficulty by providing that registration in the name of an estate owner who has died between creation and registration will still be valid notwithstanding his death.
The third area concerns the protective requirement that all personal representatives should concur in a conveyance of land after the death of the owner. Quite anomalously, this requirement does not extend to the contract for the sale of the land or to interests under a trust for sale (which are increasingly common as a result of the increase in joint ownership, particularly of residential property). Clause 16 accordingly extends the requirement to all these matters.
The final area concerns the difficulty of performing satisfactory service of notices affecting land, such as notices to quit, where the owner of the land in question has died. Clause 17 provides a saving for service in good faith on a person who has in fact died. Clause 18 provides a new procedure for service where the person wishing to serve the notice has reason to believe that the intended recipient has died. This involves service of separate copies at the deceased's last known place of residence or business in the United Kingdom and on the Public Trustee.
Clause 19 makes provision as to the functions of the Public Trustee in relation to notices served upon him as a result of the changes effected by Clauses 14 and 18. It enables him to charge fees so that he may cover the cost of the extra work without recourse to public funds and also provides a power to make regulations covering such matters as the form in which records may be kept.
Part III of the Bill deals with Crown application, consequential amendments and repeals, extent, commencement and short Title.
The Bill represents a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform which has attracted the support of the legal profession. We are all grateful to the Law Commission for the careful work which it put into the preparation of the reports on which the Bill is based. Accordingly, with a good deal of confidence, I invite noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, how pleasant it is that this House is discussing a completely non-partisan measure, where lawyers glory in their technical phrases and the

1273
layman wonders whether the president of the Family on is being praised or insulted when it is announced to the House that he is not a corporation sole.
It is also pleasant to be able to speak after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has with such clarity explained the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I who succeed him need not bore noble Lords with a summary that would not be so clear and so efficient. Suffice it to say that lawyers have been almost plagued with traditions in regard to implied covenants that go back over the years—indeed, to the days of unregistered title; before the Law of Property Act 1925; and indeed when old abstracts of title were described, so it is said, by Lord Westbury, as,
"difficult to read, disgusting to touch and impossible to understand".
It is about time, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that we had implied covenants of title that deal with a modern age where land registration is compulsory throughout the kingdom, substantially carried out to date and where words are used which, as the Law Commission pointed out, should be "modern, clear and straightforward". 'This is a welcome part of the Bill. I do not need to say any more about that.
Turning to the second part of the Bill, again, how right it is that the matter should be transferred. On the question of administration of intestacies, it is right, where executors do not want to act, or for some other reason do not act, that instead of the administration being effected in the name of the probate judge, as he is called, it should go to the public trustee.
One thing worries me about that. It is only a slight worry but it is important to many people. The sort of estates about which we are talking here would be largely small estates. We are dealing therefore with poor families. I noticed, as I am sure your Lordships did, when looking at this Bill that the estimated cost of carrying out its provisions will be in the region of £30,000, and that that will be met,
"by a structure of fees for service, search of register and provision of copies".
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord could help us by saying that the fees that will be charged have already been thought about and that the amount of those fees will be nominal. I looked at the figure of £30,000 and I had in my imagination some of the people who will be applying for the copies, the searches and the service. I trust that those charges will be nominal.
At the outset of his remarks, the noble and learned Lord referred to the Law Commission reports and his joy at the fact that at least two of them were now being brought into effect by a Bill of this kind. He also called attention to the Jellicoe Report. Perhaps I may quote from page 55 of that report, where the recommendation to which the noble and learned Lord referred was summarised. I shall read paragraphs 183 and 184:
"We recommend the experimental use of special standing committee procedure—whereby committees off the floor would be able to take a limited amount of evidence on a bill from interested parties over a specified period before considering it clause by clause. Such committees would initially consider only bills introduced in the Lords, largely devoid of party-political controversy … This procedure would be well suited to the proposals put forward by the Lord Chancellor to facilitate the introduction of certain legal and technical Bills, for example
1274
certain bills proposed by the two Law Commissions or those concerning company law, which might not otherwise find a place in the legislative programme"
Nobody has suffered disappointment alt the slow way in which the Law Commission reports find their way to the statute book more than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. A number of your Lordships—and I humbly include myself—have pleaded that those worthy reports (as they are) dealing with law reform too often sleep upon the shelf and gather dust.
It was, I believe, only last September when the chairman of the Law Commission, Mr. Justice Brooke, wrote in a legal journal, after describing the procedures that the commissions go through:
"What happens then? The present position is well described; in our latest Annual Report, which can be found in all the Inn libraries. Increasingly often, nothing at all, at any rate for a very long time. The wheel has turned full circle since 1965. There are now thirty Law Commission reports, incorporating law reform recommendations of high quality, which are waiting for parliamentary time. All of them are in areas of law where the law was known to be thoroughly bad or out of date when the Commission originally embarked on its work, and everything we do is, of course, paid for by the taxpayer".
We have pleaded for parliamentary time. It is not the fault of this House that these reports have not found their way into the legislative programme. And in another place they are not given the priority that they deserve. Perhaps it is because of the parliamentary time that would be taken if these matters were discussed on the Floor of the House. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, the Jellicoe Report recommendation, which has been carried out in respect of this Bill, may well enable these 28 reports (if I may subtract the two from the 30) to be considered and to find their place in our legislative programme. I believe that that is the wish of the noble and learned Lord. I can only say that in that he is warmly supported by those who sit on this side of the House, and I believe by those sitting elsewhere. I commend this Bill to the House for its Second Reading.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am very happy indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in what he said about the introduction of the Bill. As noble Lords know, on many occasions I have advocated and pressed upon the Government and upon the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the greater and quicker implementation of Law Commission reports. It is therefore very gratifying to see a success in that direction—a success attributable to the efforts of the noble and learned Lord in having this Bill put into the parliamentary process.
One's satisfaction must, however, be tempered by a little anxiety. The latest report, its 28th report, makes clear that the Law Commission had hoped that there would be speedy implementation, using the Jellicoe Report procedure, not only of this Bill relating to two matters concerning the law of property but also of three other, totally non-controversial Bills in the area of private international law. The noble and learned Lord has succeeded in getting the two property measures into the programme but not, unhappily, the other three.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has testified that it involves a very great effort on the pad of the noble and

1275
learned Lord to persuade those in charge of the programme to let into it the Law Commission Bills. Noble Lords should not be deceived by the easy presentation of the noble and learned Lord and fail to appreciate the very great efforts he has made over the past year—I understand that it has taken about a year —to persuade those in another place and in this House also to allow the programme to include these measures.
Therefore, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on having got the Bill into the programme. But we must most respectfully urge him to continue his efforts in the same direction so as to get, first, the three completely technical and non-controversial private international law Bills into the programme and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the 28, or 25, other Bills to which the Law Commission report refers. Your Lordships will find in the report a very trenchant and, if I may say so, effective review of the whole matter and a case, which is quite unanswerable, for requiring Parliament to give time for future reports.
As for the two areas covered by the Bill, I have very little to say. The first part deals with implied covenants; it is an entirely desirable simplification. I have no doubt about that. I have only one anxiety about it; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, will be able to say something about the matter. Nowadays, particularly with the spread of registration, conveyancing is becoming very largely a DIY matter. More and more people go into shops and buy the right form, or excellent books can be bought. One book is published by the Consumers' Association. I know many people who, instead of consulting one of my learned friends in the professions, prefer to do things themselves. I wonder how the Bill will accommodate the very large amount of resources at present available to those wishing to carry out their conveyancing themselves.
The Bill provides for adaptation of existing statutory forms in Clause 9 and provides for them to be read as adapted to the provisions of the Bill. But as regards commercial forms, which can be obtained from a stationers' office, I suppose that there has to be time before they can be adapted to the new terminology. The noble and learned Lord may well think fit to delay or adapt the coming into force of this part of the Bill in order to enable private industry and private enterprise to adapt existing forms to the new simpler requirements of the Bill. That is my only thought on Part I of the Bill.
As regards Part II, I too had noticed the existence of fees and the reference to £30,000. One knows that, under Parkinson's law, if a sum of money is provided, one can be quite certain that it will be spent. There is a provision in the Bill which states that the Public Trustee, simply by virtue of the fact that he takes over from the probate judge, does not have any duties or responsibilities. That way, as he does not have any duties, presumably he cannot charge anything. Nevertheless, there are provisions about notices which may have to be given and for which fees can apparently be charged. Again, very respectfully, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. One has to keep a watch on the matter because, as he said, the estates in question in the Bill may be quite small.
1276
I make just one other general point. In the drafting of the Bill one notices a very skilled hand. To me, it is very refreshing and satisfactory to find simple language, even in a very technical context, used in the drafting of the Bill. It is easily understood and easily applied by lay persons. Would that many other pieces of legislation were as simple. I feel that the Law Commission is greatly to be commended for the style in which the Bill has been drafted. I should like to hold it up as a model for legislation in other areas. I join in commending the passage of Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. It contains two useful measures based on Law Commission reports. I also welcome the Motion to commit the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. I suspect that if the Bill were to go into Committee of the Whole House its credentials would be taken as an open and shut matter and we should probably have no further debate. Neither part of the Bill is in any way contentious. I have no reason to suppose that the Special Standing Committee will wish to make amendments. But if there is anything which can improve the Bill, I feel that it is more likely to happen under the new procedure than it would if the Committee were taken on the Floor of the House.
With Law Commission Bills in particular, I feel that it is useful to have the opportunity to hear from a Law Commissioner and from outside interests before the Committee proceeds to examine the Bill in detail, clause by clause. I personally have no experience of the work of Public or Private Bill committees off the Floor of the House. I imagine that the evidence taken in the first stage would include the opinions of witnesses as to whether or not a particular phrase or clause should be included in the Bill or omitted from it. That would seem to me to be of inestimable value and would save a great deal of time when it comes to the Committee stage itself.
More important perhaps, I feel sure that in a Bill of this nature the Committee would wish to avail itself of the experience of the Law Society. The Bill touches aspects not only of the law but also of the practice—that seems to me an important point - of conveyancing and the transfer of property. In response to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, I believe that the Bill—certainly the first part of it—so far as conveyancers go, is a rather sophisticated measure. I do not believe that it will make it any easier for people who are buying or selling their houses to do it for themselves.
We currently hear from the Law Society, and properly so, on such matters as the right to silence. We are not accustomed to hearing as much on matters such as those in the Bill, which are rather dusty and which affect most of us in our lives from time to time, whether or not we appreciate it.
I should like to say just a few words about the first part of the Bill. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum begins with the words:
"This Bill introduces reforms to simplify and clarify the law of property".

1277
With respect, so far as statutory covenants for title are concerned, in my opinion the Bill will fail in its best intentions if it merely simplifies and clarifies. It ought to alter practice. As I read its report, the Law Commission expects much the same.
I have looked particularly at the proposed new full guarantee of freedom from incumbrances in Clause 3(1), which seems to me to be a most important provision. It would seem to impose on a vendor a much greater liability than exists under the present law to disclose incumbrances, including incumbrances of which the vendor may not be aware and incumbrances of which in fact the purchaser may be aware. Let me give an example. As I read the Bill, a public right of way across property would be an incumbrance to which the full guarantee would apply. A purchaser only has to look at the appropriate ordnance survey map and he will see whether or not there is a right of way. Nevertheless, the vendor cannot be sure that the purchaser will do that, so the vendor will have to specifically disclose that there is a right of way.
To take another example, a private right of way between two points may have come into existence because of a hideous legal fiction known as the doctrine of lost modern grant. That requires, among other things, at least 20 years usage of the claimed right. There are those who say that prescribing for easements amounts to legalised trespass and should form no part of our law. The Law Reform Committee recommended as much nearly 30 years ago.
There may be a right of way which has been acquired by prescription and the vendor may know nothing at all about it. He may only have owned the land himself for a few years. If he fails to disclose the right he will be liable under the full guarantee whereas at present he will escape liability because he did not create the right.
As I understand it, the intention of the Law Commission seems to involve a slight loosening of the principle of caveat emptor. I am inclined to feel that that is reasonable and that in cases of difficulty such as I described, if there is to be loss it should fall on the vendor rather than the purchaser. But we must remember that the full guarantee is optional. The Bill allows the parties to vary it. Generally speaking, my experience is that vendors will be in a better position to water down the full guarantee than purchasers will be to insist on its inclusion in a conveyance in its full, unadulterated form.
Therefore, there seems to me to be a danger that the full guarantee may become the exception rather than the rule in conveyancing wherever there is a hint of difficulty. If that happens, it will be unfortunate. That is why I referred to the importance of evidence from the Law Society arising from the profession's experience of practice as well as of the law of property. Having struck that sombre note, I conclude on an upbeat and wish the Bill every success.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to make a brief intervention. I support Part I of the Bill and in particular I welcome Clauses 8(4) and 9.
1278
Having been involved for some years in the preparation of legal documents in the Welsh language I am sure that there will be a special welcome for those two clauses.
When the lawyer is drawing up the legal document in Welsh and wishes to create those well-known covenants which are implied in certain statutory words, he has been in considerable difficulty. I believe that the two clauses propose a satisfactory solution which will be widely accepted. They close the gap and the Welsh terminology, gwarant llawn and gwarant cyfyngedig convey the meaning with precision.
7.53 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate for the warm welcome given to the Bill and for the kind remarks that accompanied that welcome. In particular, I greatly appreciate my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce coming to the House this evening. I know that he has done so at considerable personal sacrifice.
I am anxious that Law Commission reports whose policy has been generally accepted should be legislated. It is true that there are a number awaiting legislation. The great advantage of this procedure, if it works well —as I hope it will —is that it will open up a new method for dealing with these Bills. I hope that we can count on co-operation from all parts of both this House and the other place in that regard in due course. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce referred to the other three reports awaiting implementation. I felt it right to try to progress one group through by the new procedures and experiment in the hope that that works so well that it will be easy to progress the others. I hope that that will be so.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine pointed out that it is one thing to simplify the law and another to implement improvements in practice. He pointed out that the full guarantee will be optional, according to the Bill. I certainly hope that simplification of the law will lead to improvements in practice and that the Law Society and practitioners will be able to use these clear options to give their clients—both vendor and purchaser—what is agreed. The options will clarify the distinction between the two. If a vendor is not prepared to give a full guarantee, attention may be focused on why and thus bring out the sort of question referred to by my noble friend.
I appreciate the remarks made about the form of the legislation. One of the benefits of a Law Commissioner is that he is often not subject to quite the same timetabled constraints in the drafting of legislation as are other proponents of legislation. The polish is sometimes evident as a result of that. In relation to fees —a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce and to some extent by my noble friend Lord Coleraine—the Public Trustee gave thought to the sort of fees that would be required. The view of the Public Trustee is that fees in most cases will be relatively modest and there will be no profit element. They will simply cover the cost of doing the work.
In relation to outstanding Law Commission reports, some of them are not suitable for this procedure. For

1279
example, one of the 28 is the Law Commission's report on the grounds for divorce. Your Lordships will understand that I am doing my best to carry that forward. However, I do not think it is likely to come by the Jellicoe procedure. Therefore, we need to be a little selective, and judgment about which are properly subject to this procedure is probably necessary. Otherwise we may damage this channel for dealing with the cases for which it is suitable. I hope that the Special Standing Committee procedure will prove useful in the way mentioned by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in obtaining practical evidence about how the changes might work.
In relation to the introduction of new forms, your Lordships will see that the commencement provisions are by order, and I should certainly like to take account of the need to change current forms before the Bill comes into force after some notice that that was my intention. That may help to cope with the problem.
I am grateful to all noble Lords. It may help us if proceedings are not too extended. I do not believe that they have been, due to the co-operation of your Lordships. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Special Standing Committee.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.5 p.m.]

Sunday Trading Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 7, leave out from ("and") to ("plants") in line 8 and insert ("which is not open for the sale of any goods other than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment is precisely the same as that of the previous amendment. We want to take out "wholly or mainly" and insert "any goods other than". Thus, paragraph 3(1) (c) of Schedule 1 would read,
"any shop which is a nursery, garden centre or do-it-yourself home improvement shop, or both, and which is not open for the sale of any goods other than plants, garden supplies and accessories or materials and tools suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings".
The paragraph would be limited by the fact that the goods must be any goods included in that list but no goods other than the goods included in that list. However, there are differences between this amendment and the previous amendment in the sense that Schedule 1 to the Bill seeks to modify and restrict a much wider series of goods. We have here plants, garden supplies, accessories, materials, tools,
"suitable for use in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration".
We have a wide set of goods for sale as against the very narrow list of things which were to be released from the constrictions of the six-hour option in the previous amendment.
Secondly, it was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in relation to the amendment in Committee that what he was talking about was necessary and emergency related. It dealt with cycle parts and car parts —supplies which might be required for cars that had broken down on motorways and so on. None of that can be said in respect of the exceptions which are being claimed in relation to this amendment. We are in the world of leisure. We are in the world of non-necessities. Indeed, the main argument of the mover of the amendment and his allies in Committee was the almost unmotivated pleasure which would come from unlimited opening of garden centres and do-it-yourself shops. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, referred to the,
"enhancement of the Sunday pastimes".—[Official Report, 14/4/94; col. 1663.]
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred (at col. 1669) to Sunday outings where "families browse". The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the enjoyment, the exercise and the enrichment which came from unrestricted access to garden centres and do-it-yourself emporia.
There were two subsidiary arguments of a more mundane kind. When the amendments were moved, it was admitted that this was big business. It was admitted that there were 6 million customers each Sunday. It was admitted that between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the business was done on Sunday. It was also said that not only was it big business, but they were big shops; and that several of them were certainly several times the size of a tennis court or several times the size of this Chamber.
What was being said was that the same objections which were raised in respect of the previous amendment could be raised here and with more force because already both garden centres and do-it-yourself establishments engaged in a very wide range of activities. They sell everything from barbecue kits to clothes, Christmas lights, cookers, carpets, cleaning materials, china and glass.
When one looks at the list which we have been sent by various interested parties, it would appear that between them, garden centres and the do-it-yourself shops sell everything except houses and theatre tickets. Already they do that so that in effect the defence that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as regards the previous amendment—namely, that they kept within their business tasks and that all we need worry about was whether they might do it in future—was not the case. These people who were half of the six-hour compromise; who campaigned for it and who themselves were the leaders in breaking the existing law, in fact were already operating a "wholly or mainly" philosophy. Already, as some people have said, 35 per cent. of their sales have nothing to do with do-it-yourself or garden centres.
It therefore follows that they would resist much more strongly—because it is much more serious to them—what we were saying as regards the previous

1281
amendment about the problems of "wholly or mainly" because one would have to identify the qualifying goods. There is a very long list to choose from because as it is now stated in the Bill, there is almost everything in it as it stands, but nevertheless the problem would be: what were the qualifying goods? Would it be a step-ladder, a curtain rail, and what kind of furniture is DIY?
As I tried to say to the House in connection with the previous amendment, all these problems are not solved by using "wholly or mainly" because one has to have qualifying goods. If one is trying to observe the implications of the new law, one is trying to have other goods which are subsidiary to those goods and one is trying to quantify what is the proportion of goods which is not "wholly" but only "mainly".
Therefore we say that as regards this amendment, to leave an amendment of the kind which was passed at Committee stage without the modifications I am proposing in my amendment, would be to make nonsense of the whole idea of the six-hour option. It would create a whole range of anomalies in which all kinds of shops would be disadvantaged, both large and small, and in which those who could qualify under the terms of this paragraph as it stands at the moment, would be given very serious advantages over their competitors. It would also make nonsense of everything which has been attempted in this Bill until now. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lard Norrie: My Lords, once again I speak as someone who has been connected with the garden centre trade for 20 years. Amendment No. 7 aims to destroy an exemption made in respect of garden and home improvements which was supported by this House only three weeks ago. That support reflects what the ordinary citizen wants as anyone who has visited a garden centre or home improvement store last Sunday, would have observed.
There are two issues involved here. The first is whether garden centres and home improvement stores should be exempt from the six-hour restriction; and, secondly, how that exemption could best be achieved. The first issue was decided in Committee on 14th April. The principle was not a controversial one. Garden centres and home improvement stores were specifically exempted in the regulatory option. It was supported by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, himself. It is far from surprising that they should have been exempted since that is what the overwhelming majority of the public wants. As my noble friend Lord Hacking and I mentioned at Committee stage, over 20 years of trading has demonstrated that as did the Northampton experiment earlier this year when the garden and home improvement centres restricted their opening times from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. just to test people's reactions.
As regards the second point, there was anxiety as to how the exemption should be achieved. Principally, noble Lords were anxious that this marginal relaxation should not pave the way for a spate, of less desirable amendments. I believe that my noble friend Lord Hacking will probably explain that it would not have
1282
that effect. If, under certain circumstances, a dispute should arise as to the meaning of the words "wholly or mainly" it will be adjudicated by those who are best able to decide such an issue; namely, the magistrates. In other words, in the extremely unlikely event that the local authority has difficulty, the magistrates will make the decision as to whether in fact the outlet in question is a garden centre or a home improvement store. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made that point.
Let us try to take a clear look at what this amendment would achieve in practice. For one-third of their opening time it would close, or render liable to huge fines, practically all 1,400 garden centres and 900 home improvement stores which have, for upwards of 20 years, rightly or wrongly traded between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. I believe that the public would be entitled to believe that we, as legislators, are of unsound mind. Those for whom Sunday represents their only opportunity to work on the home or in the garden would be unable to get their wallpaper or their plants early on Sunday mornings. My noble friend Lord Ferrers; has acknowledged the severe restrictions which would be imposed. Noble Lords may ask why the customer cannot get his wallpaper or plants on Sunday. It is because those garden centres and home improvement stores stock various sideline items. They are gift items in the case of garden centres and perhaps the odd box of carpet tiles in a home improvement store.
In reality, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., that is probably all they do with those sidelines. Yes, they stock them, although in practice very few of those items are actually bought during those hours. We want to avoid the nonsense of sideline being identified and then, under this amendment, removed. That takes us back to the 1950s.
Allowing this amendment, or a similar constraint, takes the plain issue of definition away from the magistrates' courts. More importantly perhaps, it would build an immediate and unnecessary pressure against this regulation which we seek to impose. Leaving matters as they now are in the Bill is our best chance of carrying the public with us in a workable scheme of regulation. The 1950 Act commanded no such support from the public, the local authorities or the courts and hence it was not enforced. We need to learn that lesson.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it has to be understood (because it does not seem to be understood) that the only reason this amendment is in the Marshalled List tonight is because at Committee stage a successful attempt was made to drive a coach and horses through the Bill as it came from the other place. Now I hope that the House does not complain when some of us, and particularly my noble friend Lord McCarthy, by to make sense of what the House agreed in Committee; namely, to seek to define what can be sold in garden centres and do-it-yourself stores.
I could do it but, like many noble Lords, I have had a letter from the John Lewis Partnership who are experts in this matter. It is a decent, upright and honest department store which treats both its customers and staff fairly and which is respected throughout the land.

1283
What is more, it is a firm that did not break the law. It upheld the law in spite of the fact that it must have suffered some detriment for so doing.
It should be interesting to the House to hear what that decent and upright firm has to say—in any event, I want to read it into the record. Its third paragraph states:
"What does 'wholly or mainly' mean? In Committee none of the advocates of the amendment could say—only that it was a matter for the Courts to decide".
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has just said. The paragraph continues:
"So the Partnership has obtained Counsel's Opinion from Mr. Charles Flint who is on the panel of Treasury Counsel and specialises in public law matters. He advises that for a business to qualify, it would only be necessary that 'the principal purpose of opening the shop is to sell qualifying goods' and that 'the effect of the current draft is that a DIY shop could lawfully sell a wide range of supplies, going beyond those to be used in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings, and the amount of such non-DIY supplies could amount to a substantial proportion of the sales made by the shop'. Furthermore 'as this is a criminal statute any ambiguity in interpretation will lead to it being construed in favour of a defendant who is prosecuted'".
That concludes the advice.
The John Lewis Partnership goes on to say:
"In other words he endorses the fears expressed by many who spoke against the amendment at Committee stage".
The letter continues:
"We have also updated our research into the range of goods sold by DIY shops, garden centres etc. In summary, among the major DIY chains there are already shops selling furniture, kitchens, lighting, telephones, small electrical items, blinds and carpets. As far back as 1988 nearly a quarter of the turnover of such shops came from these areas".
That is according to a report from the Economist Intelligence Unit.
The letter continues:
"And it is a developing situation. In searching for higher profit margins, the list has expanded and non-DIY goods in the most recently opened centres include furnishing fabrics, linens, large electrical goods, gifts and decorating accessories, pictures and mirrors, china, glassware and cutlery".
No wonder the John Lewis Partnership is concerned about the amendments which were carried in Committee. Undoubtedly, they put a firm like the John Lewis Partnership, and other department stores, most of which obeyed the law throughout the time that others broke it, at an extreme disadvantage. That is why my noble friend's amendment is sensible, reasonable and fair and that is why the House should support it.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me a pity that this amendment should be being moved again. We went through these exact arguments with the previous amendment and the House rejected the arguments extremely harshly, with a vote of about 20 to 90. It is a great pity to go through all the arguments again, such as those about whether one can define the phrase "wholly or mainly". They apply to the previous amendment as much as to this. It is a great pity that this amendment has been moved because we are going over the same old ground a second time.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I supported the rejection of the last amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, but I am much more in favour of this one. Perhaps I could explain the differences that I see. I was involved for some long time in running a motor shop and there is
1284
not much opportunity for abuse when you are running that kind of business. We could have added racks of skirts; we could have added sandwich bars or almost anything that you care to think of, and we would not have sold any of it because a shop selling spares for motor cars is not a congenial place for buying much else. You can sell a few tools; you can sell a few books to do with cars, but people come in there to think, talk and buy car spares and they do not come in there to do other things. That is why those sorts of shops have never developed large scale abuses.
But the same does not apply to DIY shops and garden centres. Indeed, it is obvious from what has been said this evening that there are already large scale abuses. It has always been the practice as long as I can remember for garden centres to sell animals—often in very large quantities on every plant! There have been many other examples given this evening of ways in which these classes of stores will use the exemptions which they are given under the Bill as it now stands to compete unfairly with stores which are restricted. But I still have a problem with the particular wording which has been chosen by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I think that in putting an absolute shut-off in the words "no goods other than", it is going to create an awful lot of problems as to where the dividing line is, which is and which is not, and will prevent the sale of a lot of goods that ought properly to be sold by DIY shops and garden centres.
What I would prefer to see and what I hope we shall see at Third Reading is an amendment to take out the word "mainly" and to substitute "very substantially" which to my mind and in my experience would mean something closer to 80 or 90 per cent. of turnover.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I noted what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but I do hope nonetheless to introduce perhaps a couple of points that were not made on the previous amendment. The first point is that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, when moving his amendment No. 5 said that the vagueness of the phrase "wholly or mainly" simply meant that it would have to be left to the courts to decide precisely what was meant by it. I think that is a very regrettable and defeatist view to be expressed in your Lordships' House. My own feeling is that whenever some matter in an Act has to be decided by the courts because it is not clear enough, that reflects very badly on the legislators who have sent inadequate legislation to the country.
Then again, the noble Earl said that "mainly"—I understood him to say—meant anything up to 90 per cent. That is the language that he used—not more than 90 per cent., but up to 90 per cent.; presumably from 51 per cent. to 90 per cent. What that means, in fact, is that any of these shops that we are talking about would be able to carry on their business although practically half of what they were selling were not articles covered by the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I am sure that the noble Earl to whom he refers made a slip of the tongue and that what he actually meant was 90 per cent. to 100 per

1285
cent.—not 51 per cent. to 90 per cent. I am absolutely certain that that 'was the meaning, although the noble Ear] is not here at the moment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for making that point because I think that if we look at the Official Report tomorrow we will find that what the noble Earl did say —because I wrote it down at the time—was "up to 90 per cent". If it is "from 90 to 100 per cent.", that, of course, makes it much more acceptable.
I just draw attention to the fact that in Amendment No. 9, to which I have put my name, we have chosen the same language that my noble friend Lord McCarthy is trying to put into this amendment and to say "any goods other than" and I feel that we were absolutely right to chose that. I think that it is far better to have a phrase that can be understood without any doubt.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, of all the observations —my noble friend is seeking to say something to me.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am extremely sorry, but my noble friend is once again transgressing by speaking in the Gangway.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I shall lock myself in so that I do not transgress again. It so happens that there are no noble Lords going up and down the Gangway who can he disturbed by my position in it.
Of all the comments that have been made during this evening's proceedings, the one that has caused me the greatest concern is the one made by my noble friend Lord Lucas when he talked of large-scale abuses. Since the matter came before your Lordships' House, I have visited a number of garden centres, DIY stores and motor and cycle supply shops. I went round a number of them last weekend. I found no large-scale abuses. If one visits a garden centre, one finds an entity that is unmistakably and unquestionably a garden centre, and similarly with a DIY store and motor and cycle supply shops. What one does find are a few sidelines. That is partly what we are trying to deal with this evening.
I have been trying to get a message over to those noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who have been worried about the words "wholly or mainly". I sent a handwritten letter to him, but unfortunately I have been unable to speak to him. The message that I have been trying to get over is that we are all agreed; we are all on the same side. Those of us who have been seeking exemptions for garden centres and DIY stores have not been seeking exemptions for multiple stores; we have been seeking exemptions for those stones which are genuinely carrying out the business of garden centres and DIY stores. Furthermore, we have tried to give comfort to those noble Lords who have been concerned.
We have pointed out that, contrary to the views expressed by Mr. Charles Flint of Counsel, Section 101 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 applies. If a defendant is relying upon an exemption, the burden is on him to prove that he fits into that exemption. We have also said that before one even reaches the words
1286
"wholly or mainly", the first test that the magistrates' court has to apply is the test of whether the entity is a garden centre or a DIY store. If, for example, a DIY store is selling a large quantity—40 per cent. or more or less—of goods that are not genuine home improvement goods, how can a magistrates' court, which has the opportunity to visit the premises, come to the conclusion that that is a DIY store within the Bill? Similarly how can a store be a garden centre when it is selling a multitude of goods which are not in the category of garden supplies?.
Certain items are made available and sold, as I noticed when I was going around garden centres and DIY stores during the past few weeks, which do not come strictly within the definition of a garden plant or garden accessory. They are all ancillary. For example, there may be books relating to gardening, cards which picture gardens, dried flowers, or even things like barbecue sets or pottery. Those are the extra items that are available to the public. They are there because the public likes to have the opportunity to buy certain products which are associated closely with the main business of the store but which are not central to it. It is only that flexibility that we have been seeking to achieve.
There are many other protections through which I could take your Lordships. There is planning consent, for example. Planning consents for DIY stores in out-of-town centres almost invariably carry tight restrictions on the use of the site. Landlords' leases also contain restrictions. We are not dealing with the matter in isolation; there is a whole structure in society which will contain all of these shops. There is also the very practical point; that is, when your Lordships go into a garden centre, you are not going in to buy a packet of cornflakes, margarine or similar products; you are going into that store to buy the products that that store is holding itself out to sell. Thus commercial reasons also add restraints.
There is another factor which is of some importance. If garden centres and DIY stores are kept within the exempt status and the discipline of the exempt status that I am urging upon your Lordships, that will encourage them to remain selling only their core goods. Once that is taken away from them, and they are placed in the position of having to trade against multiple stores, it is then that I venture to suggest that the exclusivity of DIY stores and garden centres could be lost.
Much has been said about the definition of "wholly or mainly", but there is something that we have already been doing in debate, and something that we could perhaps do with greater clarity on Third Reading. Since the Pepper judgment was given by your Lordships' House, the courts have had the right to look at our Official Report to get clearly what is the intent of Parliament. We have already begun to develop guidelines. I should join willingly with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and my noble friend the Minister to define our intent. I know what my intent is. I moved the amendment which is now subject to proposed revision by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. My intent when

1287
moving the amendment was to do no more and no less than to give a freedom of hours to garden centres and DIY stores which are genuinely trading as such.
I hope that those observations are helpful. We are all on the same side. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will recognise that.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned the Pepper judgment. Is it not the case that that refers only to statements made by the Minister at the time the Bill is going through Parliament?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I do not believe that it is restricted to that degree. In any event, this is not a government Bill. It is a Bill that rests with your Lordships. If the courts were looking for further assistance in the interpretation of the Bill, it would be entirely proper for them to look at our debates and to those who moved the amendment, because there they will find the intent. It is this intent which persuaded your Lordships to put the amendment into the Bill, and therefore as a matter of logic, the courts can find the intent from our speeches.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, at this quiet hour of the night, I do not want to add much to the powerful remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, against the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, moved it with such attractive moderation, if I may say so, that it is possible that he might be persuaded that this is not the occasion upon which he wants to take it to a on. I listened to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He was less moderate when engaging in his hyperbole when he said that the amendment agreed by this place on 14th April would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. It may drive a wheelbarrow and a few harmless plants through the Bill, but the idea that it will entirely reverse the purport of the House in its decision on 29th March is surely foolish.
I share the noble Lord's admiration for the John Lewis Partnership, but I cannot believe that, with its fine record of giving value for money and its first-rate management and staff, it will find it impossible to compete merely because the House decides to retain the amendment as made in Committee.
The other day I resolved to create a new lawn in the garden of my house in London which I had just moved into. Late on Sunday I discovered that I did not know how to do it. I went to my garden centre and bought the Royal Horticultural Society's Step-by-Step Book of Gardening Techniques. That was wholly relevant to my do-it-yourself gardening on Sunday afternoon. I would not be bothered, and I do not believe that the John Lewis Partnership would be bothered—indeed, I do not know who would be bothered - if some other person at some other time wishes to buy the Royal Horticultural Society's Step-by-Step Book of Gardening Techniques and happens to buy it from a garden centre which is open. That is being only reasonable and not dogmatic or slightly ideological. None of us wishes to be ideological
1288
about the Bill. We want it to be a good Bill that is based on common sense and we wish to support amendments on their merits.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, argued that Amendment No. 7 was unlike Amendment No. 6. He claimed that the amendment passed by the House on 14th April opened the door very wide. It does not open it very wide. But even if it opened only a little more, the case against the amendment is that which prevailed in the House in respect of the previous amendment. We discussed the matter fully and the House made a decision. It was not a decision that everyone liked but it was reached after mature consideration. Surely it is now for another place to decide whether it likes our amendment and, if not, to reject it. It is not for us this evening to make a Bill more complicated than it need be. I hope that on those grounds, if on no other, your Lordships will reject this amendment too.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in Committee your Lordships agreed to amend the Bill to provide that large DIY shops and garden centres should be allowed to trade at any hour on a Sunday. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, many of your Lordships had anxieties about those amendments, which I shared. The Government did not, and do not, seek to intervene. We must wait to see what another place does about the matter.
The 1950 Shops Act has been roundly criticised in the 44 years since its enactment for the anomalies which it produced. As your Lordships are aware, Schedule 5 to that Act permits only certain transactions to take place on a Sunday. So, a shop can open legally to sell partly-cooked tripe on a Sunday but not to sell baked beans. We are all familiar with many similar examples.
The model which was proposed by the Shopping Hours Reform Council, and which is now in the Bill as the choice of another place and of your Lordships, attempted to do away with that kind of approach in order to keep the law as simple and as enforceable as possible. But the amendments which some noble Lords seek to introduce would mark at least a partial step back to what one might call a "transaction type" test. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would mean that the shops in question—that is the DIY stores and the garden centres—could not open for the sale of any goods at all other than those listed in the Bill, save in respect of the six-hour period which is allowed to all large stores, when they will be able to sell anything they liked.
Some of your Lordships may agree with the noble Lords that a step backwards may be a necessary step to take if it makes the provisions fairer. But the key question which your Lordships need to consider is whether the amendments before us represent a practicable proposition.
The way these amendments are meant to operate in practice, I fancy, is that DIY stores and garden centres would be able to sell their full product range for the six hours which is allowed to all large shops on a Sunday by the Bill, but the amendments would restrict their sales outside that six-hour period to the specific goods which are allowed by the amendment. In the case of DIY

1289
stores, that would be materials and tools which would be suitable for us in the construction, maintenance, repair or decoration of the structure of dwellings.
I do not know how many of your Lordships are DIY enthusiasts. I must admit that it is not one of my favourite pastimes. I hate doing it—I am not very good at it either. However, I am advised that DIY stores sell a great number of things which are not used to repair or decorate the structure of dwellings.
So, if this amendment were passed, DIY stores who wish to enjoy the exemption would not be permitted, for example, to sell washing up bowls unless it could be shown that the bowl could be used for decorating a house. And the sad fact is that if these amendments are agreed, there may very well be cases which will turn on whether a washing up bowl or other such item is or is not a decorating requisite. Would that be a sensible improvement to the Bill?.
Under these amendments, a DIY shop enjoying its exemption could sell an electric plug to be used on an electric drill but it could not sell a plug to be used on a hairdryer unless the hairdryer were to be used to dry paint. Most DIY stores sell smoke alarms but sales of these would not be permitted outside the six-hour period, nor would sales of fire extinguishers. One then asks whether a curtain track can be considered as an item which is used to decorate the structure of dwellings. If your Lordships believe that it would, I ask your Lordships whether they would be so confident about curtain hooks. These are the questions which will plague local authority inspectors and the courts if we agree to the noble Lord's amendments.
Many of these stores sell sweets at the check-out point. Sweets, quite clearly, would not be permitted beyond the six-hour period. I imagine that parents with their arms full of paint, wallpaper and screaming children would find it somewhat bizarre if they were told that they could buy the paint and the wallpaper but the children would have to go on screaming because they could not buy sweets at the check-out point. One wonders whether that is a practical proposition.
Your Lordships might feel that such problems would be worth bearing in order to make the exemption fairer. Or your Lordships might consider that it would be better to leave the provision as it stands and accept that, although DIYs will sell some items which are not strictly necessary when it comes to repairing or decorating, that is part of the price which we have to pay for allowing the exemption in the first place.
As I have said, these are matters entirely for your Lordships. The Government would not seek to persuade your Lordships but I know which way I would go.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, as we come to one amendment after another, of course, we have heard the argument all before. One of the main reasons that we shall hear it a lot more is because people keep trying to upset the balance of the Bill. We have more amendments to come and the same comments will be made about those who table them unless we become tired and fed up and walk away. The answer to them will be the same and the debate will continue. The reason
1290
that it has lasted so long and that it is only half over is because there are many more things that people wish to drive through the exemption clauses in the Bill.
Therefore, one is bound to be repetitive because one is answering repetitive questions. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said that this is what ordinary citizens want. But it has been said from that side of the House by the noble Baroness Lady Young, who is not now in her place, that we do not know what ordinary citizens want. It is not just a question of what ordinary citizens want. However, we are not trying to achieve what ordinary citizens want. The amendment, which is the basis of Schedule 1 of the present Bill, seeks to achieve a balance between what workers want and what the large and small shops want. In fact, we are trying to find a balance between the conflicting interests. That has been said over and over again and will be said several more times this evening.
The noble Earl assumes that I agreed with the Keep Sunday Special acceptance of the Bill. One did not do that. There were three options: total deregulation, the six-hour option, and the Keep Sunday Special campaign. One picked the option that one found to be closest to one's heart's desire. One was not able to pick out one part of it. From my point of view, I should not have agreed to that part in any event. But that is not the issue. We had three different options and, in the end, most of us selected the six-hour option. That is the position which I am now trying to defend.
I am told that it is narrow, special pleading. Most of the changes proposed this evening are narrow, special pleadings. Arguments are being brought forward on behalf of different groups. Later there is art amendment dealing with bookshops. I am very fond of bookshops. One can make money out of bookshops. But that is special pleading. All the amendments seek to disturb the balance of the Bill.
I have been around this matter before and perhaps I shall go round it subsequently. The problem is not solved by saying that it is difficult to define the number and precise nature of what is to be included if my amendment is accepted. If the "wholly or mainly" provision is accepted, the same questions arise. The noble Earl mentioned curtain rails and items of that kind. It will have to be decided whether they fall under the "wholly or mainly" provision and in what proportion they are being sold. In that case, there are two problems, rather than one. The noble Earl said that there are difficulties and uncertainties which will produce litigation. However, the use of the phrase "wholly or mainly" does not solve the problem unless one believes—and I am not saying that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, believes this—that that provision is included in the Bill because we know that it cannot be enforced. We do not care. It is merely an undercover way of achieving deregulation. If that phrase is taken seriously, it is twice as difficult.
Nevertheless, I realise that I shall not get far this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested another word to me and I may think about that and perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading. With all that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("the structure of dwellings") and insert ("buildings").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment with which I hope your Lordships will be able to deal without difficulty.
It has been suggested by parliamentary draftsmen that the words "the structure of dwellings" in reference to the materials and tools suitable for the construction, maintenance and repair or decoration of buildings is too narrow a definition. It has been pointed out that DIY enthusiasts can, with suitable planning permission, become involved in the building of garages, garden huts and houses, perhaps an Irish folly or two, gazebos, sundials and patios. Therefore, it is thought that the word "buildings" would be more suitable with regard to this exemption in the Bill. It is a purely technical amendment and I hope that it will be treated as such. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most surprised by this amendment and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, should move it, bearing in mind the way in which he told off my noble friend Lord McCarthy for daring to try to interfere with an amendment which was moved in Committee. Now the noble Lord is trying to amend that amendment himself.
He says that it is a simple amendment; that someone may wish to construct a garden folly and that is a building. I took the trouble to look up the word "building" in the dictionary. The dictionary definition of a building is:
"A permanent fixed thing built for occupation, as a house, school, factory, stable".
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to widen this measure to a very great extent indeed. Of course, if this amendment is accepted we shall find that all sorts of other items will be sold at garden centres or DIY stores which have no connection at all with DIY.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will give some examples.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have just given them. I have just read out the definition of a building. It means that those DIY stores could convert themselves into builders' merchants. That would enable people who wish to build schools or factories to use those do-it-yourself stores at any time that they wish to do so.
The noble Lord should make up his mind whether he wants those firms to be do-it-yourself firms because, after all, that was what was agreed in Committee. We did not agree to the use of the word "buildings". That was not the issue at all. The reason why the Committee reached that agreement was because it was felt convenient for people to go into a DIY store to enable them to decorate or repair their houses. It went no further than that.
If that is what the noble Lord really wants there is absolutely no reason for this amendment. I believe that a folly or a garden shed would be deemed by any court or by any sensible person to be part of a building. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. I hope
1292
that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind his attitude towards my noble friend on the last amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, we should remember at this stage that we are not talking about banning the sale of these goods on a Sunday. We are merely restricting the period within which they can be sold to six hours. The construction of a building is a major investment project. There is no need for a person undertaking such a project to buy the materials at eight o'clock in the morning. There can be no problem at all about waiting until ten o'clock. It is also not likely that a decision will be made at half past four and then the items have to be bought at six o'clock in the evening.
It may appear that I am speaking against myself. Even before the Bill came to this House I made it clear that I was for total deregulation because I thought that the whole thing was a nonsense. That is what it is turning out to be. However, I accept 100 per cent. that this House agreed to the compromise option. We are making fools of ourselves if we continue to whittle away at the compromise to achieve total, deregulation. If, in three or four years' time, we decide that the legislation is not working, we shall then have to reconsider and debate the deregulation option. However, we have made a decision and I believe that these discussions are crazy.
9 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I fully support the remarks just made by the noble Baroness. I believe that she is absolutely right. We have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the principle of the compromise stating that there should be no further extensions for other widening of what shops should be open. In my view, we should stick to that and we should not agree to any further extensions of opening as regards the projects now before us. I hope that all such amendments will be withdrawn, especially this one, which seeks to extend the opening hours to cover all buildings.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said. However, it seems to me that some speakers have totally discounted the possibility that the compromise, about which we have heard so much from the noble and learned Lord and others, may not be complete and perfect. Of course, it is not perfect. Therefore, as a revising Chamber, it is our duty to try to make it better within the original intentions. That inevitably means some relaxation here and some redefinition there.
It will fall to me presently to move an amendment which I hope I can persuade your Lordships is worth while. It falls within the ambit of something that was not considered at the time of the original negotiations. We would be very foolish to say, "Well, okay, we have the compromise. It is like an order in the German army. It cannot be altered, varied, challenged or in any way doubted because otherwise we will get our heads chopped off'. That is not a wise way of operating a revising Chamber. Therefore, I hope that we shall exercise due moderation in considering what possibility

1293
there is that errors and omissions were made during the course of negotiating the settlement between the Keep Sundays Special Campaign and the other groups.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may remind him that the amendment—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord is actually going to interrupt another noble Lord and not make a second speech, I should remind him that he ought to ask a question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Earl's advice—
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I could not actually hear what the noble Lord said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in that case, I shall speak very loudly. I thank the noble Lord for giving way. However, perhaps I may remind him that the amendment to which we are now speaking is an amendment to another amendment which was agreed in Committee.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I fear that I did not detect any matter of interrogation in what the noble Lord just said.
Lord Monson: My Lords, having listened carefully to both sides of the argument—both of which I think have merits—I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, might consider withdrawing his amendment and bringing it back in a slightly amended form on Third Reading so that it refers to "domestic buildings". I take the point that "buildings" could be interpreted so widely so as to allow the erection of schools, shops, factories, or whatever. However, non-domestic buildings are well known in the rating system; indeed, they almost define themselves. I believe that the phrase "domestic buildings" would cover the garage, the garden folly or whatever, and that that might answer the worries expressed on both sides of the House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it all seems to me to be slightly odd. I cannot think of anything which would be viable in a shop larger than 809 square cubics which, as your Lordships know, is the equivalent to 280 square metres. If it cannot be used for "the structure of dwellings", then it cannot be used on "buildings" and vice versa. It does not seem to matter which of the two words are put into the Bill. If the parliamentary draftsman says that the wording in the Bill is better, then we should take note of what he says.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made a pretty good meal of the amendment. However, I do not blame him for doing so. It is not often that we have to ask the noble Lord to speak up—which, incidentally, he did valiantly. Moreover, it is not often that one suggests to the noble Lord that he ought to ask a question—which, in this case, he accepted entirely but then proceeded not to ask a question. But we shall let that pass.
My noble friend Lord Hacking made it clear that in his view the amendment was essentially technical. I
1294
should just add that the Government will be bringing forward amendments on Third Reading to the amendment which my noble friend moved (and which was accepted in Committee) simply in order to tidy up the amendment in drafting terms.
One of the matters that concerned us was whether it was possible sensibly to talk about "decorating, and so on, the structure of dwellings". Most internal walls of houses today are not necessarily structural in any sense; indeed, some noble Lords might find them distinctly flimsy. We wondered whether,
"decorating the structure of dwellings"
was the equivalent of saying, in relation to cosmetics, that it is rather like "putting make-up on a skeleton".
We are not discussing a matter of substance. It seems to me that whether paint on sale in a DIY shop will be used for painting the outside of a house, the outside of a garage or the outside of a municipal building is not something that the retailer, the local authority inspector or a court could reasonably or satisfactorily determine. I thought the amendment was a matter of drafting. It is entirely a matter for your Lordships to decide, but I should have thought that the amendment as such would be an improvement. I, for one, would support it.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have no intention of taking such a technical amendment to a Division tonight. Indeed, it would just take up your Lordships time unnecessarily. The purpose of the amendment was to deal with a technical matter. It was suggested by parliamentary draftsmen and it seemed to me that it was doing no more and no less than more closely defining your Lordships' original intention when passing the other amendment in Committee.
However, if it is to be treated as a matter of controversy, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I should test the. opinion of the House, certainly orally, so that a judgment could be reached on what your Lordships truly feel about the matter. I put the amendment before your Lordships because it seemed to me that it was dealing with genuine DIY activities. It does not deal with the building of schools or factories; indeed, it is quite ridiculous to make such suggestions. It deals with activities carried out in and around the home of the DIY enthusiast. I defer to the view and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
9.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 18.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blyth, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Butterworth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

1295

Downshire, M.

Lucas, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Hacking, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Harlech, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Harris of High Cross, L.

Reay, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Henley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lawrence, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Brentford, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Falkland, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Judd, L.

Tordoff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire The Earl of Buckinghamshire moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert:

("( ) any shop which is not open for the sale of any goods other than books, audio books and book tokens").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, before I begin I wish to declare an interest. Not only am I a passionate book reader, but I have been an adviser to a major publisher in the UK—Harper Collins—for many years.
Your Lordships may recall that I withdrew a similar amendment at Committee stage. Many noble Lords may well hope that I shall do so again fairly promptly tonight, but I shall disappoint them. Last time I gave my reason for withdrawing the amendment as the lateness of the hour. However, the main reason was that I wanted to read Hansard and consider some of the comments made by your Lordships in relation to the previous amendments, particularly those relating to the difficulties of dealing with the words "wholly and mainly", which have been raised again today.
As a consequence, the amendment I put before the House tonight has been redrafted so that it is very focused on the selling of books, audio books (so that the blind are not disadvantaged) and book tokens. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that bookshops of over 3,000 square feet may open at any time on a Sunday. Surprisingly, there are 243 such bookshops over that size out of some 3,300 in England and Wales.
I await with some interest your Lordships' comments on compromise, endless whittling away of the Bill and jeopardising the Bill. But before I sit down I should like to make three points as to why I believe that bookshops should be treated in this way. In saying that, that is not special pleading.
The first reason is that shopping for books is still mainly a leisure activity. It is one that involves the family. Secondly, it takes place in local economies which are heavily dependent on the sale of books. One has only to think of Hay-on-Wye. Thirdly, it is not a question of large bookshops jeopardising the financial
1296
interests of small bookshops. Unlike food shops and supermarkets, there is generally no price advantage in going to a large bookshop, because of the net book agreement. Your Lordships will be even more relieved that we are not discussing the net book agreement tonight.
A noble Lord: Shame!
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: Another time perhaps. Discounts in those large bookshops are generally few and far between. Discounting is more likely to take place in second-hand bookshops and smaller bookshops.
I believe that the large bookshops offer the Sunday shopper an opportunity to browse and spend time at leisure which he does not have on other days of the week. Because of that, I believe that the amendment that I put before the House, as the Consumers' Association agrees, gives a wider choice to us all.
In conclusion, I hope that the amendment finds favour. I shall listen and accept the fusillades. Fortunately, I believe that I have the last word. I beg to move.
Lord Monson:, My Lords, a number of noble Lords with whom I briefly discussed the amendment privately said to me: "Yes, but what is so special about bookshops?" I shall suggest a few reasons why the large ones should be allowed to open for more than six hours on a Sunday.
First, bookshops are tranquil oases in a large city; they are civilised places which attract civilised people. Browsing in a bookshop is a quintessentially proper and suitable Sunday activity. Secondly, you rarely need a car to make a purchase from a bookshop; most people can and do arrive on foot or by public transport. They do not generate the slamming of car doors, the honking of car horns or the revving of car engines that shops which deal in bulky or heavy goods tend to. They have much the same attraction for lonely single people as garden centres have for families. They enormously help our tourist trade and enhance Britain's prestige in the world. People come from all over the world to visit our famous secondhand bookshops, many of them larger than 3,000 square feet, whether they be in London or elsewhere. The noble Earl has already mentioned the famous antiquarian bookshop just over the Welsh border. Incidentally, I spoke to the people in the shop this evening and they are anxious to open for 10 hours a day seven days a week. If the amendment is not agreed to, it will grievously harm the business they hope to carry on. After all, they earn a considerable amount in dollars, yen, Swiss francs, deutschmarks and so on for the country, and it would be a pity if that were curtailed.
Large bookshops do not normally compete, in price at any rate, with small bookshops in the way that supermarkets ruthlessly compete with corner grocery shops and sub-post offices. Moreover, there is often no alternative to large bookshops. Apart from one small religious bookshop, there are only three bookshops within 15 minutes' walking distance from me and all happen to be large. If I wanted to buy any book on a Sunday before 10 o'clock or after 6 o'clock, I should

1297
have to get in the car and drive a fair distance. Of course, the big shops can carry stock which small shops cannot, with a much wider range of classics plus, for example, a much wider range of foreign language dictionaries. Small shops will probably carry dictionaries and phrasebooks in French, Spanish, German and Italian, but if I am going abroad and need a phrasebook in Urdu, Thai or Turkish, I would have to go to a larger store.
Is it not strange and sad that, whereas it will be possible, as the Bill stands, to buy pornography for up to 18 hours a day on Sundays from newsagents and specialised so-called adult shops, it will remain illegal, if the amendment fails, for a large shop to sell a Bible for more than a third of that time? Would it not be ironic if someone wanting to buy a Bible, for example, before 10 o'clock so that he could rehearse the lesson he had been invited to read in the church at morning service, were told: "Sorry, we dare not sell you one because we risk a fine of £50,000 if we do"? Noble Lords may laugh, but such shops risk a fine of £50,000 if they sell a Bible before 10 o'clock or after 6 o'clock. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am beginning to feel that those of us who are trying—somewhat unsuccessfully, I must say—to resist the various amendments on the grounds that, as has been said several times this afternoon, they undermine the basis of the compromise solution which was agreed to, are beginning to feel as though we were in a madrigal set, part singing. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made those points on the previous amendment and I shall now try to make them again. I cannot pretend to your Lordships that I shall say anything original.
As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said on the previous amendments, we are in danger of making complete fools of ourselves. The noble Lord who just spoke in support of this amendment, I am afraid to say, demonstrated that very well. It is extraordinary. If I were wearing my normal portfolio hat and speaking on health policy, I would feel like doing what would be called in that context "shroud waving". What we seem to be attempting to do is to undermine the principle of the Bill. Every noble Lord who speaks, whether or not in favour of the compromise when we voted on it, always begins by saying, "We all wish to see a revision of the 1950s law".
We are in danger of ending up with the 1950s law simply because we shall unpick every single underlying principle—and we can argue until the cows come home about whether or not it is an underlying principle—which formed the compromise solution on which we voted and on which the other place voted. We shall end up with the 1950s Shops Act, which I thought we all agreed was precisely the solution that we did not want to achieve. As I said, this is becoming like part singing. Every time we have one of these amendments, one or other of us who objects to the amendment on the grounds of the principle of the compromise makes precisely the same points. I can do no more.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is possible for those of us who are free traders and non-bosses, and who want people to do whatever they like within reason,
1298
to say that this law is just as silly as the, 1950 Act. But new laws tend to have greater force to them. Therefore, if this particular effort collapses, and we are handed back the 1950 Act, eventually a proper and liberal Bill will come forward and a proper free trader will get a decent deal. That will be a very good thing.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may just make one point on the speeches so far, The major discounting in books is done by the major chain, Dillons, which bust the net book agreement. It has large shops, so I am afraid there is a misnomer. It is not the small bookshops that discount; it is the large ones.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on every amendment we are indeed obliged to have two separate debates: one on the merits of the case—which I would have thought was the decisive consideration—and the other about the historic compromise to which many of us were not parties. I find it tiresome, as other—
Baroness Jay of. Paddington: I apologise for intervening so early in the noble Lord's speech, but it is unfortunate that he continues to say that we were not parties to this compromise, as though in some sense it was a double deal done in a smoke filled room. Everyone who was present during the options debate and who voted on their preferred option was party to the compromise.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Baroness intervened in the middle of my sentence.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am so sorry.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Baroness may do it again if she so wishes. Indeed, I am grateful to her. She begins to re-make part of the case I made earlier in the day. It is for those who voted, on what I regard as the equivalent of the Second Reading of the Bill on 29th March, for the option which is incorporated in it to decide whether or not they are breaching some sort of compromise. However, I do not see how those who voted against it can possibly be accused of breaking a compromise in which they did not share least of all those of us who for one reason or another were absent. We did not participate in the debate and therefore did not vote either way. I cannot see why, on some historic compromise that was not reached in this House, except on the basis of an agreement reached outside beforehand, we should be denied the opportunity—which is surely the right of Parliament—to discuss a matter that is before Parliament and decide, on the merits of the case, what this Bill ought to say. I cannot see any way round that essential constitutional position.
There is another argument. It is not one that 'we have heard today or on other occasions. It is an argument of common sense. It says: forget the compromise. The fact is that progress has to be made with a situation that has been unsatisfactory for many years, and this looks like a reasonable compromise of common sense; let us just vote for common sense. I am in favour of voting for common sense. But why am I obliged to be a party to an agreement, in which I was not involved, about what was and what was not put in the Bill? If a number of matters had been put in the Bill which had earlier been omitted

1299
from the Bill, I could readily accept the fact that those who were responsible for it were making wise decisions. But I see no earthly reason why DIYs and garden centres, upon which the House has decided, why farm shops, on which the House has decided, and now why bookshops should have been omitted from the Bill in the first place.
That is my view. It may not be the view of other noble Lords. But if it is my view and that of any other noble Lord, what is wrong with our saying so and saying, "You failed to put it in for no reason that we have heard"—because the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was not against the merits of the case at all but only that it was omitted by an agreement to which some of us were not a party. So I say again to the House, we must look at this issue on the merits of the case. Do we want to exclude bookshops in the way that the Bill now excludes them?.
I should like to make two or three very simple points. I apologise to the House that I was obliged to answer what I thought was a totally bogus argument which seeks to undermine every amendment and indeed the rights of the House to decide on their merits. I am a very strong supporter of small bookshops. I can recommend noble Lords the bookshop called the Owl Bookshop in Kentish Town Road where I have bought my books, when I could do so, for over 20 years. It is a very good bookshop. If, on a Sunday, the Owl Bookshop, which is small, did not have, and could not be expected to have, a fairly rare book, why should I, not having found it at a small bookshop, be denied the opportunity of going to a larger bookshop which might have the book in stock? I can see no rhyme or reason for not being able to do that. But that is what the position will be. A small bookshop will be open but may not have the book and a big bookshop which may have the book will be closed.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it will not be closed. The whole point is that the big bookshop will be open for six hours.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I totally understand that. Of course it will be open for six hours, but the point is that it will not be open as long as the small bookshop. If we agree to this amendment, at least there will be a further opportunity of two hours in which, if I cannot get my book in a small book shop I can go to a big one. It is a matter of simple common sense.
This evening I went into the Library and took out The Times Literary Supplement. I looked at the books that it was reviewing this week: six volumes of a book on Thomas Chatterton; a book of prose by Ted Hughes called Winter Pollen; three books on Frank Lloyd Wright and three books on France under De Gaulle and Mitterrand. It may well be that on a Sunday I come back from the country at 5.30 in the afternoon. Perhaps it has been a rainy day and I have spent all day in bed reading the papers. When I go to my small bookshop, it does not have the books mentioned in The Times Literary Supplement, the Spectator or the New Statesman. I know that those books are available at Waterstone's but I
1300
cannot go there because Waterstone's, having been open for six hours, is now closed. I do not believe that there is any rhyme or reason in that.
We have discussed many matters but we are now talking about books, which means matters of the mind and spirit. They are something which makes us more than simple consumers of food and the other goods that we require. Why are we leaving out books? I should have been prepared not to support the amendment if I had heard one rational argument which was not based on a compromise but based on merit. Why should we be denied two hours more in which to buy the books that we want on a Sunday? That case has not been made.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him how many Waterstone's shops he knows which are the same size as your Lordships' debating Chamber?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, there are several, certainly, if not the one I use. There are several. That is my answer to the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I can try to give the noble Lord reasons. However, they will be reasons within the context of Schedule 1 and the present option. The present option is based on the idea that there shall be small shops; there shall be large shops, and there shall be exceptions. The idea is that the small shops shall be free to open whatever they sell and the large shops shall not be free to open for more than six hours. To that dichotomy there shall be added a limited number of exceptions.
The noble Lord is quite right. It is not clear how those exceptions arrived in the Bill. One can think about why, but here they are. They consist of intoxicating liquor, pharmacists, airports, railway shops and service areas. I took the view when we debated the three options that somehow the Bill was looking at necessary items; the goods we need. For instance, we need intoxicating liquor, pharmaceutical goods or we may be stuck in an airport where there is only one shop. But there was not a real set of criteria. The important point was that they were limited. A limited number of exceptions were made between the dichotomy of big shops and small shops.
The noble Lord is saying that into that list of intoxicating liquor, pharmacists, railway shops, service areas and all the others added in the debate, we should shove bookshops. The danger is that if we go on putting in more and more exceptions they will not be exceptions; they will be the rule. We will then be very close to the third alternative of deregulation, which was defeated in the House.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, perhaps I can make just two points. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire, he said that the exception was not special pleading. I cannot see why it is not special pleading for the large bookshops.
Another point that was made is that books are one leisure category and music is another. If the amendment is accepted then shops could sell books for the blind and other items of that sort. So why should not music shops

1301
be open as well? One thing leads to another and we are on a slippery road downhill. If this is not a Trojan horse, then I suggest that it might be a "Trojan Penguin".
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have always taken as read that this House included among its ranks individuals who enjoyed books and reading. I fancy that there are many who enjoy reading on a Sunday. Whether there is sympathy for those who share that enjoyment which will lead the House to expand the list of those shops which will be exempt from the six-hour restriction on trade by larger shops on Sunday to include large bookshops is a matter for your Lordships.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, of course we have the right to query any addition to the Bill. But at the same time it is also correct that adding to the list of exempt shops necessarily involves adding complexity to the Bill. Additional exemptions also involve the "me too" factor. Every time your Lordships decide to allow a different category of shop to be exempt, to continue with the truism which has been repeated ad nauseam, it is inevitable that there will be those who feel that it is either unfair on them or that they too should be given a similar exemption.
I should remind your Lordships that as the Bill is drafted all small bookshops will be able to open at any time on a Sunday; large bookshops, along with other large stores, will be able to open for six hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. provided they notify the local authority of an intention to do so. Your Lordships will note that as the Bill is drafted there is no likelihood that members of the public will be left in the unfortunate situation of being forced to spend Sunday without a book to hand. It is rare that it is so urgent a pleasure that it would be sheer torment to be denied the right to buy a book other than at a small bookshop before 10 a.m. on a Sunday morning.
Your Lordships may wish to consider what reason would justify giving a large bookshop an exemption, but not a large video shop or a large shop selling compact discs. Would it not be strange to give an exemption to a large shop selling audio books—by which my noble friend presumably means books on cassettes or on compact discs—but not to large shops selling music, as my noble friend mentioned, on cassettes or compact discs. Your Lordships may want to be certain before permitting further exemptions that the case is truly strong enough to warrant it. Whether or not such a case has been made in respect of bookshops is of course for your Lordships to decide.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for summing up the situation facing your Lordships in coming to a decision tonight. Before I close, perhaps I may answer very briefly some of the points that have been made. First, on the question of Dillons and discounting, yes, that is quite true. I used the words carefully when I spoke; but generally. Dillons is not the largest group of bookshops, but it is one of the largest groups. Secondly, on the question of compromise and jeopardising the Bill, many noble Lords who have participated in this important debate may well me the day they used such words because they will be facing Bills coming up from the
1302
other place in which compromises had been constructed down there to which noble Lords will take fairly violent exception up here. Thirdly, I make it quite clear that this is not special pleading on behalf of the large booksellers. There is a genuine reason for having bookshops open over the period to cover the tourist trade and consumers who may wish to buy books later in the evening. I make my final point to my noble friend Lord Brentford. I am not sure what a "Trojan Penguin" is, but no doubt he will tell me. I beg to move.
9.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 47.

Division No. 7

CONTENTS

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, B.

Buckinghamshire, E. [Teller.]

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Onslow, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Downshire, M.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Vivian, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Annaly, L.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

McCarthy, L. [Teller.]

Brentford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B

Burnham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Courtown, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Newcastle, Bp.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Falkland, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Ferrers, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Seccombe, B.

[Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

(Lord Privy Seal)

Jeffreys, L.

Wynford, L.

Judd, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 14, after ("products") insert (" and medical").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment in place of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. As a distinguished physician, the noble Lord has for many years been associated with the sufferers of diabetes. He feels very keenly about this amendment and greatly regrets not being present in the House to move it.
I could describe this as a "technical" amendment, but I fear to do so lest the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, reaches again for the dictionary and we have the type of

1303
rather lengthy debate that we had on the last amendment that I described as "technical". Therefore, I shall describe this amendment differently.
It deals with a clear omission in the Bill. I am seeking to fill that omission with the amendment. Schedule 5 of the Shops Act 1950 contains a number of exemptions, one of which is for registered pharmacies selling,
"medicines and medical and surgical appliances".
However, following your Lordships' adoption of this option in the "options debate" of 29th March, the Bill contains a provision relating to the exemption of registered pharmacies which does not cover medical appliances. It covers only medical products and surgical appliances. The simplicity of this amendment is that it seeks to include the word "medical" as relating to appliances.
It is an important amendment because it affects a number of products that are much needed—sometimes in moments of emergency. It affects, for example, inhaling devices for asthmatics. Under the present drafting of the Bill, the medication can be supplied, but not the equipment. It affects hypodermic syringes for diabetics. At present, the insulin can be supplied, but not the syringe. It affects oxygen therapy equipment, where at present the gas can be supplied but not the mask. It affects thermometers and a number of other medical appliances.
There is a special need for the larger pharmacies—that is, those over 280 square metres—to be able to provide these important devices which, as I have said, are sometimes needed in emergencies. All pharmacies —whether they be large or small—are required under contract with the family health services authorities to open before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m. to provide pharmaceutical services. Medical appliances are among the items which pharmacies are required to dispense under the terms of the National Health Service contract. When I spoke last night to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and he expressed his great regret at not being able to move the amendment himself, he pointed out that the larger pharmacies keep a greater range of such products. In addition, they are the pharmacies to which people go in search of help when they are in a state of great distress because of asthma or diabetes. Therefore, as the noble Lord put it, it is extremely important that the larger pharmacies should be able to supply such medical appliances and that they should fall within the exemption. Finally, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, will have noticed that we are not dealing with "wholly or mainly". I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that we are all agreed that whatever the restrictions on large shops in respect of Sunday trading, pharmacists need to be able to open at any time on a Sunday to dispense medicine and sell products which can genuinely be considered to have a medical application. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Hacking that the current wording in the Bill would restrict pharmacists to selling a narrower range of products than those which they are permitted to supply under the 1950 Shops Act.
1304
Whereas under the 1950 Act, pharmacies may sell medicines and medical and surgical appliances, the Bill, as worded, provides an exemption only for the sale of medicinal products and surgical appliances. Medicinal products take the same meaning as in the Medicines Act 1968. I understand that that wording means that items such as pregnancy testing kits and thermometers could not be sold by large pharmacies beyond the permitted hours on a Sunday.
Now, your Lordships may feel that, as the normal human gestation period is nine months, it would not impose a great degree of hardship to require those who want to buy a pregnancy testing kit to do so before six o'clock in the evening, to wait to buy one until Monday morning, or to go to a small pharmacy which will be unrestricted by the Bill. But I accept that these amendments simply allow large pharmacies to sell those items which they are permitted to sell under current legislation. I suspect that your Lordships would accept that if a parent is worried about a sick child, then it would be unreasonable for a large pharmacy not to be able to sell a thermometer after six o'clock in the evening. But, my Lords, it is entirely up to you again.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, this seems to be a blessed moment: no one has spoken against the amendment. I therefore invite your Lordships to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cochrane of Cults Lord Cochrane of Cults moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert:

("( ) any shop within a holiday park and open only for the sale of goods as an incidental facility to paying guests using or enjoying other facilities at that park").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I shall be bold enough to claim that it is different from any of the amendments seeking further exemptions that have been moved previously, whether approved or not, because this amendment deals with the happiness of people on holiday. It also avoids the difficulty of attempting definition by transaction. On the contrary, it is precisely defined. It is not a Trojan horse. Nor even is it the very thin edge of a wedge, which I know is a thing of great terror to my noble friend who was kind enough to see me this morning at the Home Office. I sympathise with his feelings. But what has happened is that the resort exemptions about which I have spoken on an earlier occasion, and will not repeat, have been dropped, and nothing of comparable effect in relation to premises which formerly enjoyed their benefit, has been put in their place.
People on holiday expect to have good service. They expect to be able to shop. The premises about which I am talking are within holiday camps. A noble Lord asked me on a previous occasion why such shops were necessary. As I had only taken on the amendment faute de mieux following the illness of the mother of the previous mover, I was slightly stumped at that. But the answer is that the largest of these holiday camps can accommodate up to almost 10,000 people at one time. They all go to sleep at the same time. These big camps are the size of moderate towns. For example, I thought that I would look along the Front Bench to see which of

1305
my noble friends had a town of that sort of size named after him. Unfortunately, no one lives at my noble friend's place of title, Ullswater, although it has a frightfully good restaurant. Eventually I discovered that about 10,000 people live at Henley and there are two other places which may be familiar to your Lordships: Uttoxeter, which has a race-course, and Tewkesbury, which has a bishop, and which, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, was the site of a rather bloody battle.
That is the size of the problem. I am asking your Lordships to agree that people who go to those holiday camps—which are defined; they are there; they have paid money to go—should be allowed to shop in private in those premises. Those premises are defined by a perimeter wall. A noble Lord asked me how they were defined. I have five definitions, but finally one has to get down to it and it is a matter for the courts to decide. However, their principal purpose is rather easier to describe. It is to provide enjoyable holidays in agreeable surroundings which are good value for money. In the interests of economy, many people now prefer to cater for themselves, hence the need for shopping facilities.
In Committee a noble Lord asked what would happen if a shopping mall were built. Of course, that is a commercial risk on the part of the proprietor. He was afraid that people would rush in to buy things when they should be confined to the six-hour regime or go to a small shop. All the large parks which allow day visitors impose charges. For example, if one went there in one's car on a Sunday morning to buy a pound of sausages it would most likely cost £6.50 extra. If one took all one's family too and wanted to buy a chicken it would probably cost something like £27 to go in. We are talking about deterrent pricing. The charge is not to deter people from shopping but to make sure that they pay their fair share towards enjoying all the other facilities. The shopping is incidental.
There is no risk of people using them as a surreptitious large shop. The exemption already exists and those who have taken advantage of it are now to be disadvantaged. I urge your Lordships to accept that the amendment does not try to widen the scope of what goes on but merely puts right a lacuna, gap or hiatus in the Bill. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House and I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord several questions, principally for clarification. I think I know what a holiday park is. What I do not know are the goods which the noble Lord says can be sold there. His amendment provides that a holiday park should be,
"open only for the sale of goods".
However, the noble Lord does not state what kind of goods. He provides that they should be,
"goods as an incidental facility".
What is "an incidental facility"? What is the difference between an incidental facility and a facility? The noble Lord provides,
"to paying guests".
What is the difference between a paying guest and a customer? The noble Lord provides,
1306
"using or enjoying other facilities at the park".
What other facilities? What would be different if the amendment provided,
"any shop within a holiday park and open for the sale of anything"?
What is the difference?
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me more questions than I can remember—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend intends to make a concluding speech. If he does, he will be in danger of speaking three times.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords. I apologise.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I believe that I can answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. In practice, we are talking about a small number of shops. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I am a director of a company called Center Pares, which has two such shops. There are less than 50 shops and the vast majority—all except two or three—are open only for a number of weeks during the summer season.
The shops which exceed the 280 square metre size limit are without exception food shops; they are supermarkets. They are associated with and are part and parcel of the total self-catering character of the village. They are the way in which people living in a holiday village feed themselves. They are incidental facilities because they are incidental to the fact that these people are resident in the village. These are resident people; they are like guests in an hotel and are living there. They are paying guests because they are paying to live there.
It is not a question of people walking in to buy goods; it is an internal facility for members of the club—for people who are living there. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a small number of shops which are an integral part of the self-catering facility.
As to what a holiday village is, it is a self-catering holiday facility in this country such as Butlin's, Pontin's, and—perhaps I may say at the top of the market Center Pares. Those are places where people go for a summer holiday or for a short break holiday. They live in villas or chalets and enjoy sporting facilities. They are, I believe without exclusion, family holiday places. They are geared to children. For example, I know that in our restaurants we have tables with Lego on them. In our villages, and I believe that the same is true of Butlin's, we have an interdenominational church in which services are available on Sunday. I cannot say that there is an enormous take-up but the services are available. The centres are intended to provide a comfortable, economical family holiday for people who are perhaps not so well off.
An essential part of that family holiday is the feeling that you can buy what is needed. One of the problems is that people tend to travel at the weekend. Therefore, they may arrive on a Saturday and if they live some distance away, they may arrive late, after the supermarket is closed. In that case, it is fairly tough if they have to wait until 10 o'clock the following morning

1307
in order to buy something for breakfast, setting aside the fact that we provide hot rolls and hot croissants for breakfast.
Therefore, I argue that the facility is needed as part of the catering needs of a family. It is for a special group of people who are contained entirely within the camp. Few people come in from outside; conversely, no trade will be taken from people outside because most of the holiday villages are in the countryside and, therefore, people would not normally go out of the village to trade elsewhere.
There is no unfair advantage as against self-catering guests in other kinds of self-catering accommodation such as flats in holiday resorts because those people can use small shops. In a holiday village, which is isolated in the countryside, there are no small shops. Therefore, I argue that there is no unfair competition. This is not the thin end of the wedge. It is a special situation in which the ability to buy food in a raw form is part of the catering for that particular type of holiday.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, there is one point about which I disagree with my noble friend who moved the amendment. Perhaps when the Minister replies, he will explain it. I understood my noble friend Lord Cochrane to say that this provision would mean no change in the law from the Shops Act 1950. However, my reading of the Act is that under Section 51, a local authority may pass an order authorising such classes of shops in holiday resorts to open but only for 18 Sundays in a year and only for the sale of a very limited range of goods earmarked for the tourist trade. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that when he speaks.
If I am right in that interpretation, then the amendment will widen the law, yet again, quite extensively. It seems to me that it will also create further anomalies in the Sunday trading law. We are giving preferential treatment to large shops in holiday parks while other cultural and holiday areas will not have the same benefit.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? Will he take my point that in other areas there is the availability of small shops? Those small shops are not available in a holiday park.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it is my experience that quite often there are small shops open in holiday villages as well. However, I believe that the small shops, and indeed large shops, can provide what is needed. My prime point is that I believe that this is a real widening of the law.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, whether the amendment refers to a holiday camp, a holiday park or a holiday village, I suggest that what we need is a full stop after the word "camp", "park" or "village". The rest of the wording adds nothing: it would merely provide a field day for lawyers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in Committee we spent some time discussing the question of whether large shops in holiday parks should be exempt. I should remind your Lordships that Section 51 of the Shops Act
1308
1950 allows local authorities to make an order authorising shops in resort areas to sell goods which are listed in Schedule 7 to the Act on a Sunday in addition to the goods which are listed in Schedule 5 of the Act which all shops are allowed to do.
My noble friend Lord Brentford was worried about the latter. Perhaps I may explain to him that such an order does not permit shops to trade in those goods every Sunday in the year. It permits shops to trade in those goods only for 18 Sundays in the year. Schedule 7 by no means allows the sale of everything. It permits the sale of any article required for bathing or fishing; toys, souvenirs and fancy goods; books, stationery and postcards; and any item of food. It does not allow the sale of clothes and shoes, unless, presumably, they are of the plastic variety which some of your Lordships might feel inclined to wear while paddling at the seaside to stop your Lordships' feet being cut by stones or being nibbled by crabs.
Schedule 7 does not allow the sale of picnic equipment, for example, things like Thermos flasks or plastic beakers. Schedule 7 does not even allow the sale of the corkscrew which my noble friend Lord Cochrane suggested in Committee was an indispensable item on sale at holiday park shops because the ones which are supplied in the chalets tended to go missing.
I only mention that because I believe that we need to be absolutely clear that the Bill does not remove an exemption for holiday parks which they previously enjoyed. Indeed, the Bill would, in some respects, make the law more liberal in respect of such premises: small shops will be able to open at any time; and large shops will be able to open for six hours on a Sunday to sell their whole product range. Shops in holiday parks will not be limited to trading on 18 Sundays a year. They will be able to trade on every Sunday. Nor will the rights of large shops to trade for six hours depend upon a local council choosing to make an order to allow them to do so. They will be able to do so by law.
Your Lordships may feel that that does not go far enough. Some local authorities may have taken the provision which is contained in Section 51 of the 1950 Act as an indicator that they should allow holiday park shops to open without restriction. That is what some such shops may have been doing in practice, although, if they have been, most of them will almost certainly have been in contravention of the Act in respect of at least some of their sales.
Noble Lords may be persuaded by the argument that holiday-makers could be seriously inconvenienced were they not to accept the amendment, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. On the other hand, your Lordships may feel that for years many holiday-makers, along with everyone else, have coped with shops being, for the most part, shut on a Sunday. They have planned their lives accordingly. It would not therefore be a grave problem for them to plan for the large shops being open, albeit only for six hours. Those who forgot to stock up on marmalade the evening before, would not have long to wait before the shop was open on a Sunday morning. I fancy that some noble Lords might believe that the only civilised time to take breakfast on a holiday is 10 o'clock in the morning.

1309
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the amendment would only exempt holiday parks from restrictions on Sunday trading. It would not permit large shops in holiday resorts to open beyond six hours. Your Lordships might wish to be convinced that it would be fair if those staying in flatlets in the town cannot visit a large shop beyond the permitted six-hour period, while those who are in a holiday park can. It is true that those who visit resort towns can use the smaller shops, whereas holiday parks are often at some distance from the town which means that there are no handy corner shops in the vicinity. Therefore, your Lordships may consider that the amendment would not put town resorts or their visitors at a disadvantage. I can only say to your Lordships that those are the arguments for both sides. However, it is a matter for noble Lords to choose which they think is right.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his courteous and informative reply. I would respectfully suggest to him that one of the hazards of going on holiday is that if one has young children they are so excited they wake up at the most desperate hour in the morning. If, with his great experience of life, my noble friend is prepared to tolerate a howling grandchild from five o'clock until ten o'clock because, due to a mistake on the part of the parents, they have not got the requisite chocolate or whatever one gives children to shut them up these days —smacking being forbidden—I rather envy him.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me what these shops sold. The answer is that they sell pretty well everything you can think of, but principally food, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with his vast experience, explained.
I must also apologise at this point. I omitted in the excitement of the moment and the lateness of the hour to mention that I have an interest to declare, although I think a very small one. I have been a director of a holiday park company for many, many years and I am now chairman. We are quite small and we cannot hold more than 1,000 people, however hard we try. The holiday park is situated in Scotland. I hope your Lordships will accept that I present the case with true impartiality because whether this amendment is passed or not makes not the slightest difference to me. But it does make a difference to the people who are on the receiving end in England and Wales and if this amendment is not accepted they will have something to complain about.
I suppose there will be a good market for signs saying, "Not open until 10 o'clock by Government order". When it says, "by Government order" that will be true as this time it will not be the fault of the EC. Resort exemptions are very imperfect but this Bill is intended to reform the present situation. The Bill does not address resort exemptions as they at present work. I agree they are imperfect but one would have hoped that the drafters of the Bill would have felt that they should at least be modernised, and as some large shops exist that were built in good faith they would feel hard done by if they are restricted; albeit they get more weeks open
1310
but fewer hours in each Sunday during which to open. I hope that I have put the question fairly but in view of the lateness of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment. No. 12:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert:

("( ) any stand used for the retail sale of goods during the course of an exhibition").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1 to which your Lordships agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment: agreed to.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert:

("( ) any shop where the trade or business consists of the sale of pets and pet supplies").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lyell is not here but this amendment has already been spoken to with an earlier one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment: negatived.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 47, leave out ("10 a.m.") and insert ("10.30 a.m.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I speak also to the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 24. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and others who sit on the same Benches that I for one am not trying to drive a coach and horses through this Bill and introduce total deregulation by the back door.
At first glance this amendment may seem excessively modest and even trivial in its effect, but I assure your Lordships that it is not. It may be that an extra half hour's peace and quiet on a Sunday morning for the many people who have no option but to live in the vicinity of large shops seems trivial to those fortunate enough to live in rural tranquillity, but it is certainly not trivial to the many who would benefit from the effects of the amendment. The advantage for those who have to enforce the law is that they 'would only have to work a seven-and-a-half hour Sunday rather than an eight hour one. That advantage may not seem great to us but I have no doubt that it would be highly welcome to those who have to perform the task in question. Once they have heard the evidence few people would deny the immense benefit acceptance of the amendment would bring to small shopkeepers, their families and their employees.
It is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointed out earlier, one organisation representing small shopkeepers—with the acronym OPEN—appeared to favour a 10 a.m. starting time for large stores. However, I interpret its letter as support for the general principle of a fixed six-hour period rather than specifically for a 10 a.m. starting time. Even if my interpretation is wrong, three other organisations representing small shopkeepers take a very different view.
The British Independent Grocers' Association, which tells me that it represents some 2,500 independent grocers plus their staff and families, suggests that the trading hours should be between 10.30 a. m. and

1311
4.30 p.m. to give the independent stores an extra half hour to trade as most people do not start to shop on Sunday mornings until around 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the free run that those stores have without competition from supermarkets by between 33.3 and 50 per cent. In other words, instead of trading only between 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., they would have an extra half hour, which would be of considerable help to them.
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters says that if it were possible to introduce an amendment which would prevent larger stores from opening until 10.30 a.m. or even 11 a.m. that would be beneficial to small traders, including sub-postmasters in their private capacity. An amendment along these lines would cater for members of the public wishing to make the emergency purchase on a Sunday morning, which has traditionally been the prerogative of the corner shop, and prevent that aspect of the trading pattern of the small retailer being monopolised by the larger traders.
I have been in communication with an organisation called the National Organisation of Asian Businesses which points out that in inner cities some 85 per cent. of small businesses are Asian-owned and operated. It tells me that the jobs of 100,000 people are at stake among Asian traders, their families and employees if something is not done. Unfortunately, the facts which it promised to send have been lost in the post but I have been assured verbally that in principle the organisation supports the amendment.
To sum up, the amendment would seriously inconvenience virtually nobody. It would moderately benefit those who happen to live near large stores. It would benefit to some extent those who have to enforce the law, but would benefit considerably many tens of thousands of small shopkeepers, their families and employees. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all have some sympathy with the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we all need a respite from the turmoil of the week. I suspect also that we all recognise that people want to spend their time in different ways. There are some who, far from wanting a quiet, possibly rather dull, Sunday, want a Sunday with things to do and places to go. It was that need to strike a balance between the quiet Sunday and the Sunday on which those who want to shop can be free to do so which led both your Lordships and another place to choose partial deregulation to replace the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950. This will allow shops to open at 10 o'clock and, under the provisions in Schedule 3, will give local authorities the power to prohibit loading and unloading before 9 o'clock. It is for your Lordships to decide whether this balance is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, believes that, if the time when large shops may open is put back to 10.30, this will bring a benefit to residents who will have half an hour longer of relative peace and quiet in the mornings. The noble Lord believes that a 10.30 start will not make much difference to the shops.
1312
I wonder whether that is really the case. People who go shopping on a Sunday may want to make a relatively early start, perhaps so that they can enjoy other activities such as visiting relatives or friends on a Sunday—or even possibly going to church which is an admirable occupation for a Sunday morning. They could find it frustrating if large shops could not open until 10.30.
As the schedule will enable shops to choose their own opening times, it is reasonable to assume that large shops will only choose to open at 10 o'clock rather than at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock because enough of their customers find it convenient to shop at that time. If there is no demand at 10 o'clock in the morning, the shops will not choose to make a start at that time; they will make a later start.
If the shops do not open until 10.30 then it is argued that it would be practicable to allow local authorities to prohibit deliveries until 9.30 rather than 9 o'clock which the Bill at present allows. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, thinks that local residents would benefit from the extra half hour's peace and quiet. But although this is a matter entirely for your Lordships to decide, it is my impression that the world has woken up by 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. By then, the normal noises of the day have begun; there is traffic on the streets by 9 o'clock. I am not talking about delivery lorries but people going about their business, perhaps going to the local sports club or whatever, or to church.
I fancy that we all accept that the Bill is a compromise which inevitably means that there will be aspects of the provisions which are not to everyone's liking. The question for your Lordships to consider is whether, on the matter of time, we have got the balance right. Although this is entirely a matter for your Lordships, I personally think that, following the months of debate which we have had, it would be better to leave the time at which shops can open, if they choose, unchanged at 10 o'clock.
To my mind, that is late enough to mark Sunday as a day which is different from the other days of the week; but it is early enough to allow those whose chosen Sunday activity is to go shopping to enjoy it, or for those who need to go shopping on a Sunday before doing other things to have enough of the day left to enjoy those other activities. That is the choice which your Lordships will have to make.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that some people always want to be able to buy things on Sunday before 10.30 a.m. My point was that if they needed, for example, to buy a few slices of ham and a quarter of a pound of cheese for a picnic, they could easily get it from a corner grocery store —Asian-owned, European-owned or owned by anyone else. It would probably not cost them more than lop more than if they went to a supermarket and, taking into account the saving in petrol, it would probably cost them less.
The main thrust of my amendment was to protect the small shopkeepers. The peace and quiet element is important, as is the slight saving in administration costs and on the council tax which would flow from it. However, it is the effect of the 10 a.m. opening on small shopkeepers that most concerns me. I am a little

1313
surprised that the Keep Sunday Special lobby, who have made much of their concern for small shopkeepers, have been totally silent this evening while the amendment was being discussed. However, that being the case, there seems no point in proceeding further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning]:
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning
("2.—(1) A local authority may by resolution designate their area as a loading control area for the purposes of this section with effect from a date specified in the resolution, which must be a date at least one month after the date on which the resolution is passed.
(2) A local authority may by resolution revoke any designation made by them under subsection (1) above.
(3) It shall be the duty of a local authority, before making or revoking any designation under subsection (1) above, to consult persons appearing to the local authority to be likely to be affected by the proposed designation or revocation (whether as the occupiers of shops or as local residents) or persons appearing to the local authority to represent such persons.
(4) Where a local authority make or revoke a designation under this section, they shall publish notice of the designation or revocation in such manner as they consider appropriate.
(5) Schedule 3 to this Act (which imposes restrictions on loading and unloading on Sunday before 9 a.m. at large shops in loading control areas) shall have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20; and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 and Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 53.
Clause 2 and Schedule 3 together provide a procedure which enables local authorities to prohibit deliveries taking place within their area at large shops before 9 o'clock on a Sunday morning. If the local authority takes advantage of this opportunity, deliveries at large shops may take place before 9 o'clock only with the local authority's consent and subject to any conditions which the local authority may apply. These provisions were added to the Bill by amendments at Report stage in another place in response to concerns that were expressed there that local authorities needed new, specific powers to ensure that the opening of large shops on a Sunday morning would not unduly jeopardise the peace and quiet of Sunday mornings for local residents.
The provisions were welcomed on all sides in another place; but it was recognised that they had been designed in hurried consultation with local authorities and retailers and that they might benefit from fine-tuning by your Lordships. That is what these amendments are designed to achieve. They have been drawn up in consultation with retailers and associations representing local authorities. I understand that they are supported by both sides of the equation, as it were.
The amendments seek to achieve a number of changes. To meet the concerns of local authorities we
1314
have redesigned the powers to make them more flexible. So a local authority will be able not only to adopt: the power to prohibit deliveries but also to forgo that power subsequently, if it so wishes. Equally, the amendments enable a local authority to withdraw in certain circumstances the consent 'which it may have given to deliveries taking place at a large shop, as well as to vary any conditions which it may have imposed on any consent which it has allowed.
So far as retailers are concerned, we have shifted the time at which consultation is to take place. As the Bill is drafted, a local authority must consult when it is considering whether or not to grant a consent to deliveries taking place. The amendments require the local authority to consult when it is considering whether or not to adopt in the first place the general power to prohibit deliveries. It seems eminently reasonable that those who will be affected by these new powers should be consulted before they are adopted. That is what the amendments achieve.
The amendments also require local authorities to publish any decision which they will make in respect of adopting or subsequently forgoing these new powers.
In redesigning the powers in this way, we have to do some technical or. drafting surgery, which is why the amendments take on their fairly formidable appearance. But, in essence, the Government have acted as what one might describe as an honest broker in this matter. We have endeavoured to come up with a number of amendments which local authorities consider will be a useful, if limited, addition to their powers to protect their residents and which retailers do not believe to be unfair. I hope that the amendments will therefore commend themselves to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday morning]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 23:
Page 10, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert:
("1. This Schedule applies to any shop

(a) which is a large shop within the meaning of Schedule 1 to this Act in respect of which a notice under paragraph 4 of that Schedule has effect, and

(b) which is situated in an area designated as a loading control area under section 2 of this Act.").

Page 10, line 19, leave out from first ("a") to ("shall") in line 20 and insert ("shop to which this Schedule applies").
Page 10, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) The local authority may at any time vary the conditions subject to which a consent is granted, and shall give notice of the variation to the person to whom the consent was granted.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 10, leave out lines 42 to 45.
Page 11, line 6, at end insert:

Revocation of consent
Where—

(a) the occupier of a shop in respect of which a consent under this Schedule is in force is convicted of an offence under paragraph 8 below by reason of his failure to comply with the conditions subject to which the consent was granted, or

(b) the local authority are satisfied that the loading or unloading authorised by virtue of a consent under this Schedule has caused undue annoyance to local residents,

1315
the local authority may revoke the consent.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Construction of certain leases and agreements]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("tenant").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I indicated to the noble Earl that I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, but deal with Amendment No. 30 separately. The reason is that Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 are very straightforward. I have put them forward because, strictly speaking, it is not right to use the word "occupier" in the Bill and to place all the obligations on the occupier, when under normal leasehold agreement (or normal lease) the obligation would be on a tenant. The agreement would be between landlord and tenant. The occupier may well not be the tenant. I believe therefore that that is a technicality and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to agree to it. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to agree with her. I should love to do so but I am afraid that I cannot. As the Bill is at present drafted, Clause 3 refers to the occupier of the shop. My noble friend's amendments would change that so that the clause would refer instead to the tenant.
I am advised that the term "tenant" is narrower than is the term "occupier". The effect of my noble friend's amendment would potentially be to remove the protection which is afforded by Clause 3 to those people who might not have leases but who might have the right to open their shops under some other arrangement—for example, under a licensing agreement. I fancy that was not my noble friend's intention; she simply sought to improve the drafting.
I hope that she might agree that, on this occasion, her attempts to improve the drafting were not as successful as she might have hoped. Personally, I prefer to see the Bill remain as it is.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to look at it in detail, consider the implications of what he said and, if necessary, come back at a later stage. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert:
(" ( ) Where under the terms of any such lease or agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) above the tenant of a shop is required to pay to the landlord a service charge (however described), that lease or agreement shall not be regarded as requiring the tenant of a shop to pay any part of a service charge in respect of a Sunday on which the shop is not open for the serving of retail customers provided that the tenant shall have given not less than 12 weeks prior notice in writing to the landlord of his intention not to open for at least 12 consecutive Sundays and is not open on any of them.
1316
( ) The amount of any service charge not payable under this section shall if not readily calculable or agreed between the landlord and the tenant be incorporated in the annual or periodic certificate or statement of expenditure prepared by or on behalf of the landlord by deducting from the total service charge payable by the tenant for that year or period the proportion that the number of Sundays for which no charge can be made in that year or period bears to the number of days for the year or period to which the certificate relates.
( ) In this section 'service charge' means an amount payable by the tenant of a shop as part of or in addition to the rent and

(a) which is payable directly or indirectly for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and

(b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the costs incurred on behalf of the landlord in connection with the matters specified in paragraph (a) above or according to any formula specified in the lease or agreement for the purposes of securing payment of a proportion of the service charge.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment on service charges is a follow-up of the previous amendment which my noble friend Lord Lyell very kindly moved for me at Committee stage. Various points were raised by. the Minister in his reply which I feel that we have covered in this amendment.
The real point of substance made by the Minister on the original amendment that I tabled was that it would relieve any occupier of a shop from a service charge in respect of any Sunday on which the shop was closed. That point has now been addressed in the revised amendment.
I entirely take the point made by the Minister and therefore the amendment has been revised so that the shopkeeper can only enjoy relief if his shop is usually closed on Sundays and not just because, for whatever reason, he chooses not to open on a particular Sunday. That is therefore quite a difference in this amendment. To ensure that that happens, the amendment requires that a shopkeeper seeking relief should give 12 weeks' notice to the landlord of his intention not to open for at least 12 consecutive Sundays. If he does that and does not subsequently open on any of those Sundays—it would have to be that the position was factually as he had given notice—he would be relieved of the service charge for those Sundays.
The Minister said that the concept of the amendment was impractical. I ask rhetorically: how can a shopping centre manager be sure which part of the service charge bill relates to Sunday and which part relates to Friday? I should like to reply that the point is not as impractical as the Minister suggested. It is not unusual at present for shops in shopping centres to open for longer hours during weekdays than the "usual hours" defined in the lease. When that happens, the landlord simply makes a proposal aimed at generating a reasonable payment to cover the additional costs from those who benefited from the longer opening hours.
A recent example was the Waitrose branch at Barnet which had a letter sent to it pointing out exactly the issues and the way in which the arrangements would work. I can show that letter to the Minister if he would like to see it. I shall not delay the House by going into that detail just now.
Several specific factors are included in the service charge. In the debate the Minister mentioned that it usually covered security, cleaning and electricity.

1317
Surely that demonstrates that there is nothing new in this idea. Moreover, it is important to note that the greatest part of any service charge is made up of labour costs which are usually higher for Sunday working and are therefore more easily ascertainable.
Again in the revised amendment the second subsection seeks to address the point raised by the Minister as to how apportionments would be made where they are not easily ascertainable. The amendment provides that where the charge is not agreed—and in practice that would be a minority of cases—it should be apportioned using a simple statutory formula. For example, the total service charge covers 365 days. If the number of Sundays closed is 48, that is 12½ per cent. So the apportionment would be 12½ per cent.
Lastly, it is somewhat fanciful to suggest that if a large shop was shut and did not, under the terms of this amendment, have to pay the service charge for Sunday, it nevertheless benefited, as was said,
"from all the potential customers passing its window displays and seeing all the lovely things inside on their way to the small shops".—[Official Report, 14/4/94; col. 1706.]
If that were true, the same would be true of window shopping in the small shops that were closed. It is not only the large shops that benefit from window shoppers.
In fact, however, the amendment is primarily designed to protect the smaller shopkeeper who does not wish to open on Sundays but who may be forced to do so by the levying of service charges. The issue is quite simple. Service charges for Sundays should be paid only by those who have benefited from the opening of the shopping centre on a Sunday. Those who exercise the right effectively given to them by Clause 3 of the Bill to remain closed should not have to subsidise those who choose to open. The Minister, in his comments, does not seem to have taken that point in, and I ask him to give his view. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I pointed out to my noble friend in Committee that I had great doubts about whether this was an area about which it is sensible to prescribe rigidly in statute something which is perfectly susceptible of solution through the more flexible medium of negotiation between individual parties. That remains my view.
It has been said that it is a strand within the Bill that no shopkeeper should be obliged to open on a Sunday. That is why your Lordships agreed that Clause 3 should be the third clause to the Bill. But there has to be a sense of balance. It is one thing to ensure that the law does not force shopkeepers to open; it is quite another to allow a shopkeeper who does not wish to open to bully his fellow shopkeepers into not opening either, even if they wish to do. so. If we seek now to legislate further in this area as the amendment proposes, we are in danger of altering the terms of potentially thousands of contracts in a way which means that we cannot be certain of a result that is either fair or practicable.
I put to noble Lords in Committee the proposition that while most Members would probably feel it to be fair that a small shop should not have to pay a service charge if it did not trade on a Sunday, the same may not necessarily be true in the case of a large shop. Where a large shop refused to pay its share of the service charge,
1318
that share would need to be allocated among its smaller brethren in the shopping precinct. In some circumstances that might mean that the small shops would have to pay such a disproportionately high service charge because the larger shop did not want to open that the smaller shops could not afford to open on a Sunday even if they wished to do so. Therefore, small shops may be forced to stay shut against their will simply because one or two large retailers had "used their muscle"—as I have heard that process sometimes inelegantly described by large retailers themselves—and decided to stay shut.
I spoke in Committee of the practicalities of the amendment and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what I believe is a serious problem. Let us look at one element of that service charge—heating. Precinct managers may take the view that additional heating charges in respect of Sunday trading would be minimal. That is because, although the centre will be heated on a Sunday,, there is little additional cost in doing so over the cost of shutting down plant on a Saturday night, starting it up again on a Monday morning and heating up the centre from a lower temperature because the heating had not been on the day before.
Alternatively, some precinct managers may say, "We estimate the heating bill for the year to be so much; the heating bill for each day is therefore divided by 365 and we will charge each shop which opens on Sundays the relevant proportion of that amount." There is a case for either method of calculation. But being; neither a precinct manager nor a shopkeeper I would not wish Ito oblige everyone, by statute, to abide by a decision as to which is the right calculation. The same may go for your Lordships. This amendment seeks to impose the latter method of calculation on tenants where no agreement has been reached. In practice, I fancy that this would become the normal way of calculating the Sunday service charge.
Heating is just one example of the practical difficulties which this amendment involves. But why should a shop which chooses to remain shut on a Sunday be let off, not only one-seventh of the week's heating bill, but also one-seventh of the week's insurance bill and on top of that one-seventh of the repair bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that if the roof springs a leak, it is immaterial whether the shops which are protected by that roof are open or closed on a Sunday.
Let us look for a moment at the question of the security charge. Presumably those shops which are shut on a Sunday would not wish the security personnel to turn a blind eye to smash and grab raids on their property. And how much should shut shops pay for the free advertising which they receive as shoppers pass their window displays, all beautifully lit up by electricity for which they are not paying, on the way to shops which are open?.
Leaving these matters and others to be resolved locally enables the managers to come up with a figure that sounds about right and which is accepted by the tenants. I, for one, have no doubt that if left to their own devices, managers and tenants will be able to negotiate a solution. I quite understand that my noble friend is

1319
trying to prevent what she perceives as an injustice; and your Lordships may agree with her. That is a matter for your Lordships. But I personally remain unconvinced and, if the matter is put to the test—and I hope it is not —I shall not be supporting the amendments. I think that it is better for it to be done by local negotiation rather than by statute.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but I think he has taken the arguments that I put forward and turned them upside down. I do not think that that is the way they should be. I therefore feel that I must go into it very carefully. My intention was not in any way to have the large shops bullying the small but rather to protect the small shops from what could be a disastrously high expense for them which could force them to open against their will. This matter must be gone into much more thoroughly and I will hope to have an opportunity to discuss this with the Minister and perhaps bring it back at the next stage of the Bill. New points have been brought out in his reply which I shall study very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Rights of shop workers as respects Sunday working]:
10.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No.31:
Page 11, line 19, at end insert:
("catering business" means

(a) the sale of meals, refreshments or intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or

(b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off the premises,").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify in two separate respects the precise scope of the employment provisions provided in Schedule 4. The first concerns the treatment of employees engaged in the sale of meals and refreshments where this is incidental to the prime activity of the business. For example, is the cinema employee who, as part of his job, sells drinks or ice-creams to customers a shop worker for the purposes of Schedule 4, or not; or, indeed, is a steward in the Barbican Centre who sells programmes before the performance and ice-creams during the interval a shop worker? As it happens, not one of our stewards is employed on sales each evening but over a month has a rota which includes selling on one or two occasions. Common sense suggests that the answer should be no. However, given that the schedule provides a specific exemption only for premises used primarily for the sale of meals, refreshments or intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, I am concerned that the present draft may not lead to this result.
The second concerns the position of employees who are not themselves engaged in the sale of goods of any kind but who happen to work in the premises where a retail trade or business is carried on. To give an example, are the curators of the National Gallery or
1320
other establishments to be regarded as shop workers by virtue of the fact that they are employed in premises which contain a shop, or are they not? Again I fear that the schedule as drafted is not altogether clear in this respect. The purpose of the amendments is therefore to introduce a degree of certainty on each of these matters and they are essentially of a technical nature.
Turning to the first point, the Shops Act 1950 excluded from its restrictions the sale of meals, refreshments and intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises. A similar exemption is carried forward into Schedule 4. However, noble Lords may note that under the current definition, this exemption is restricted, as I have said, to premises used primarily for such sales. The exemption does not therefore appear to extend to premises where such activities are secondary or incidental. This is clearly anomalous. I should be grateful if the Minister, in responding to these amendments, would clarify whether my interpretation of the schedule is correct and, if so, whether such an anomaly is intentional.
But as I indicated in my introductory remarks, the difficulties do not stop there. The current definition of "shop" in Schedule 4 says that a shop,
"includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on"
subject only to the exemptions listed. This appears to lead to the rather curious result that premises which no one would generally regard as shops are to be treated as such for the purposes of Schedule 4. For example, cinemas, concert halls, leisure complexes, cathedrals, museums, etc., could, if a retail trade or business were carried on in any part, be regarded as shops for the purposes of Schedule 4. As a consequence, it would appear that all employees in such premises would have the protections afforded by Schedule 4 to the Bill rather than simply those who worked in the shop itself.
So, for example, where a sports centre contained a shop, not only would the shop staff be protected, but so too would the tennis coaches and pool attendants. It is not inconceivable that if a hotel receptionist sells a guest a toothbrush, the hotel could be considered a shop and therefore the chambermaids, the porters and the gardeners should also be considered shop workers and would have the right to refuse to work on Sundays. I could go on to give similar examples relating to many other types of establishment which are caught by Schedule 4 in this way.
Again, I shall be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the present draft could really lend itself to such a bizarre interpretation. If that is indeed the case, I hope that he will at least be able to agree to consider further the points which I have raised and, if the amendments proposed do not properly address the matter, that he will undertake to bring forward his own amendments to address the problems I have identified. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question of the noble Baroness. I am happy with all these amendments except Amendment No. 32. Does it mean that its effect is to remove protection from those who sell goods in off-licences? They were previously picked up by line 24, whereas the noble Baroness is deleting that line by Amendment No. 32. While her

1321
amendment picks up those who sell in restaurants and so on, the noble Baroness does not pick up those who sell goods in off-licences. Is she intending to remove protection from people who sell goods in off-licences?
Baroness O'Cathain: No, my Lords, I am not.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in what she said in connection with cinemas. The increase in cinema attendance in the past few years is very welcome. It has brought about a change in the experience of going to the cinema which is still mainly limited to young people. The shopping aspect of it is becoming increasingly important. Noble Lords may have seen recent figures of the proportion of the amount spent by each cinema-goer at the weekend on other items apart from food which may include popcorn, drinks and other things. There are such other items as publicity material and what is described in the business, I believe, as "memorabilia". That could be "T" shirts and so on.
The purpose of going to the cinema is to see films and not to go shopping. Shopping and seeing the film have become a composite experience. It would be quite wrong, as the noble Baroness said, to view people who sell under those conditions as shop workers. I would support the amendment if it seeks to clear up any misunderstanding here and obviates any possible action being taken by a local authority if the thought behind the Bill were misinterpreted. I repeat that I would welcome that. Indeed, I would welcome it if it applied also to any other place where a similar combination of entertainment and purchasing of goods takes place.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it may be that it is late at night and I am tired. We are all tired. However, am I right in thinking that the purpose of the noble Baroness's amendments is to make sure that people who might be protected are not protected? Is it the position that there might be some workers who are protected and cannot be forced to work Sundays but the noble Baroness wants to make absolutely certain that they are not protected and that they have to work on Sundays? Am I correct that the purpose is not to give rights but to take them away?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, no. I am worried about the definition of "shopworker" in the Bill because the people I am talking about are not "shop" workers. They are people employed, say, as stewards who cannot really opt out of working on Sundays
Lord McCarthy: They can.
Baroness O'Cathain: No. They do not have that option because Sunday is almost the busiest day of the week for concert halls and cinemas and those people have accepted jobs on the basis that they will work on Sundays. We will he causing employers many problems if we regard such people as "shopworkers" and give them the ability to opt out. That could mean being unable to operate such facilities. It is as simple as that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for bringing these matters to the attention of the House. As the noble Baroness
1322
explained, the amendments deal with two separate issues: first, the treatment of a retail trade or business which is involved in the sale of meals and refreshments where this is incidental to the primary activity carried on at the premises; and, secondly, the treatment of premises, which are used mainly for purposes other than those of a retail trade or business but where a retail trade or business is carried on in a part of the premises.
The noble Baroness asked for guidance on whether her understanding of the schedule is correct. On the first point, I would agree with the noble Baroness that the treatment of outlets which are engaged in the sale of meals and refreshments is inconsistent as the schedule is drafted at present. Indeed, it does seem anomalous that, as presently drafted, there is a specific exclusion from the provisions of Schedule 4 for a business where the sale of meals and refreshments is the primary activity of the business; but that there is not an exclusion for a business, such as a cinema or theatre, which may sell ice-cream, drinks and other refreshments as very much a secondary activity to its patrons during the intervals in and between performances. That is clearly something that needs to be sorted out; and this is what Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 34 achieve. I commend them to the House.
The second point addressed by the noble Baroness is covered by Amendments Nos. 35, 36, and 38, and is of more general concern. Essentially, the difficulty arises from a potential uncertainty in the meaning of the word "premises" in the particular context of Schedule 4. This becomes particularly pertinent when we consider the position of various premises which would not on any commonsense understanding be regarded as shops but where some retail trade or business is conducted in a part of them.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 deliberately includes a broad definition of shop work so that it clearly encompasses all those employees who would commonly be regarded as shopworkers. However, it has never been any part of the Government's intentions to use the opportunity which is provided by the reform of the law on Sunday trading to change the employment conditions of those who are not, and who would not., naturally be regarded by anyone as shopworkers.
It has certainly never been the Government' s intention that, for example, where a church or cathedral has a gift shop, the whole church, rather than just the gift shop, would be classified as a shop. Were it to be otherwise, then employed persons working in or about the whole church or cathedral, including the clergy, would be regarded as shopworkers and would be able to opt out of Sunday working. I think that most of your Lordships might consider that a pretty bizarre concept and I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate would not approve of it. Equally, I fancy that your Lordships would not be surprised to learn that it was not the Government's intention that opera singers who are employed to perform at Covent Garden on a Sunday should be treated as shop workers, by virtue of the fact that one might buy a book about opera in the foyer.
I am advised that case law indicates that "premises" may be taken to mean only that part of a building where the retail business was carried on. It is therefore unlikely

1323
that a tribunal would come to a conclusion that St. Paul's Cathedral was a shop rather than a church and that all those who worked in or about it were shop workers. Indeed, I am not aware of any vicar who has been prosecuted in the past 40 years under the Shops Act 1950, which uses the same definition of "shop" as Schedule 4. But it is possible that the position may be rather less clear cut than we might hope that it would be. For example, it is not entirely clear that tribunals would be coming to an unreasonable finding of fact in holding that a cinema or concert hall was a shop because of the routine sales of books or music cassettes and compact discs which take place within it.
In short, in providing that a "shop" includes,
"any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on"
we may inadvertently have raised a doubt as to our intentions with respect to Schedule 4 which it might be sensible to resolve. To be absolutely clear on that we intend that shops which exist within buildings such as churches and museums should fall within the definition of "shop" for Schedule 4 purposes. But we do not intend that the whole church or museum should become a shop merely because the odd sale takes place within it, because that, frankly, would be absurd.
So while it is not entirely clear that the amendments are strictly necessary, there appears to be a degree of uncertainty as to the result which might be achieved by the schedule which argues in favour of accepting these amendments.
In considering how we should respond to the proposed amendments, the Government have been mindful of their commitment to ensure that Sunday shop work is undertaken on a voluntary basis. I therefore wanted to satisfy myself that the amendments, whatever their intention and however technical in purpose, did not inadvertently remove protection from shop workers. Such a result would indeed be perverse given the government amendments which we will be discussing later today which extend the Schedule 4 protections to those who are employed in hire shops, like video shops, and to those who do not have a contractual requirement to work on Sundays.
I am confident that the amendments will not affect the protections which are afforded to shop workers by Schedule 4. Rather, they merely clarify the position of employees whom no one could reasonably consider to be shop workers. I therefore commend them to the House.
11 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I can assure him that his fears that we are trying to reduce protection for shopworkers are not founded.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, leave out line 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 35, leave out from ("of') to ("and") in line 36 and insert ("hiring goods otherwise than for use in the course of a trade or business").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment broadens the scope of Schedule 4 to extend the new employment rights to a further group of employees: those who work in places such as video hire shops and tool hire shops whose work may involve the hire rather than the sale of goods.
The video shop has become an increasingly familiar addition to the high streets and shopping precincts of our towns over the past few years. Virtually every town now has at least one. In many cases they are run in conjunction with a retail business, perhaps as a sideline to a convenience store or an off licence. In some cases they are entirely self contained. However, I fancy that your Lordships, in common with most of the population, would regard them as shops much like any other shop. As such, the Government consider that their employees should be covered by the employment measures in Schedule 4.
Video shops are not, of course, the only form of hire shop. The amendment extends the coverage of Schedule 4 to workers in other shops which are in the businesses of hiring to private customers, whether video films or tools for the DIY enthusiasts. The amendment provides that their employees would enjoy the same protections afforded by the schedule as other shop workers if it is decided to open such outlets on a Sunday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("include") to end of line 39 and insert ("catering business or the sale at theatres and places of amusement of programmes, catalogues and similar items").
Page 11, line 40, after ("includes"), insert ("subject to sub-paragraph (IA) below").
Page 11, line 41, leave out from ("on") to end of line 46.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert ("and/or a worker within the meaning of section 8 of the Wages Council Act 1986, who is required to do shop work, or may be required to do such work.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that at this late hour I must move what we consider to be important amendments on employee protection. I may well have to come back on Third Reading on similar subjects.
As regards Amendment No. 37, one of the main anxieties of those on this side of the House has been to ensure that shop workers have proper protection. One of our arguments has been that the protections afforded in Schedule 4 do not go far enough. This amendment seeks to ensure that protection is afforded to all shop workers —and I emphasise all—because that was the Government's original intention.
Schedule 4 addresses the contracts of employment of shop workers. As regards the protected and opted-out shop workers, any contract which requires them to work on Sundays is unenforceable. My argument is that these measures apply only to people engaged under contracts of employment. There is no comparable provision for people engaged under contracts for services. That could be potentially serious, given that it could affect a vulnerable group of workers, such as casual workers, who may be said by the courts not be be employees but

1325
effectively self-employed. Not only will the contractual obligations of such workers to work on Sundays be unaffected by the Bill, but they will also be denied the protection of the statutory right not to be unfairly dismissed and the right not to suffer any detriment for refusing Sunday work. That is important, living as we do in an era of increasing casualisation of employment.
An appropriate formula already exists whereby such people can be covered. Section 8 of the Wages Act 1986 defines a worker within the meaning of that Act as being:
"an individual who has entered into or works under … one of the contracts referred to in subsection (2)",
and whose contracts are either a contract of service or contract of apprenticeship or:
"any other contract whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of that contract that of a client or a customer of any profession or business undertaking carried out by that individual".
The Act's provisions apply whether such a contract is expressed or implied, and if expressed, whether it is oral or in writing.
This is a small amendment which cross-references to the appropriate section of the Wages Act. It would be sufficient to meet the arguments that I have advanced and to give full coverage to all people who are required, either by contract of service or contract for services, to work in shops. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall do so briefly because in moving it the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made the case so effectively. There may well be need for shop working on Sunday where an individual is required to perform services for which the normal employment contract does not provide. Surely, it is right that the Bill should take account of that contingency.
It is possible that the Minister will say that the definition of a worker in Section 8 of the Wages Act 1986 already makes it plain that for the purpose of the payment of wages contracts of employment include contracts for services of the kind which the noble Baroness has in mind. The same principle must apply in this case, and therefore there is no need for the amendment. Even so, I suggest that a cross-reference to Section 8 needs to be made in the Bill in order to put the matter beyond doubt. If it cannot be said that Section 8 applies, then it seems to me that the Government should accept the amendment readily. It is entirely in keeping with the basic purposes of the Bill and I ask the Minister to agree to it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness is concerned to ensure that all individuals who do shop work are covered by the employment provisions of the Bill. I hope I am able to persuade her and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the proposed provision is unnecessary.
The definition of "shop worker" in Schedule 4 has been drawn deliberately very wide. Our purpose in doing so is to ensure that all employees in retail employment who may be affected by their employer deciding to open the shop where they work on Sundays will benefit from the generous protections which the
1326
schedule affords. Thus, the employment provisions of the schedule will extend not only to shop assistants and to checkout operators but to shelf-fillers, lift attendants, trolley stackers, and to numerous other ancillary staff whose job involves work in or about a shop which opens on a Sunday. They will, in addition, apply to all such shop managers and supervisory staff.
Neither is it necessary for the shop workers to be the direct employees of the retailer in order to benefit from the rights provided. Employees who are not employed by the shop itself, but are perhaps employed by outside contractors —for example, catering and security staff —will also be covered by the schedule if they are involved in work in or about a shop which opens on a Sunday.
However, the noble Baroness has correctly identified that there is, at least in theory, one category of shop worker to whom the schedule's provisions do not extend; that is, those who are engaged on contracts for services rather than of employment—put simply, those who are self employed rather than those who are employees.
But there are relatively few self employed retail workers and the vast majority of them are in fact owner managers. It is self-evidently unlikely that they would work on Sundays if they did not choose to do so and there is nobody who can force them to work. They have not got employers by any stretch of the imagination! There is, therefore, no identifiable group of people in need of the extension of the rights proposed in this amendment.
It may be argued that the extension is nevertheless needed in order to deter employers from making their employees self-employed so that they no longer enjoy the protections in the schedule. I have to say, however, that that possibility seems to me fanciful. The general unfair dismissal provisions have now been with us for well over 20 years and there is no evidence at all that employers have sought to give their workers self-employed status in order to escape them. Workers with the kind of self-employed status with which that part of the Wages Act to which the amendment refers is primarily concerned are concentrated in particular occupational sectors, such as the construction industry. Retail employment is not one of these sectors.
I should stress also—and I think that this is a very important matter, in case noble Lords are misled on this point—that the question of self-employment or employment is certainly not a question of choice for either the employer or the employees. It is a question of law and of fact relating to the status of the employee and the degree of control exerted over him. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be possible for employers to suddenly declare that all their employees must become self-employed, as some might fear.
I hope that with those assurances, the noble Baroness will accept that her amendment is unnecessary and that she will be content to withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I do not really accept that my amendment is unnecessary but

1327
unfortunately we are at such a late stage in the evening that I am not in a position to test the opinion of the House.
I do not find fanciful the notion that employers would prefer to employ people who are regarded as self-employed. In fact, as we know, self-employment has been increasing. In these days of what is now known as flexible employment and increasing casualisation it is quite likely that employers will seek to employ more people on that basis in order that they do not have to comply with the rights which are available elsewhere in legislation.
The Wages Act definition exists. That Act was introduced by this Government and they were quite happy with the Section 8 definition, which covers people in that sort of category. There is a growth of what is beginning to be known as "zero employment" where people are, more or less, on call. They are not actual employees, but they can be called in when the employer feels that they will be needed. There is a growth in that kind of flexibility and casualisation. In those circumstances, it does not seem to me to be at all fanciful to imagine that there could be an increase in such employment and that those concerned would be very vulnerable and would require the kind of protection accorded to such people by the definition in the Wages Councils Act.
However, it is not my intention to divide the House, although I might have done so if it had been earlier in the evening. I shall certainly return to the matter on Third Reading with a view, perhaps, to testing how people feel about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert:
("(1A) Where premises are used mainly for purposes other than those of retail trade or business and would not apart from sub-paragraph (1) above be regarded as a shop, only such part of the premises as—

(a) is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of retail trade or business, or

(b) is used both for the purposes of retail trade or business and for the purposes of wholesale trade and is used wholly or mainly for those two purposes considered together,

is to be regarded as a shop for the purposes of this Schedule. (1B) In sub-paragraph (IA) above "wholesale trade" means the sale of goods for use or resale in the course of a business or the hire of goods for use in the course of a business,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert ("sub-paragraph (1A) or (1B) below applies to him.
(1A) This sub-paragraph applies to a shop worker if—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 to 42, 47 and 49 to 51. The Government have always made it clear that they are committed to ensuring that Sunday shop work should be undertaken on a voluntary basis. During the consideration of the Bill in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of State made it clear that, if there
1328
were any anxieties about the extent to which the Government had achieved that objective, he would be willing to consider them further.
The amendments address a point which was raised by the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers. It concerns the position of shopworkers who are employed after the new law is brought into effect, but who are not required to work on Sundays. As it stands, the schedule provides no specific protection for shopworkers who are employed after the Bill comes into force and who are not contractually required to work on Sundays, but who may later come under pressure from their employers to do so. Such shopworkers would of course be able to take advantage of the significant protections which already exist in law if their terms and conditions of employment were changed without their agreement. However, their ability to use the statutory remedies which exist against unfair dismissal would depend on their having fulfilled the normal qualifying conditions of two years' service with their employer. Such workers would therefore be at a disadvantage compared to shopworkers who had agreed to a contractual requirement to work on Sundays and who, irrespective of how long they had worked for their employer, under the provisions of the schedule, would be able to withdraw from that agreement subject to a three-month notice requirement. That is clearly anomalous and I am grateful to USDAW for pointing it out.
The amendments deal with that anomaly by extending the definition of protected worker to include shopworkers whose contracts of employment do not provide for Sunday working. Such shopworkers will automatically enjoy the protections against unfair dismissal and other detrimental action afforded by the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 12, line 36, at end insert:
("(1B) This sub-paragraph applies to any shop worker whose contract of employment is such that under it he—

(a) is not, and may not be, required to work on Sunday, and

(b) could not be so required even if the provisions of this Schedule were disregarded.").

Page 12, line 37, leave out ("(1) (c)") and insert ("(OA) (c)").
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("(1) (a)") and insert ("(1A) (a)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 36, leave out ("three months") and insert ("six weeks").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I argued that it was unreasonable to expect a shopworker to be required to give three months' notice to opt out of the obligation to undertake work on a Sunday. I suggested that one month would be quite sufficient and that any employer, especially in times when there is high unemployment, should not find it impossible to make alternative arrangements within one month.
The Government are fond of saying that the Bill has been drafted so that Sunday working becomes an entirely voluntary matter and that individuals will not, under the Act, suffer any detriment if they decide not to do so for whatever reason. Unfortunately, I was not able to persuade Members of the Committee that my

1329
suggested alternative of one month was reasonable; but I did detect some sympathy for the point of view that I expressed. Indeed, it was suggested by some noble Lords that it was a question of getting the right balance. I agree. However, I simply feel that three months tilts the balance too much away from the employee and towards the employer.
Let us imagine, for example, the situation of a shopworker who is probably not very highly paid—most likely, it will be a woman—who opts for shop work in the first instance because of the enhanced pay on offer and because she needs the extra money. However, like most women, she will probably have domestic responsibilities. Such responsibilities may suddenly become greater. An elderly relative may need additional care. The shopworker may lose whatever child minding facilities she has. She may simply find it all too much for her on top of looking after a home and young children. It seems too much to expect that she should have to give three months' notice of her desire to opt out.
I have therefore come back again with a reduced period of notice. I am suggesting six weeks mainly because the shopworker in question is probably weekly paid and to give a period of notice in weeks may be rather better and more in keeping with his or her general employment conditions. For the kind of worker we are considering I believe that it is too much to impose a three month notice period and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to reduce it to the period that I propose.
Again because of the lateness of the hour I regret that it is not possible to test the view of your Lordships on this issue. Nor do I intend to move the other amendments standing in my name on the employment questions because to do so at this late hour is not an adequate way of dealing with what I regard as very important issues. I will reserve my right to come back on these issues at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should first support the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in what she has just said. It is not possible to discuss these amendments adequately at this time of night, and certainly not to divide the House should those in support of the amendments feel that to be desirable.
Having said that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I think that when we last discussed the subject of this particular amendment there was general agreement that it was a question of balance. The Government considered that a three month period achieved the right balance. I was among those who thought that the period should be no more than one month.
In moving her amendment today, or tonight, the noble Baroness has again adduced reasons why the period should be less than three months and in doing so has sought to bridge the gap between the Government and others among us by suggesting a compromise of six weeks. I shall not repeat the arguments used by the noble Baroness in favour of that proposal. I am, however, particularly concerned that if a shopworker is
1330
unexpectedly confronted with some family problem which means that he, or more likely she, no longer feels able to work on Sunday, she might be obliged to give one month's notice to leave altogether rather than the three months' notice required to opt out, and that seems to me to be unduly harsh. If the period cannot be six weeks, let it be the two months which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—I am sorry but not altogether surprised at this time of night that he is not in his place—seemed prepared in Committee to contemplate as reasonable. I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will give us some indication that the Government would like to achieve a consensus on this point. Meanwhile, I gladly support this amendment.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I also support this amendment. I was unhappy at Committee stage with the one month notice, which seemed to me to be too short from the employer's point of view, but I would warmly support a six to eight week period because I consider that three months is too long. It gives a lot of time for pressure to be brought on the employee, which I think could be unfair, and I believe that six to eight weeks is a much happier balance.
A reduced notice period would certainly mean that far fewer employees would cave in to this sort of pressure. As has already been mentioned, there are many reasons why a person would want to change his mind about this. I believe that there is no reason from the employers' point of view why that period should be as long as three months. I support a period of, say, six weeks as giving the right balance. I cannot see any problem in your Lordships making a sensible decision on this matter at this time. I hope that we can still do so.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, and which I also signed. I should also like to support both her comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about the inappropriateness of considering these very important matters at this late hour. I hope that we shall have time at a more sensible hour of the day to return to them on Third Reading, when it would be preferable to test the opinion of the House.
I want to make one point briefly which has not yet been made. In Committee the Minister rejected the amendment in the name of my noble friend largely on the grounds that it would be inconvenient to employers if employees were able to opt out in a period of less than three months. I remind your Lordships that those major employers, who have been members of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and who have formed a major agreement on employment matters with USDAW, have already agreed on a voluntary basis that one month is sufficient for them to be able to replace workers. The Minister made the point that these were very large employers and the issue was a different one from that relating to small shopkeepers. I found that argument unconvincing when one remembers that most shopworkers who would be covered by the reduced period of notice would probably have to give only one or at most

1331
two weeks' notice if they were to resign permanently from the post, when presumably they could be replaced by their employers.
As my noble friend Lady Turner said, this measure would give additional protection in particular to the types of employee who may want to take what they would see as casual employment on a Sunday. They may very well be women with additional domestic responsibilities which they cannot foresee when they enter into a contract of work on Sunday.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, should like to support my noble friend Lady Turner in everything she said. It is true that the people who work in the retail trade are very vulnerable. Many of them are women and many are young people. They feel under pressure from their employers, whom they regard as very strong while they are weak. Three months is the devil of a long time, particularly, as my noble friend Lady Jay said, if you are a woman with family commitments. The timescale is very different under those conditions.
I shall not say more at this stage, but I want to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in her insistence —and I use that word advisedly—that these are important amendments which affect the conditions of work of a large number of people. It is not right that we should be discussing them at this time of night. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that adequate time, at a proper time of the day, will be made available for us to discuss these amendments and, if necessary and if possible, to vote on the amendments at a reasonable hour when noble Lords can register their vote or their protest. I hope that he will be able to give us some help.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite understand that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, these are important amendments. They affect people's livelihoods, their contracts of work and so forth. I can understand noble Lords' distress at these matters arising so late in the evening. I share that distress. The noble Baroness will realise that it is difficult to determine exactly how long your Lordships will take over amendments to Bills. The noble Baroness said that she wants to return to the amendments at a later stage, and I am quite sure that it will be in order to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that he hoped we would be able to have a consensus over it.
These are always difficult matters. There has been considerable debate both here and in another place about what period of notice those who wish to withdraw from a contractual obligation to work on Sundays should be required to serve in order to benefit from the rights provided in Schedule 4.
The fact is that under the Bill those who are employed as shopworkers before the commencement of the Act will not be required to give any notice of their wish to refuse Sunday working. Those who take up employment in or about a shop after the Bill becomes
1332
law and who, in doing so, agree to a contractual requirement to work on Sundays will be required to serve a three-month notice period if they wish to opt out of the contract into which they willingly entered.
Your Lordships will be aware that the provision of a right to opt out represents a radical departure from the normal contractual position under which terms in a contract, once they have been agreed, are binding on both parties. That is a fundamental change. However, because the Government believe that no shopworkers should be required to work on Sundays against their will, Schedule 4 offers shopworkers a unique right to withdraw from a contractual obligation to work on Sundays.
Nevertheless, in adopting this approach it is essential that proper account should be taken of the operational needs of the employer and that any right to opt out should be subject to safeguards to prevent abuse. These are the two key considerations which have to be balanced when determining the length of the notice period. The Government remain of the view that a three-month notice period achieves the right balance.
I am bound to say I do not see any compelling reason why the three months' notice period should be reduced to six weeks, as, the noble Baroness's amendment suggests. But there are many arguments for maintaining it at three months. Three months is the maximum notice an employer may require and while safeguarding the rights of employees it also allows employers the flexibility to set a lower period to suit their individual business needs. What is possible in one outlet may be quite unmanageable in another.
For example, a large supermarket employing hundreds of workers may be able to cope with some of its employees opting out of Sunday working simply by seeking extra volunteers from within its existing workforce. A small newsagent, on the other hand, with only one or two employees, may have great difficulty continuing to trade if the entire complement of staff were able to opt out of Sunday working at six weeks' notice.
Size is not the only concern. If a store has only a handful of staff in certain key posts, whether they are in managerial posts or in posts where detailed specialist knowledge is required, it could create greater problems if those staff were to opt out of Sunday work at short notice than would arise if a checkout operator or shelf-filler were to opt out. There is likely to be a much smaller pool of workers from which a replacement can be found.
I hope your Lordships will agree that it is the responsibility of government to take into account the needs of all retailers—large and small, generalist and specialist. I believe that six weeks is too short a time to meet the business needs of the retail industry as a whole. Three months is a period which the retail industry as a whole would find practicable. By providing for a statutory three months' notice period, we will give employers adequate time to make alternative arrangements while at the same time allowing employees in the exceptional circumstances of the legalisation of Sunday shopping to be released from a contractual obligation within a reasonable period.

1333
I conclude by reminding your Lordships that the three months' period is a period in which a person has to give notice, having contracted to agree to work on Sundays and then having decided, for reasons best known to himself' or herself, that he or she wishes to break that contract. It seems to me a reasonable period.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am not altogether surprised by the Minister's response, although a little disappointed. I was under the impression the last time we debated the matter that a number of noble Lords, not just on our side of the House, felt that three months was rather a lot, bearing in mind the kind of employees about whom we are concerned. It is a question of balance. As I said earlier, I think that with three months the balance is too heavily on the side of the employer and not sufficiently on the side of the employee.
That is particularly the case if one takes seriously, as I do, the Government's view that Sunday working has to be voluntary. If it is to be of a voluntary nature, there should not be too much pressure put upon the employees concerned. Putting that length of notice on an employee does, in my view, impose an extra burden.
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on both sides of the House for their support. As I said earlier, I shall come back to this matter at Third Reading. As I also said earlier, I do not think that discussing amendments of this nature at this hour of night is at all a suitable thing to do. But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 17, line 25, leave out ("2(1) (a)") and insert ("2(1A) (a)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment Nos. 49 to 51:
Page 18, line 22, leave out ("2(1) (a)") and insert ("2(1A) (a)").
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("2(1) (a)") and insert ("2(1A) (a)").
Page 19, line 42, leave out ("2(1) (a)") and insert ("2(1A) (a)").
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert:
("Application of certain other provisions of 1978 Act.
In the following provisions of the 1978 Act—
section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights), section 141(2) (employee ordinarily working outside Great Britain), and
section 150 and Schedule 12 (death of employee or employer),
any reference to Part II of the 1978 Act includes a reference to paragraph 10 of this Schedule.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to apply some of the supplementary provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which will automatically apply to those parts of Schedule 4 which deal with unfair dismissal, to paragraph 10 of the schedule, which deals with the right not to suffer a detriment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Short title, repeals, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 3, line 17, after ("Schedules") insert ("3").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions. Trust Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before midnight.

  BOSNIA: NATO AIR ACTION PROCEDURES
  BOSNIA: NATO AIR ACTION PROCEDURES
  HAWK AIRCRAFT: USE BY INDONESIA
  HAWK AIRCRAFT: USE BY INDONESIA
  ST. HELENA: REVIEW OF FISCAL PERFORMANCE
  ST. HELENA: REVIEW OF FISCAL PERFORMANCE
  PRIME MINISTERIAL CHARTERED FLIGHTS: ARRANGEMENTS
  PRIME MINISTERIAL CHARTERED FLIGHTS: ARRANGEMENTS
  LEGAL AID: FEES
  LEGAL AID: FEES
  AGRICULTURAL MARKET: DEFINITION
  AGRICULTURAL MARKET: DEFINITION
  COMMUNITY FORESTS INITIATIVE
  COMMUNITY FORESTS INITIATIVE
  SURPLUS MARRIED QUARTERS: DISPOSAL
  SURPLUS MARRIED QUARTERS: DISPOSAL
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT 1920
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT 1920
  ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES: INTERGOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENTS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES: INTERGOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENTS
  CARE OF SICK CHILDREN: REVIEW
  CARE OF SICK CHILDREN: REVIEW
  GUY'S AND ST. THOMAS' HOSPITALS
  GUY'S AND ST. THOMAS' HOSPITALS
  SEVERE HARDSHIP PROVISION: CLAIMS PROCESS
  SEVERE HARDSHIP PROVISION: CLAIMS PROCESS